The Sun.
London, England, 1842-03-26 00:00:00

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.

HOME CIRCUIT.—Lewes, Thursday, March 24.
The business of the Assize for the' county of Sussex
concluded this aftnnoon about two o'clock. Baron
Gurney got through the Cause List late on Wednesday.

TROUP V. WINTER.
This was an action for libel, brought by the plaintiff,
who resides at. Hastings, and who it was stated was the
proprietor of a newspaper called the Southern Advertiser
against the defendant, a printer at Hastings, for pub-
lishina• a handbill, reflecting upon the character of the
plaintiff.
_

Mr. Platt and Mr. Chambers were for the plaintiff; and
Mr. Thesiger and Mr. Petersdorff for the defendant.
Mr. PLATT stated the case, and it appeared that the
defendant, about the time of the general election, had,
published a handbill, headed " Now in the press, and,
shortly will be published, the Life, 'Witticisms, Tropes,
&c., of a Renegade Jew,' by Jamez Van Group, Gentile,
G unpow der-place, Hastings, with splendid engravings
of the author, wigged and unwigged." The placard
went on to state that the work would contain much use-
ful information, and would fhow how to get
contracts at half price, and thus cheat the poor
artisans;. how to make a mutton-chop dine two persons ;
how to erect infernal machines; and that it would also
show the absurdity of the Nazarite doctrine that a man
with an ugly head of hair should not get it shaved off
and wear a wig. Mr. Platt having read the alleged
libel, the contents of which caused a good deal of
amusement in the Court, said that his client would never
probably have taken any notice Of such a contemptible
and ridiculous publication, but for the insinuation that he
had obtained contracts unfairly, and defrauded poor art-
sans, and as he had a large building speculation on foot, '
he felt that such an insinuation was calculated to do him
great injury, and as it was entirely false, he had brought
the present action to justify his conduct and character
in the eyes of the world.
Witnesses were then called who proved the publica-
tion of the libel, and also expressed their opinion that
it referred to the plaintiff 1t appeared also that the
libel was published on the Ist of September, and on the
4th, without any notice, the defendant was served with
a writ.

In the course of the cross-examination of the wit-
nesses, Mr. Thesiger attempted to get at the fact that
the plaintiff in his newspaper had published attacks
upon other parties, but Mr. Baron Gurney refused to
admit the evidence.

Mr. THESIGER submitted that it would be an impor-
tant fact for the consideration of the Jury, if
they found that a person who brought an action for libel,
had been himself in the practice of publishing attacks
upon the characters of others ; and he pressed his
right to cross-examine upon this point.
Baron GURNEY said, upon his own responsibility, he
should reject any such evidence.
Mr. THESIGER then addressed the Jury.
Baron GURNEY said, that a printer who published
libellous matter was answerable in law for so doing, and
although in the case of the printer of a daily journal,
which contained a great variety of matter, there might be
sonic excuse if anything reflecting upon the private
character of every person was sent forth to the world,
yet in the case of the printer of a hand-bill, who must
of necessity be fully aware of its contents, and who
deliberately published it, that excuse could not apply.
An attempt in this case had been made to show
that the plaintiff himself was iu the habit of publishing
libelous articles ; but this, even if it had been pr red,
was, in his opinion, no excuse for the defendant. If the
plaintiff published a libel he was. answerable for it, and
it could not excuse the defendant for attacking him.
The printing and publication of the libel had been
proved, and it was for the Jury to say to what
extent the character of the plaintiff had suffered in con-
sequence of that publication.

The Jury, after a short deliberation, found for the
plaintiff.—Damages, 301.

CROWN COURT.

William IVells, 20, hawker, Geor"ge Edwards, 18, and
James Keeler, 22, gardener, were charged with burgla-
riously entering the dwelling-house of Newell Connop, at
Brighton, on the night of the 16th inst., and stealing five
silver spoons and other articles, the property of N. Con-
nop ; two veils and other articles, the property of Eliza
Sorret ; one cloak and other articles, the property of
Eliza Hall ; and one cloak and other articles, the pro-
perty of Caroline Stammer. The prisoners were f'ound
Guilty. Edwards, who had-been convicted of felony at
Maidstone, was sentenced to be transported for life, and
the other two for fifteen years.
Anna Augusta Hippe,sley, 26, governess, was charged
with having, on the 29th of September, feloniously ut-
tered and disposed of, and put off a certain forged accept-
ance of a bill of exchange for payment of the sum of
22/. 25., with intent to defraud Robert Powell.
The Jury returned a verdict of Guilty, with a strong
recommendation to mercy.
The prisoner, who was greatly affected during the
trial, was sentenced to two years' imprisonment, without
hard labour.

NORFOLK CIRCUIT.---Cambridge, March 23.

CIVIL SIDE.-TIIE QUEEN V. SAMUEL LONG.

