Star.
London, England, 1827-08-08 00:00:00

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.

NOTTINGHAM, Aroust 4.
Corr. Slas—Befere Mr. Justice Hos.aorm.
THE KING V. JOHNEON AND omens.
This was an indictment against ten young men for a
riot at East Retford, during the election in June, 1826
, The Cosmos SERGEANT declined to press the case
against the defendants, as it was so long since the riot
had happened. Although they had done much injury
by breaking windows, &c. he would be satisfied if they
pleaded guilty, and entered into their own recognizance.
to appear when called upon.
The defendants having assented to this proposal, and
complied with the terms of it, they were discharged.

FULLER o. HOWICK.
This was an action of assault and battery. Mr.
CLAUC was Counsel for the plaintiff, and Mr. COMMON
Star/amts. for the defendant. The plaintiff is a com•
mercial traveller at Louth, in Lincolnshire, and the de-
fendant is a respectable hosier in Nottingham, and was
formerly an officer In the Army. Miss Foote had a
benefit at the Theatre in Nottingham on the Bth of Oct.
last ; the play was The Honey Moon; the house was
crowded. The defe.adant, with some Ladies and Gen-
tlemen, occupied a box near the stage. The plaintiff
came in at half price time, and tried to get into this
box. He was told these was no room. He insisted
there was at least standing room ; at all events, he
would stand in the door, and see what he could.
The defendant opposed this, and desired the door
to be closed. An altercation t.,ok place. The de-
fendant strtclt plaintiff with a stick. and inflicted
a wound on his forehead an inch and a ha:f in length,
and blood flowed copiously. Plaintiff first wiped away
the blood, and then brought a constable, and gave the
defendant in charge. Several witnesses were examined
as to whether.there was room enough for plaintiff in
the box? Some swore there was, and others the reverse,
and that the plaintiff was tipsy, though not quite drunk.
Verdict for the plaintiff—Mmages 501.

CROWN SIDI.

.. ---
William Cation, aged 15, was charged with killing
and slaying Wm. Lenton, in the parish of St. Mary, in
this town, on the Bth day of April last.
A witness named Allen, stated that he had been ap-
prentice to the deceased. Cotton had also been his ap:
prentice. In the moat,' of December last, Cotton and
his master had•a quarrel, in consequence of the lad'►
work having been lowered. High words took place,
and the master struck Cotton. Another dispute took
place between them afterwards on the subject of the
work, when a scuffle ensued, and they both fell down.
The master struck the boy ; but witness did not see the
boy strike bis master. When the master got up, he said
" Sre what the scoundrel has done to me with the file."
His knee was bleeding. There was a puncture in it,
about as large as the top of one's little finger. The pri-
soner had had a file in his hand, with which he had been
working. .Hedifd not take it up to strike his master
with it. • -.'y
There being WWl,' evidence of what took place
between the prisoner and the deceased, Lord TENTERDIEN
observed that there was no case against the prisoner,
who was theselote acquitted.

STAFFORD, Amu 4:
Before Mr. Jostles Lemma's.
LISIL.—CHUW*S versus SMART.

Mr. C. PHILLIPS stated, that this was an action
brought against the defendant, as the proprietor of the
froirerhaseptose Chronicle, for a libel.
Mr. Jaavis said that this action was brought by the
plaintiff, who was a horse jockey, and rode at horse
races against the defendant, who was the proprietor
of the Wolverhantplon Chronicle, and it must be ad-
mitted, that as character was of the last importance
to a horse jockey, the Jury would know that the case
was to him of very serious importance. The plaintiff
had been long a jockey, and was in the employ of
Mr. Meynell, the High Sheriff of this County; and it
would be proved that there had been races at Stour-
bridge, on which occasion the plaintiff had ridden a
mare, named Arachne; and It was a paragraph relat-
ing to that race which contained the libel complained
of. (The Learned Gentleman read the libel.) On this
occasion he was in possession of a great deal of proof
to shew that the plaintiff had acted honestly in this
race; but this he should not be at liberty to adduce,
unless there was a question raised on the plaintiff'sl
character by the defendant; and, in the first instance,
he should content himself with 'hewing, that the plain-
tiff was a jockey who received, for each race, three
guineas if he lost, and five if he won; and this. with
the additional proof that the defendant was the editor
of the paper, would entitle him to a ♦erdict. The
defendant had put no justification on the record, and
the plaintiff brought this action to defend his charac-
ter, as without character the plaintiff was deprived of
the means of getting his livelihood.
Richard Spenser said—l reside at Hadsford. lam a trainer of
horses. I know the plaintiff. He was sir or seven years in my
employ. He is now a jockey, and rides races, and he is paid for
so doing. He is paid three guineas when he is beat, and five when
he wins.

