Star.
London, England, 1822-08-08 00:00:00

~I

SUMMER ASSIZES

CIVIL SIDF...--DURHAM, AUGUST 5.
WILLIAMS TL 111.15H1LE.--.LIBEL.
Mr. BOLT stated the pleadings. The plaintiff set I
faith that Stephen Spencer hiving been convicted at
the last Spring Assizes, and receive i sentence of
death for bniglary, and the plaintiff having ad-
dressed a letter to Mr. Justice Bann?, with affi-
davits annexed, the defendant, in the Durham Ad-
vertiser, libelled the plaintiff, by alleging that the
persons who made the affidavits were subpsenaed by
him to swear them falsely.
Mr. WILLIAMS addressed the Jury. The parties
were proprietors and printers of newspapers. H. e
would, however, explain the ground alone on which
this case was brought before them. If the libel had
arisen from the freedom of discussion whichthe news-
papers indulge in--if it had been of the ordinary de-
scription of abuse, the plaintiff would not have come
before them. In the course of their editorial contro-
versies, they might impute perverse and corrupt mo-
tives and principles. If any species of reformation
was advocated by one, another might impute the
dreadful purpose of overthrowing that confirmation
and perfection of wisdom handed down by our an-
cestors. On the other hand, if one contended that
whatever is is right, the opposite imputation of de-
stroying what he professed to support might be made,
as corruption did not preserve the constitution more
than metal was preserved by keeping on the rust.—
But such representation or misrepresentation the
plaintiff would not have complained of. That would
be but the high road of abuse, which editors are
allowed to travel; that would be the beaten path.—
It is the departure from this path into the modern
course of attacking the private lives of the parties or
their predecessors. Early in the last spring Stephen
Spencer was convicted of a burglary in the house of
Mr. Cookson, of Peloe, and sentenced to suffer death.
The conviction was, for aught he k4,ew, right; but
the evidence which- was laid before the Jury was
matter of public discussion and fair inquiry. Mr.
Williams had accordingly offered observations on
the evidence, and submitted the contradictions which
he thought could be given to it. This was open to
the Public in all cases, and particulatly in this
county, where, and before the same Learned Judge
who now presided, a conviction for murder (in the
celebrated Herrington case) had been set aside, the
principal witness convicted of peijury, and the con-
victs for murder totally acquitted. On the 17th of
March the plaintiff published a letter to Mr. Justice
Bayley, with the depositions which had been made
subsequently to the trial. The letter was written in
the most respectful terms. The County Advertiser,
of which the defendant was editor and proprietor,
contained an attack in reply, of which it would be
for them to say whether it was made in a proper
manner, and referred only to political opinions and
political topics ; or whether it was not an attempt to
fir upon the plaintiff the imputation of having cor-
ruptly and wickedly fabricated the documents, either
singly or in conjunction with others, in order to im-
pose upon the wisdom of the Judge and pervert the
current of public justice. The letter which contained
the libel began with referring to " the disgraceful
attempt'—they would never mind that, it was in
common course—" of this his eling printer, who un-
blushingly dared to insinuate"—still a part of the
generalities. It proceeded to charge all " the radical
Whi,z-writers with the design to mislead the Public."
Thi:, was all right, for radical Whigs might of
course be charged with burglary, murder, schism,
arson, and a'l soles of crimes, but the writer of the
libel had not been content with this new and poignant
charge. These was next—" unprincipled and wicked
design," but that was general still, though approach-
ing to the libel. 44 As if the conviction may be set
aside by any evidence which the prisoner and his
coadjutor, the editor, may have the impudence to
fabricate." Again, 44 My opinion is, that the affi-
davits have been fabricated by the editor of the
Duilunn Chronicle himself." " The depositions ori-
ginated in a foul conspiracy to rescue this delinquent
from the sentence of the law, which, in terms of ra-
dical cant, is styled 6 to award to innocence its due,
and to crime its right punishment.'" The plaintiff
caused a letter to be written by his attornies, Messrs.
Burkitt and Phillips, of Newcastle, to give the de-
fendant an opportunity of explanation. The answer
of the defendant was, " that he had sent the letter
to the author, and his reply would determine which
Of them would flefeudahe action ; but never will
condescend (Lord" 'bless us, Gentlemen !), I never will
condescend to make the apolpgy required, Francis
Mumble.'" For this charge of an act of deliberate
baseness this action was brought. One circumstance
mare he had to mention: the damages were laid at
101. purposely, advisedly, and with a strict attention
to the object of the action. The plaintiff wanted
none of the defendant's money. Ile wanted only to
wipe off, by the verdict of a Jury, the foul stain falsely
and -wickedly attempted to be fixed upon him.
George Walker, formerly primer of the Durham Chroxick,
proved that Mr. Williams was editor and proprietor.
In his cross-examination by Mr. Serjeant Iluxxocx, he stated
that he knew of no other person connected with the Paper. He
was paid by Mr. Williams. The only guarantee he had was a
verbal assurance by Mr. Kirton, an attorney, that he should be
paid, whatever happened.
Mr—Hayes, clerk of the Crown, produced the indictment and
judgment against Spencer.
Mr. Wolfe stated, that Spencer had been under his charger
In cross-examination, he said that the amount of the robbery
was £4OO, which the prisontr's father returned to witness.
David Tindall, clerk and servant to Charles Spierman Esq.
the Magistrate who took the affidavits, proved the swearing of
the affidavits and the signature of the Magistrate.
Cross-examined.—Mr. Spierman was infirm for many years.
There were many dther Justices in Durham. Witneu knew
none of those who made the affidavits before. Mr. Spierman
was not in bed. The affidavits came ready prepared. They
were all sent up together to his master, who read them for a e
siderable time. He did not know whose handwriting they were.
Mr. Walker was recalled by Mr. Serjeant HULLOCIL He
should have been inclined to think the writing was Mr. Vetch's,
who occasionally was employed by Mr. Williams.
Mr. Walters, the Chief Justice's clerk, produced the affidavits,
which he had from Mr. Load, Mr. Justice Bayley's clerk.
They were read. They consisted of statements to establish
au alibi for Spencer.
The clerk of the Attornies for the plaintiff paved the corre-
spondence with the defendant, which was read. He also preyed
that the defendant avowed himself amenable alone for all that
appeared in the Paper.
The plaintiff's letter to Mr. Justice Bayley was then read,
and the letter in the ildvertiser, signed " Veritas," containing
the alleged libel.
Kr. Wolfe was recalled by Mr. Serjeant Runnel, and stated
that Spencer was sent to the hulks, and transported for life.
Serjeant liut.t.ctnK addressed the Jury for the