This was an ex officio information, filed by the late
Attorney-General at the instance of the then House of
Commons, in consequence of a special Report of the
Committee appointed to try the petition against the re-
turn of the Honourable Charles Manners Sutton for this
borough, in 1839. The indictment charged the defend-
ant with having bribed one Gebrie Smith to vote for
Mr. Sutton, with a sum of nine sovereigns, in one set of
counts, while another imputed to him an offer of ten
sovereigns, for a similar purpose, to a voter named
Marsh, at the same electiom

I The ATTORNEY-GENERAL liming stated the facts of
the case to the Jury, in a calm and temperate address,
proceeded to substantiate the charges laid in the indict-
ment by the following witnesses
George Smith stated that he was a voter of the borough
in the Liberal interest, and that on the week preceding
the election in question, which took place on the sth of
September, 1839, the defendant Long called at his shop,
in Hobson-street, several times, touching the purchase of
some shoos for his children and his wile, on all of which
occasions he more or less directly alluded to the subject
of the forthcoming election. On the 24th of August,
1839, Long again called at his shop early in the morning,
and asked whether the shoes he had ordered would be
done that night. I promised, said the 'witness, to send
them home the next morning. early, and then he said
as to the expected election; if I thought well to vote for
Sutton, he thought he might put a few pounds into my
pocket. I said I thought it was a curious question to me,
who had voted the other way, to which he said, " Oh,
as to that, it was all nonsense." I told him I would give
him a positive answer when I took the shoes home. He
said, " That will do," and went away. I sent the shoes
home the next day: He called again on Tuesday, the
27th of September, to pay for the shoes, and gave me a
sovereign. The price was 3s. 6d. I sent for change.
While my wife was gone, he asked me to go that even--
ing to measure Mrs. Long. I went and saw the defendant
there as well as Mrs. Long. I was shown into a room
with him alone. The door was shut. I gave him the
change for the sovereign, and he produced some wine of
w !licit we drank. He asked Ise what I would charge
him for a pair of shoes. I told him 12s. ; and he said
his and Mrs. Long's would be about a sovereign, and
added, " Well, to cut the matter short about this elec-
tion, I can give you 10/. if you will vote for Mr. Sutton."
I said that was a good price for two pair] of shoes, and
I should like a lot of customers like him. He said he
could give me the money then, but should not ; that my
wife could call for it, and then I should know nothing
about it ; that that would not be bribery, which was all
a parcel of nonsense and stuff. I replied that lie should
hear further from me, and went away. Next day I
went to Royston market, and told my wife she might go
to Long's for some money. My wife gave me nine
sovereigns next day, after my return. J marked them,
locked them up, and ultimately took them to Mr.
Francis Eaden, one of the Liberal Committee. I was
afterwards examined before the Magistrates.
Mrs. Smith—My husband told me to go at one o'clock
or eight to Mr. Long's, on 'Wednesday, August 28, 1839.
I did not know the house, but met Mrs. Long in the
street, who told me where it was, and asked me to walk
into the back room till she told Mr. Long I was there, as
he was busy. The door of the great room was open a
little, and I heard voices there. Presently afterwards
Mrs. Long left me, and in a few moments the defendant
esme to me and said, " Now, Mrs. Smith, I'll speak to
you." He then asked me into the front room, and gave
me a glass of wine. There were a bottle and two
glasses on the table. Afterwards he said, "I suppose
you know what you have come about." I said, " Yes ; I
suppose about the election." "Well," said he, "you
know all about it—the nine sovereigns I mean." He then
counted out nine sovereigns on a book which was on the
table, and told me to take them to my husband, and tell
him " that was better than his vote, for it was no matter
to a poor man how he voted." I took the money. He
added, " Your husband knows nothing of this ?" to which
I replied, "He is at Royston." I then went away, and
gave the money to my husband when he came to me.
There were an old woman and a boy in the back room
at dinner when I was there.

William Marsh, watchmaker—l live in St. Mary's-
street, in Cambridge. I am a yoter.• I voted first at
Mr. Gibson's election, and afterwards for Mr. Starkie.
I know Samuel Long. He called on me on the 19th of
August, 1839, about a brooch. He afterwards asked if
I had a vote, and for whom I intended to vote. He said
" There was a Mr. Gibson coming forward, a rejected
candidate from Ipswich—a turncoat was coming, and
if I would be one to support him." I said if Mr. Gibson
came forward I would hear him, and I hoped the man
who deserved it best would be at the head of the poll.
He replied "It was all stuff, that Whigs and Tories
were all alike, and that when they got their own turn
served they did not care about the electors, and
that it was better for a poor man with a large
family to look out for his own interests." I
saw him again on Wednesday, the 28th of Au-
gust, about one o'clock, near his own door. Ho
asked me into his house, and I went into the front room.
He produced wine and two glasses, and we both drank.
There was a large book on the table. He asked if I had
promised my vote. I said no; and he said if I agreed to
vote for Mr. Sutton he would give me ten sovereigns on
condition I would give him back one. I said I could not
take any money, as I was no Tory. He pressed me, and
I said I would think about it. Some one came to the
door while I was there. I heard Mrs. Long go and
speak to the 'person. The door opened, and a female
asked if Mr. Long was at hbme. Mrs. Long said he was
engaged, and invited the woman in. I saw them both
pass the door of the room in which I was sitting into the
back room. I went away in about ten minutes, and on
the next day I told Mr. Cooper about it. He was clerk
to Mr. Cannon then. On the Saturday after I went
before the Magistrates in this Court, and made a state-
ment in the presance of Long. I also went before the
Grand Jury and the Committee.
Mr. Titterton, superintendent of police, apprehended
Long on the 34th August. As we went on to the station
I saw him fidgeting about his hand in his pocket, and at
the station I found sixteen sovereigns and a halt SOTO..

•
nign loose in his pocket, with a quantity of small bits of
paper, which I put together. They turned out to be a
list oinames of voters. These are the pieces which were
produced to the Committee. I also found tuilnt.,rleaved
copy of the registry of voters for that year.
The list was here read, as far as it was legible, and
contained about twenty names of voters, among which
were Smith and Marsh.
The case for the prosecution closed here, and the Court
was adjourned. _ _