Star.
London, England, 1828-02-21 00:00:00

'LAW INTELLIGENCE:

. -
COURT OF KING'S BENCH. Wssristassait, Fri ed.
Sitting, at Nisi Prins, in Middlesex, after Haar, Teem, before
Lotd TkiIURDIII and Special Juries.
THE RINGS, BEAUMONT, ESQ.
Mr. PARKE opened the pleadings. This CVAS an in•
formation filed by his Majesty's late Attorney General,
Sir J .roes Scarlett, against the defendant, J.T.13.13eau•
mont, Esq. It stated that the Hon. Thomas Wallace
(since Lord Wallace) and several other persons had been
appointed Commissioners to inquire into the revenue
of stamps; that they made the inquiries, and published
their report, and that the defendant, afterwards intend-
ing to vilify the Commissioners, and to provoke and
eacite the said Mr. Wallace to a breach of the peace,
wrote and sent to the said Mr. Wallace a letter, con-
taining various libellous statements and observations.
The defendant had pleaded 44 Not Guilty."
The ATTORNEY GENERAL stated the case. A few
years back an inquiry was instituted under the authority
of Parliament, as to the state of the revenue in Ireland ;
that inquiry was afterwards extended to the state of the
revenue in England. The Hon. Thomas Wallace (now
Lord Wallace) was Chairman of the Commission of In-
quiiy. In the course of the year 1826 the Commis-
sioners.presented their fourteenth Report to the Lords
ache rreasury : it was subsequently laid upon the table
of the House of Commons. The Commissioners in that
Report made certain statements relative to transactions
which had appeared in evidence before them, between
the D rectors of the County Fire Office (of whom the',
defendant, Mr. Barber Beaumont, was one) and the'
Stamp Office. Tho.e statements involved a charge of
fraud by the County Fire Office against the stamp re
venue. In making thsse statements, however, the Corn-
missioners cf Inqoiry had done no more than tt ey
conceived to be their duty as public t fficers. They
had expressed their oeinions upon what they con
ceived to be fraudulent transactions by which the'
revenue bad been defrauded; but they had no
intended to make any imputation personally against
the defendant, who, however, it appeared conceived
that Arlt. Wallace, the Chairm •n of the Commis-
inner,, had with the other Commissioners h. en induced
to make the report in consequence of s.,:r.e hostile feel.
ing towards the County Fire Office. Shot tly after the
report was pinta the deendant addressed a Petit on
to the H tuse of Commons, complaining of the state-
ments contained in the report. Mr. Wallace defended
himself in his place in the House, from the charges
which the Pe. ition contained. The defendant, however,
not satisfied with this appeal to Parliament, wrote to
Mr. Wallace the libellous letter in question, for the pur-
pose. manifestly, of exciting that Gentleman to a breach
of the peace. The Learned Counsel then read the let-
ter which formed the subject of prosecution, and com-
mented at great length upon its contents ; and he con-
eluded his address to the Jury by observing, that if pub-
Isc officers were not protected in the performance of
their duty, their labours would be altogether useless to
the country.

Lord Wallace was then examined from the Bench by
the Sommon GENERAL.—Hii Lordship stated, that
he had acted as one of the Commissioners under the
Acts of Parliarteat of the Ist and 2d George IV. for
inquiring into the state of the Revenue. The 14th R -
poi t of the Commissioners was m ide to the Lords of
tie Treasury in the year 1826. The report now pro-
duced is that report. Three copies of it were made—
one for his Majesty, and two to be laid on the tables of
the two Houses of PAlliamen.t. On the Ist of June last
received a letter bearing the signature of Mr. Barber
Beaumont. I received it at my own house in Portman
quare. It was handed to me by my.servant, and was
in an envelope, addressed " To the Right Hon. T. Wal-
lace. 33, Portman•scoare." The letter now in my hand
was the one I received.