defendant. They would judge how highly.abe plain.
tiff valued his loss of profits and of character, when
he estimated the damages at £lO. The plaintiff had
not submitted the affidavits privately, but published
them in his Newspaper. Was that the way to act in
such a case? He aid impute blindness and credulity ,
on this subject to Mr. Williams. Was there anything
to prove that the affidavits were not a tissue of per-
jiiry.? Who was the Magistrate selected ? Who
wrote them ? Who congregated the persons? One
of them swore it was moonlight, when the moon was
not five days old. Was there not rashness, impro-
priety, indelicacy chargeable upon the plaintiff? He
was the grossest andinost palpable dupe of silly per-
jured individuals. Was there any Printer in England
who was not a hireling? There was nu printer or
speaker but was a hireling. The affidavits were
false—they were a fabrication. The plaintiff lent
himself to the fabrication, and that was all that the
defendant had charged. He confidently called upon
them, therefore, to give their verdict for the defendant.
Mr. Baron Woon said, the plaintiff had set him-
self very officiously to collect affidavits, and wrote a
letter to Mr. Justice Bayley. If he had confined him-
self to writing, there would be no blame attached to
his conduct. But what had he done? He went a
great deal farther. He published not only his own
letter, but all the affidavits. This be conceived was
very improper conduct, because it could be with no
other view than to bring into contempt the adminis-
tration of justice, and the verdicts of Juries. This
conduct deserved to be reprehended, and he did not
blame the defendant for reprehending it. Whether
in doing so he had gone too far, was for them to say.
It had been said, that. the verdicts of Juries were
open to discussion. If that was consistent with the
'law of the land, it was a most mischievous practice.
It certainly deserved, in the present case, proper ani-
madversion. If they thought that it was fair and
proper animadversion, they would find their verdict
for-the defendant ;if otherwise, they would find for the
plaintiff, with such damages as they thought proper
The Jury retired for some time, and returned with
a verdict for the plaintiff—Damages One Shilling.
SUSSEX.—LEWES, AUGUST S.—CROWN SIDE.
James Wiggens was indicted for the wilful murder
1 of Henry Lilliott, at Brighton, on the 20th April.
Mr. ANDREWS conducted the prosecution. It ap-
peared in evidence that, on the day mentioned in the
indictment, the pi isoner and the deceased had set two
boys to fight on the beach at Brighton. Some alter-
cation took place as to the merits of each combatant,
mutual reproaches followed, and, as soon as the boys
bad done fighting, the prisoner attacked the deceased
and offered to fight him. The latter being the lighter
man of the two, after a round, in which he got the
worst, declined the combat, but still continued to jeer
the prisoner upon the subject of a defeat in which be
was beaten by some other man in three rounds, and
said, that if he, the deceased, bad more weight, he
would be a match for him. After provoking him for
some time in this manner, the prisoner fell upon the
deceased, knocked him down, and, whilst he was on
the ground, kicked him two or three times between
the hip and the back. The deceased being released,
he walked home, apparently not much butt: this was
on Saturday ; on the Monday folloWing he com-
plained of a pain in his back, but continued to work
for six or seven days afterwards at his business as a
bricklayer, when he was obliged to lie in bed, from
which henever rose again, and expired on the 2d May.
He was examined after death by two surgeons, who
stated that there appeared to be no marks of violence
upon the body, either externally or internally, which
could produce death. They attributed mortality to
a fever produced by encitement of the constitution,
in consequence of the blows he had received. Be-
tween the hip and the region of the kidneys there
was the mark of a slight contusion, but not such as
would have produced death. The deceit:Y.l had been
previously in good health.
The prisoner called two or three witnesses to give
an account of the transaction, but their evidence did
not very materially differ from that of the witnesses
for the Crown.

