The Sun.
London, England, 1827-07-14 00:00:00

record of the judgment in the former action, brought
by the plaintiff against the defendant, in which he
recovered 1001. damages.
Mr. Sergeant TADDY, for the defendant, said that
it was very true that many who were able to give
good counsel to others, were incompetent to it them-
selves. But this unfortunately was not always the
case. It had been once said, that he " who rules
o'er freemen must himself be free." Dr. Johnson,
objecting to this principle, said, that it was equally
necessary that he " who drove fat oxen must himself
be fat." Whatever difference of opinion there might
be on either of these questions, it was at all events
clear that a person who undertook to give good ad-
vice to others should be able to advise himself well.
The Learned Sergeant here gave a very luimour-
ous detail of the circumstances out of which this
case arose; we regret, however, to state, that his
jokes, however appropriate, were rather too broad
for publication. The only questioni he added, for
the jury to try was, whether the report of the trial in
the Court of Exchequer was a fair, substantial, and
impartial account of what really took place, or whe-
ther it was a malicious and distorted mis-statement.
He would produce witnesses examined at that trial,
and the Jury would hear from them which of these
characters the report merited.
John Bartlett, examined by Mr. Sergeant
SPANKIE.—I am the watch-house-keeper of St.
Paul's, Covent-garden; I was examined at the trial
in the Court of Exchequer; I was supeenaed by the
defendant, and then produced the charge-book.
The witness again produced the same book, and
read the charges from it. The witness proceeded
to say that his evidence in the Court of Exchequer
related principally to the charge. He was also exa-
mined as to his knowledge of the person charged.
Mr. Price was at the time present in Court, and was
pointed out by the witness.
By the LORD CHIEF Jusnca.--7Look at the book
and tell me who put the word indecently into the
charge ?
Witness.—l don't know.
G. R. Minshull, Esq. examined by Mr. Sergeant
TADDY.—I am a Bow=street Magistrate; I was
examined in the Court of Exchequer, and stated
that Price had been brought before me; I can also
state, that on the morning after the trial I read in
the forning Herald a report of my evidence, as
given in the Court of Exchequer, and I have no he-
sitation in saying, that the report is in every re-
spect a fair and faithful account of what I then
swore.

Mr. Richmond, examined by Mr. Sergeant
SPANKIE--i was a clerk at the Bow-street Office,
and was examined at the trial in the Court of Ex-
chequer.

.
This witness's evidence was also substantially re-
ported in the Morning Herald.
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE then proceeded to
charge the Jury. He said that the defendant had
put in two pleas to this declaration. The first was
the general plea, which was the denial of the publi-
cation ; the second plea (and this was the important
one) set forth that the publication was a true and
faithful statement of what took place at a trial in the
Court of Exchequer, in which the present plaintiff was
there also a plaintiff, and the editor of the Sunday
Time: was the defendant. The Learned Judge had
yesterday stated, that nothing could be more useful
than the publication of proceedings in superior
courts, when they were brought to a final determi-
nation. These transactions between man and man, as
there disclosed, formed the most useful bodyof know-
ledge that could interest man; connected as it was,
with the pleasure, the vices, and the business of man-
kind. He agreed with a high authority that the public
was entitled to this information, even though at the ex-
pence of individual character, provided the details
were not such as to shock public decency. It was
unnecessary for him to say what use the public
could derive from the report of the trial in question;
nor did he mean to say that some use might not be
derived from it. His Lordship, after expressing in
very strong terms his, disapprobation of the
practice of publishing police reports, said lie left
it to the Jury to say whether the publication,
..of which the defendant li,nw complained, was a
fair and substantial repreientation of what took
place in the Court of Exchequer. If they thought
that nothing had been omitted which was material,
and nothing added calculated to injure the plaintiff,
then, in his opinion, the Jury ought to return a ver-
dict for the defendant. He could not help recurring
to an observation which fell from his Learned Friend
(Sergeant Wilde), in the course of yesterday,namely,
that it was in all cases sufficient that the reports
should correctly state the substance of what oc-
curred, without professing to give it verbatim. This
was an observation in which the Learned Judge
fully concurred : if the persons who published
Reports of Trials were required to give every word
that was uttered, they would become environed
by such difficulties as would make the privilege of
publishing a mere mockery. It was quite enough
that the statement should not be distorted and not
conveyed in such a style as would appear to have
proceeded from malice. His Lordship highly ap-
proved of the former verdict against this defendant,
because it was for the publication of a Police Re-
port---he was aware that the plea stated the
present publication was a full and fair report of the
issue in the action in the Court of Exchequer : it
undoubtedly was not a report of the matter in issue,
inasmuch as it omitted to state that the defendant
had pleaded a justification, and thus put the truth
of the charge in issue. It was, however, for the
Jury to say, whether this inaccuracy proceeded from
malice, or whether it was not such an error
as the Reporter might have unintentionally com-
mitted without meaning to injure the plaintiff;
and here his Lordship could not help express-
ing his regret -that the gentlemen who took
notes for newspapers did not procure the pleadings
from Barristers, in order that they might be able to
state more accurately what was the real question at
issue. His Lordship left it with the Jury to deter-
mine whether the plaintiff could be considered affected
by the inaccuracy of the report.
The Jury, after a few minutes' consultation, re-
turned a verdict for the defendant.