Crnss-examined by Mr. Cratrant--The plaintiff was in the
service of the High Sheriff, but be is now with me again. I have as
good an opinion of him u I ever had In my life. He Is about 20
years of age.
Joseph Whitehouse said—l am a farmer at Hedgford. The
plaintiff is a jockey. I was present at the Stourbridge races, where
I saw the plaintiff ride Arachne, in the race against Susan and the
Moor. After this, I was at the Replay races, and then Susan and
Amebae ran again, and Susan woo the first beat,and Arac line won
the second and third beats. She was ridden by Mr. Spring, a
celebrated jockey.

James Alien ;aid—l am the Bert of the stamp distributor.
produce the Wirfeerksisptes areal* containing the alleged libel.—
The libel was read :
'4 The Gold Cup of 109 'nos. by subscription of 101. each.
" Mt. Beattie named b. m. Susan
" Mr. Grasebrooke named b. m. Arachne .
Major Coven's br. e. the Moor

.

" One account says this race gave universal dissatisfaction. The
ride of Arachne is suipected of having acted dishonestly,by having
laid out of his_ground at least so yards, and made his ruining each
time rosad thl hill, which is very heavy ; if he had rode her in
any otter way, she could not possibly have lost.
Attother mutat says, that Arachne, who was the favourite,
was beat by the severe rustling made throughout the race."
Mr. CAMPSILL, for the defendant, sari that the no-
minal plaintiff was Mr. John. Cheswas, but he did sup-
pose that Mr. Chet was cared no more for the alleged
libel than it it had been a playbill, or the history ct a
.how exhibited at the Stourbridge races; and he should
prove out of his own mouth, that the plaintiff was quite
indifferent to the publication in question. He (the
L•arned Counsel) had no doubt that the plaintiff was a
most clever rider and able j .ckey ; but, for all that,
there could be no doubt that it the Jury were bound to
find a verd.ct fur the plaintiff, he Mat% quite sure that
they eould DOI exceed a farthing in the amount of the
damages t• ey should give. It was said that a player
ud the stage—an otat.or in the senate—..d divine in the
ulpit—sand a lawyer at the bar, weie all twit to criti.
zji,ol; and *by shoe d tr:t hur:r joclitts be cipta4 open