The LORD CHIEF BARON Charged the Jury that
they must acquit the prisoner of wilful murder, there
being no evidence of any malice aforethought to
sustain that part of the charge. If, however, they
were of opinion that the prisoner had occasioned the
death of the deceased, they would be justified in find-
ing him guilty of manslaughter.
The Jury found the prisoner Guilty of manslaughter
only, and the Learned Judge, after animadverting
upon the cowardly brutality of the prisoner in kick-
ing
the deceased whilst on the ground, the latter,
being confessedly no match for him in self-defence,
sentenced him to six months imprisonment in the I
County Jail.
James Tilley and David Barnett were indicted for
burglariously breaking and ei.tering the dwelling-
house of Elizabeth Watson, at Petworth, on the night
of the 18th of April, and stealing therein three Chi-
chester and two Arundel Bank-notes, for the payment
of 11. each, two.canisters, containing a quanity of
tea, and a gun, her property ; and Henry Leggatt
was indicted for receiving the gun, knowing it to
have been stolen. There were circumstances of con-
sid:rable atrocity in this case. The prosecutrix, an
elderly maiden lady, and a female servant of still more
advanced years, resided in a detached house in the
parish of Petworth. On the night of the 18th April
they had retired to bed about ten o'clock. Between
eleben and twelve o'clock Miss Watson was alarmed
by the screams of her servant in an adjoining room.
She immediately got up, and was approaching the
room, when she was seized by a ruffian, who de-
manded her money, and on the instant stabbed her
in the left arm with an instrument like a bayonet.
Though greatly alarmed, she had self-possession
enough to observe that in the maid's room there were
two other men, one of whom was lying upon the
poor creature, as if holding her down. The assassins
had candles, and she could see that her servant Was
weltering in her blood. Her own appearance'at-
tracted the observation of the other men. Some
scuffling ensued, and the candles went out. In the
scuffle the prosecutriz received several blows on the
head and face. One of the ruffians went down stairs,
and procuring a light they all proceeded to rifle the
house, and carried off the articles mentioned in the
indictment. The female servant deposed, that be-
tween eleven and twelve o'clock she was awoke out
.of her sleep by three men, who rushed into her room
with candles in their hands. They were armed with
k a short swgrd and bayonet. She jumped up in bed,

and Screamed out as loud as she could. One of them'
immediately struck her a violent blow on the head
with the sword, which inflicted a deep wound, and
then jumped upon her and presse4 her down on tbe
bed, with so much weight as to break one of her ribs.
To prevent her screaming, 'he thrust his hand into
her mouth, pinched her tongue, and isnecked out
I some of her teeth. Whilst she was in thitsituation
her mistress came to the door, and then they left her
without any further molestation. Both herself and
her mistress were confined to their beds for a fort-
night after. It appeared that the assailants had en-
tered the house by a back window, which they had
forced. Some days afterwards, a man named George
Turner, a disbanded soldier, was apprehended on sus-
picion of being a participator in the outrage, and he
confessed the fact, and implicated the other prisoners,
who were immediately taken up. The principal wit-
ness, therefore, to rapport the case for the prosecu-
tion was the approver, Turner, who deposed that he,
Tilley, and• Barnett, had agreed, on the 16th April,
to go on the 18th to Miss Watson's house and com-
mit the burglary. They arrived at the house at
eleven o'clock. He waited in front of the house,
whilst the others broke in the back way, which
having done, they opened the ft ont door, and let him
in. According to the statement, he took no part in
the violence inflicted upon the maid-servant, but
swore that after she had been wounded by Barnett,
he jumped upon the bed to prevent further violence,
and besought the others not to hurt her any more.
In this respect. he was flatly contradicted by the
old woman herself, who deposed, that there was but
one man on the bed, and that that man, whoever he
was, had cut her, broke one of her ribs, pinched her
tongue, and forced out her teeth.
The accomplice denied all this, and said he had
merely interposed from motives of humanity. In
collateral parts of the statement, however, the ac-
complice was confirmed by several witnesses. The
burglars, previously to their entering the house, had
disguised their features with some ,red and white
powder, to guard against detection. After tin:), had
effected the robbery, they met the other prisoner,
Henry Leggatt, by previous concert, at about a mile
from the house, with a cart and horse, and to him
they delivered the gun, which was part of the plun-
der.—The prisoners strenuously denied their guilt,
and insisted that the accomplice was perjured.

The LORD CHIEF BARON summed up the whole of
the case to the Jery, pointing out to their attention
the discrepancy between the evidence of the female
servant and the accomplice, with respect to the vio-
lence committed upon the former, but left it to them
to say uhether the rest of his story was entitled to
credit, confirmed as it was in many collateral points
by the testimony of credible witnesses.
The Jury found all the prisoners Guilty.
CIVIL. SIDE.