COURT OF THE DEAN AND CHAPTER OF

ST. PAUL'S.

This Court, the sittings of which are of rare oc-
currence, was opened yesterday in the Hall of poc-
tors' Commons, to enable Dr. Jenner, who presided,
to deliver the judgment of the Court in the case of
Battersby v. Battersby, which was a suit for divorce
instituted by the wife, upon the separate grounds of
cruelty and adultery. The parties were married in
Warwickshire, where they resided only a short time,
when they came up to London and lodged at
an hotel in Bond-street ; during their stay there
the husband frequently absented himself from
his wife at night, and passed his time behind
the scenes at the Opera House, where his
conduct with the Opera girls was described as
extremely indecent and improper. It appeared from
the evidence of all the witnesses, that the husband
was a very loose character, and had treated his
wife with great disrespect. Amongst other acts
of cruelty, he had communicated to his wife a
disease which he had caught in the indulgence of
unlawful pleasures, and otherwise conducted himself
in such a manner that the Court considered the
charges of cruelty and adultery were both satisfac-
torily established, and therefore pronounced for the
divorce.—The Court then adjourned.

PREROGATIVE COURT.
After the adjournment of the Court of the Dean
and Chapter of St. Paul's the Prerogative Court
was opened by Sir JO NICHOL.
This
BUTTON V. iurroN.
vras a suit to try the validity of a will executed
by Joseph Britton, of \Vantage who died in June,
1825. The argument having Concluded, the Court now
proceeded to give judgment. It appeared that the
testator married a widow, who
was possessed of
some property, and had attained the age of 50 at the
period of hermarriage. The testator was also married,
and had one daughter before, by whom the will now
propounded by the widow was opposed. In this will

the bulk of the property was left to the widow, reser-
ving only a sum of two hundred pounds to
the daughter. It appeared that the widow
and testator led a very unhappy life, and it was re-
ported after his death that he had been poisoned,
and his body was disinterred and examined,
but the Court could not find the slightest
evidence in support of this cruel suspicion.—
The will now propounded appeared to have been
regularly executed, when the deceased was of a
sound and disposing mind, though only a very
short period before his death. The only ques-
tion therefore was, whether the attesting
witnesses had perjured themselves, and en-
tered into a foul conspiracy to fabricate a will.
Amongst the attesting witnesses were a lawyer and
apothecary; who had no interest whatever in
the disposal of the testator's property. It was
too much to ask the Court to believe, that
those persons had perjured themselves. At all events
the onus probandi rested on those who had
opposed the will on this ground, and as
no satisfactory evidence was adduced to support
such a charge, the Court had nothing else to do
but to pronounce in favour of the will now pro-
pounded, as the will was opposed by the testator's
daughter; however the Court would make no order
as to costs.

OLD BAILEY--(THIS DAY)
OLD COURT.

ACQUITTAL OF SHEEN THE INFANTICIDE.

We yesterday stated that the trial of this man
was fixed for Monday; but by a subsequent arrange-
ment after we went to press, it was fixed for this
morning.
Mr. CLARKSON appeared at the bar, and had, we
understood, come to town on purpose to be present
at this trial.

Sheen looked much worse than he did yesterday.
His countenance was pale, and he seemed to be
wrapped in a sullen state of anxiety, while the in-
dictment was being read to the Jury. When asked
if he were guilty or not, in the usual form, he put in
a, written plea, which was read by the Clerk of the
Court. It was neatly drawn up, and engrossed on
parchment. The Clerk, however, (Mr. Shelton)
read it in so low and inaudible a voice, that not one
word in twenty reached the reporters. It was,
however, ascertained that he pleaded his former
acquittal the same charge ; and that the child, for
the murder of which he was now arraigned, was the
same that he had before been tried for and acquitted:
and that the child was as well known as " Charles
William Beadle," as by any name in the present

. Mr. Justice BURROUGH said, that the prisoner
must put in the same plea to the Coroner's Inquisi-
tion, as well as to the present indictment.