Ito animadveision. for they were public characters as
much as the parties mentioned ; and so expert were
some of them, that be had no doubt the names. of
Buckle and Chiffney would go down to posterity with
the names of Pitt and Fox. As the plaintiff was not
hurt, he might ask for a verdict with only nominal
damages even as the case stood ; but he should call
wimesses, as he hoped, that the learned Judge would
grant his certificate to deprive, not Mr. Chess as, but
the real Winger of the action, of his costs. He had
brought actions against the Stlffordshire Advertiser,
the Birmingham Journal, the Birmingham Chronicle,
the Birmingham Gazette, the,Spian Journal,
and the Worcester Herald, for -this same libel.—
It was generally known that the newspapers must
copy from one another ; and be would admit, that al-
though it was no defence in point of law that the parties
had copied from another paper, still there was a great
difference beta een strict law and the real right between
man and man. It was mate unfair to bring actions
against those who might not know any thing of the
plaintiff; and it would be shewn the defendant was not
the originator of the paragraph, and that he knew
nothing of the plaintiff, and had in fact merely coped
this from another pa per. namely, the Worcester Journal,
of the 2d of September, the defendant's publication
being on the 6th; and when he (the Learned Counsel)
came to analyze the article, he should shew it to be ad
article fit to be copied from one paper into another.-:-.
It gave two distinct accounts; and as the horse was
expected to win, and did not, there were accurst two
opinions--one imputing unfair riding to Arachne, the
other putting her defeat upon the rain Or other causes
Now, both these two accounts were publisherrtogebee
in the Worcester Journal, and copied word fr.r word
into the Wolverhampton Chronick. If the defendant
had only copied t is from the Worcestet Journal, theme
seemed no reason for an action against the defendant.
But the attorney knew that a week after, the defendant;
unasked and unsolicited, bad published an ample eon.
tradiction of the supposed libel;`and that did shew that
this actio m was one of the most infamous ever commenced.
It was also right to observe, that throughout the article
the name of Cheswas never appea ed; and he could also
tell them what had become of the cther actions brought
on this libel t he would shew that they had been settled.
and that the attntney had been paid costs in all of theta;
and he should also prove that the plaintiff had said he
had sustained no injury by the paragraph in question.
The parties who were sued in the other actions had "set
about compromising them, and paid the plaintiff's at-
torney sums for which he would shew his rece•rs. Of
the Staffordshire Advertiser he had received SOL ft*
damages, and 101. for costs; of the .Faloplax Journeir
301. and from each of the three Birminesin Pap rs
361. ISs. 4d. This was not all, for he should prove,
from the plaintiff's own mouth, that he had sustained
no loss, and he was therefoie a puppet in the hands of
another. Had not the j •ckey (if he had r' ceived the
sums, amounting to about 1501.) received quiteenough,
if the money had really found its way into the pocket
of Mr. Cheswas? Would Juries countenance such pro.
ceedings? Any damages would carry costs, unless the
Judge aboald, in his direction, think fit to grant a cer-
tificate to deprive the plaintiff's attorney of his costs of
the action. If such actions were encouraged, they
would find anomie% going to Peele's Coffee-house to
search for libels against horselockies, stage.coachaten, ,
chimney-sweepers, and other persons of the lowest
classes of society, merely to bring actions against the'
newspapers, for the sake of getting costs froth the
pockets of their proprietors. He did hope that the Jury
would mark their sense of the transaction by fighting a
verdict of one farthing damages, regretting that they
were obliged to give so much.
Witnesses for she defence were examined, and Mr.
Jaav is replied.
Mr. Justice LITTLIDALs said, that it was admitted
that the publication was a libel, and it then became a
question of damages. The first ground of mitigation
was, that the libel was copied from another paper, and
that, no doubt, took away all idea of malice, though it
was no defence in law ; and as a rider was a man who
depended a good deal upon his character, and this was
a libel calculated to do injury to a man of that class,
he could see no objection to a man in that station in life
bringing an action, if his character was improperly at-
tacked. The next ground of mitigation was the wend
paragraph : now that, though a contradiction, was, it
should be observed, not an apology. It was also said,
that these and many other actons were brought to
be-
nefit the attorney ; and it was a matter proper to consi-
der, that the plaintiff had already received damages
from other parties. Seven actions were a great r umber,
no doubt; but still, as a rider of races went about the
country a good deal, be, perhaps, ought to be allowed,
without blame, to bring more than one action, in de-
fence of his reputation. • It was also said, that Cheswas
had nothing to do with the actions; however, it .ap-
peered that he was inquiring about who was the author,
which chewed that he was not quiescent on the subject.
It was for the Jury to say what damages they would
give, as the case was entirely in their hands.
Verdict for the plaintiff—Damages One Farthing.
Mr. CAMPBELL-1 hope your Lordship will certify,
to deprive the plaintiff's attorney of the costs.
Mr. Justice LITTLIIDALI—I will consider of it.
Joseph Martin was indicted for feinniceisly adminis.
tering a quantity of gin to Joseph Sweet, an infant four
years old, and thereby causing his death.
Flom the evidence for the prosecution, it appeared
that the prisoner, in company with a man named
Blower, on the 9th of April last, went into the Ring-
of-Bells public-house, at Wolverhampton, kept by the
father of the deceased, anti having callei f..r two quar-
terns of gin, the deceased Joseph Sweet and his twin
brother Henry Sweet went into the kitchen wheme the
prisoner and Blower were siting. Blower called
Henry to him, and gave him a drop of gin out of the
glass. The prisoner did the same to the deceased,
who, instead of stopping when he had tasted it, put his
hand to the bottom of the glass, and nearly drank
the whole; this was at eight o'clock in the marring
before the children had breakfasted. Shortly after the
child was taken ill, and in a mew hours died.

Mr. Baton VAUGHAN having suggested that there
was not sufficient evidence to e,tablish the charge
against the prisoner, the Jury returned a verdict of I`.-ot
GuillyP
The prisoner, after a suitable reprimand to be more
careful in future, was then discharged,
YORK, Aucturr 6.—CROWN
Mr. Baron HULLOCK came into CM
this morning, arid passed ten ence
suners who had been convicted tf va.
Ananias Lunrby, aged 21, was first
had been convicted of a highway robt
the 21st of March last, upon the perm,
'Mid taking from him four country

II

4
(4 •

a.
N SIDE.
,urt at eighto'dack
upon several pri-
i; ions offences.
t brDught up. He (
bbery at Leeds, ort
an of John Clough,
bank notes et U.
. . ,

each, a silver watch, and a flute. Hewes appreheruledi
whilst endeavouring to dispose of the watch. Mir Lord-
ship told him that although his was a very bad case, his
life was in no clinger ; hut that he must leave the coon-
• ty y for the remainder of his life.
Charles Laval: a lad of eleven years old, re.
ceived sentence for the manslaughter of William
Greta, at Wakefield, -by throwing a whittle at him.
His Lordship said, that this was a manslaughter of
a very gross and aggravated nature. It was com-
mitted under such circumstances, that if the prisoner
had been differently indicted, his life would have been
in danger. It was stated on the trial. that be was of a
very irritable temper, and it was proper that something
should be done to reclaim that sort of temper. The
judgment of the Court was, that he be imprisoned 18
Calendar months in the House of Correction at Wake-
field ; and that in the first and last week of his confine-
ment he should be privately whipped. His Lordship
told him he would have an opportunity of reflecting
upon the secoad whipping for one year and a half, and
expressed a hope that he would not forget the punish-
ment, or the crime that caused it, as long as he lived.
William Troth. for an assault, with a felonious intent,
upon Mary Ann Wells, at Hull, on the 31st of May
last, was sentenced to two years imprisonment, with
hard labour, at Beverley. His Lordship told him that
his crime had been aggravated by his defence, for it
was clear that the witness he called had been guilty of
perjury in the evidence he gave.
Several other prisoners were sentenced.
Marta Wall*, a young woman of a very respectable
end interesting appearance, was afterwards brought up.
She stood at first in the witness boa, but was ordered
to go round to the dock.
His LORDSHIP then addressed her as follows:—" You
were tried at the last Assizes, and convicted of bigamy.
It appeared that your first marriage took place on the
80th of August, 1822, at Beverley, by licence. You
were then an infant under 21, and there was no consent
of parent, guardian, or any person authorized to give
consent to the marriage. Your second marriage was by
bens, upon the 15th of February, 1827, when your
first husband was alive. At your trial your counsel
objected that your first marriage, being contracted
when under age without consent, was void. The answer
was, that the provisions in the Marriage Act of
George If. rendering consent of parents or guardians
necessary, had been rendered inoperative by the Act
of the 3d George IV., which received the Royal assent
on the 22d of July, 1812, and that the provisions of
the new Act did not come into force until the first day
of September, the day after your marriage, which hav-
ing been celetrated in the intirval between the 22d of
July and the Ist of September, was valid. The point
was new, and 1 therefore reserved it for the considera-
cion of all the Judged, to whom it has been submitted.-
- They are unanimously of opinion that the marriage was
legal. It becomes therefore my duty to pass the judg-
ment of the law upon you; but as it appeared you really
believed your first marriage was void, which would
have been the case had it been celebrated two days later,
or even if it were under similar circumstances now ce.
lebrated, your sentence will not be heavy. It is that
you be coofined in the Castle of York for one fortnight."
John Shaclietom was tried upon an indictment charg-
ing him with uttering, on the 29th of June last, a forged
note upon the Craven bank, knowing the same to be
forged.
It appeared by the evidence of Moore Warbrick, a
tailor, at Langfield, who also sold shoes, that the pri-
soner came into his shop, and bought a pair of thil-
drett's shoes for 2s. 10d. and offered the note in pay-
ment. As the prisoner had no children, Warbrlck's
suspicii ns were aroused, and he sent the note to a neigh-
bour, who gave it as his opinion that it was forged,
which. afterwards proved to be the rise. A constable
was sent for, and the prisoner was given in charge. He
gave two false accounts of the manner in which he got
the note, but at last told the constable, who promised
to give bins his diluter if he spoke the truth, that he te-
emed it from his brother. The prisoner bad no other
forged notes or false coin about him, and there was no
.evidence that be had ever uttered other forged :totes.
Mr. Baron Huht.oce thought the prosecutor had
failed in proving the guilty knowledge, and directed an
acquittal.
Cram Sura.—(Before Mr. Junks %TIM%)
SIACHIN U. HSLDWORTN.