Mr. CURWOOD, for the Crown, put in a replica-
tion, which stated that the Crown could not be
barred from prosecuting by any former proceedings,
although it was ,true that the child for which the
prisoner was tried before, was one and the same
child, yet it was not so well known as " Charles
William Sheen," or " William Beadle," as it was
by any of the names charged in the present in-
dictment.

Mr. CLARKSON then requested that all the docu-
ments produced at•the' former trial, might be pro-
duced now, to which Mr. Sergeant Andrews con-
sented.

The Jury were then sworn to try whether the
child murdered had been known as well by the name
" Charles William Sheen," or, " William Beadle,"
as by any of the names in the present indictment.
It having been admitted by the replication that it
was the same child,
Mr. CRESSIVELL then addressed the Jury on the
evidence that he should adduce to prove his case,
and besought them to take an unprejudiced view of
the question. He then called

John Sutton—Witness had examined the baptis-
mal register of the Church of St. George the Mar-
tyr. The register was at the clerk's house, and
the copy produced was a true one. It was dated
January 1, 1827, and stated the child's name te be
Charles William, the son of Lydia Beadle.
Elizabeth Cable was nurse to Willis's poor-house,
knew Lydia Beadle, she was there delivered of a
male child, she believed in January last; did not re-
collect when they left the house; knew the child,
and saw it on the day it was murdered; it was the
same child which had been born in the poor-house;
Lydia Beadle was then single, but was married to
the prisoner two months after the child was born;
knew that child from its birth to its baptism by the
name of " William," or " Billy ;" stood god-
mother at the baptism.
By the COURT.—Should have known the child
by the name of Wm. Beadle, if any one had en-
quired at the poor-house for it, although she knew
it to have been baptised.
By Mr. ANDREWS.—It was always called
" William," or "Billy."

William Sheen, the father of the prisoner, was
then called. The prisoner, upon his appearance,
also shed tears, and the old man evinced the greatest
reluctance to answer the questions put to him.—
Knew the child, but not till after its death; his
wife did not know more about it than he did; had
heard in its lifetime that the child was called
" Charles William Sheen ;" had himself heard it so
called; knew that it had been baptized.
Mr. ANDREWS.—Whom did you ever hear call
it by that name ?—(No answer.)
Mr. ANDREWS.—Did you not say at the last trial
that you never knew the child's name, or had heard
of it till after its death ?

The witness, after considerable reluctance, ad-
mitted that he had, and went down from the box,
laid his head down on a seat, and exhibited the
greatest mental affliction.
Mr. ANDREWS then contended that the evidence
was insufficient to prove that the child had gone by
any other name than one of those in the indictment.
He then called

Sarah Pomeroy, who had lived in the same house
with the child, and who always had heard it called
" Billy," but would have known it as " William
Beadle."

A young Man who was present at the wedding,
also knew it as " Billy;" but in his cross-examina-
tion by Mr. CLARKSON said, that although he knew
the mother's name to be Beadle before marriage, he
should not have known it ,as " William Beadle,"
but should have known it as " William Sheen."
The short-hand writer to the City of London,
deposed that he took down the father's evidence at
the former trial, and that he (the father) then
deposed that he never knew the child's name till
after its death.

Mr. CLARKSON then replied upon the evidence,
and observed to the Jury, that although on their
verdict depended the life of the prisoner, yet he
besought them to discharge from their memory,
the fact that any crime had ' been committed,
and merely to consider the dry question before
them, as to whether the child had been as well
known by the names in the former indictment, as
those of the present, and confidently anticipating
their verdict, lie left it in their hands.

Mr. Justice BURROUGR, in his charge to the.
Jury observed, that if they thought that the pri-
soner's life had been placed in jeopardy by the for-
mer indictment, they would then give him their ver-
dict. With regard to the child it was his opinion,
that if a legacy had been left to the child
as " William Beadle," it would certainly have
been entitled to it by the evidence of the register.
In summing up the evidence, he expressed himself
rather in favour of the prisoner's plea.
The Jury, after about five minutes' consultation,
returned a verdict, that " The murdered child was
as well known by the name of Charles William
Sheen, or William Beadle, as by the names in the
present indictment."
The Learned Judge then made a most impressive
address to the prisoner on his narrow escape, and
the caution requisite for his future conduct.
The prisoner then retired from the dock without
any indication of feeling, and looked round as he left
the Court with a stupid and careless gaze.