This was an action to recover damages for the loss
of services suffered by the plaintiff, from the seducticn
of her daughter.
Mr. BROUGHAM said, that the Jury, in estimating the
damages, would take into their consideration the breath
of the domestic comfort, the outrage on the peace, and
the stain on the reputation of a family, in consequence
of she defendant's conduct. The plaintiff was the a idow
of a substantial yeoman in the West Riding, and her
daughter, who was unmarried, lived with bee. She
was possessed of great personal charms, and before her
acquaintance with the defendant her character was un-
blemished. The defendant was of the same rank with
isetself, but in better circumstances. He was a wool-
stapler, about 28 years of age, and came to Aliss Ma-
chin, who was 25, under the assuped guise of a suitor,
for he made her frequent offers of marriage through her
parert, that all doubts of his honour might be lulled. He
seen went so far as to give a written promise, and shortly
afterwards accomplished hi: base design; after which,
all mention of marriage ceased, and no attempt was
made to make her any rep station. The plaintiff, how-
ever unwillingly, was forced to put her daughter in the
box, and to make her the historian of her own misery
and disgrace. It might be said that the written promise'
of marriage, as it would form the subject of another
action, could not be insisted on ; but he should use it to
thew the means by which the defendant was enabled to
accomplish his purpose.
Eliv.abeth Machin, examined by Mr. ALDFRSON.—
Was 24 in July last. She always lived with her mo.
ther, who lived on her means. Her father was a
butcher. She was entitled on her mother's death to
£Boi. They live in Halifax. The defendant is `2B; he
is in good cis cumstances, and keeps two hunting horses.
CI became acquainted with me in June, l 815; he
csase to any mother's house, and asked to be allowed
co pay his add: ewes to me; he is a good-looking man;
I allowed hi. addre.ses by consent of my modser; he
paid me visits, and I occasionally walked out with him.
I was willing to marry him, and my mother was
willing I shoutd. He gave me a written promise of
marriage; my mother-saw it. He continued his visits
. afterwards with my mother's approbation. I after that
.consented to gratify his passion. I had a child by
On the 4th of November last I walked out with him,
when he used me very ill. I was taken ill when I
tame home, and was brought to bed on the Tuesday
following, two days afterwards. When I found myself
with child, I pressed blia to 'marry me, and he renewed