Cross examined by Mr. F. PoLLocx-1 can't say
what partictilar dip the report was I iid on the table of
the House of Commons ; I was long a Member of the
House. $e report was printed; it is usual to print
such reports; a number are printed for the use of the
Mernliers of the House. I believe a great many are
printed ; but I don't know precisely the number.
ATTORNEY GENERAL said he believed a great
Many more were printed than were read—(A laugh).
Cross-examination continued—These reports I believe
gene. ally get before the public ; they get into the news-
papers, but I don't know how. A copy of the evidence
taken before the Commissioners accompanied the report,
and was laid c n the table of the House Of Commons.
Swne of the witnesses were not sworn. A person of the
same of Hubbard was examined before the Commis-
sioners relative to stamps on fire insurances. Appli-
cation was made on the part of the County Fire Office
to the Commissioners of Inquiry, for the form of the

oath on which Hubbard was sworn, with the view of
indicting that person f.r. perjury. Some of the evidence
before the Commissioners was taken bn oath, and some
was not. The first letter I received from Mr. Beaumont

was dated he 26th of October, 1826. A subsequent
application was made in consequence of an order from
the Ire a.ury. The letters nt.w produced were written
in answer to those two letters. There was a reference

irom the Lords of the 'f.essury, upon which a com-
munication was afterwards made by the Commissioners
to the defendant. The date of the last letter was the
Bth of June, 1827. A petition was presented to the
House r f Commons on the 10th of April last, by Mr.
Hobhouse; 1 answered the charges made against me
in that petition, in my place in the House. The evidence
before the Commissioners of Inquiry was contained in
the Appendix, and the report and appendix were printed
together.
Re examinei—The defendant's own testimony forms
part of the appendix. The Commis►ior.ers received
letters from the defendant pending the investigation.
Those letters were printed in the appendix.
Mr. Jacob Thomas proved the defendant's hand.
writing to the different letter s produced, among a Hai
was the letter containing the alleged libel. That letter
was then read. It was in the following words :
County Fire Office, London, May Si, 1827.
Sta—A public functionary of fourteen years standing myself, I
can easily make allowance for another who, from mere error in
judgment, or defect in temper, is betrayed into an occasional act of
harshness or injustice; but the means which you, in confederacy
with Mr. Sykes. have used to raise a charge of fraud on the reve-
nue against myself and others, and your perseverance in that charge
for a period of two years, in spite of the proofs of its utter falsehood
which have stared you in the face, so far exceed all the usual
bounds of of injustice, that 1 can find no excuse or palliation
for your conduct. I will just mention a few. of your acts, and if
you can reconcile them to any principle of equity, you will do more
than any other person can accomplish.
Mr. Sykes's pretended hearsays set forth that we had defrauded
the Stamp Office constantly of 2,000/. a year, in the duty account;
that we were then making out fresh books—complete new sets of
books; he aide, that the clerk who had made the wrong entries,
and had absconded on a charge of felony, ►e suspected we had got
out of the way, to stake the fresh books; that we bad refused the
inspection of our books, and that we had tampered with the pen.
pie at Edinburgh to disavow the payments of duty which
they bad made. Now, Sir, you have not only received these
pretended hearsay. and suspkions as evidence, which is contrary
to every principle of justice, but you bare laboured to give them
the semblance of truth 'by your own practices on our okras, eu•
'couraging the discarded ones to vituperate their employer by
your own impertinent remarks, thrusting into their mouths the
evidence you wanted, in the slope of leading questions, and

• • • •
endeavouring tb extract from she honest clerks admissions fu
reign to their meaning, by worrying and intimidating then*. Our
clerks, had and good,
documents, veer your
our hooks and
hand-; but all would not do. nur own esaminitions, in your own
secret inquisition. of your own; witnesses, .proved the fakehobd oi
the attempted can. But though tQfeated you Would not be stop
ped; you gave the Case hearsays and suspicions to the world b
accredited evidence. and reported on the ease as one of undoubted
fraud and collusion, and one in Which a pro seCution of. the County
Fire Office was to he instituted. This publication war the first
intimation we could obtain of the accus,ation, or of the evidence
which had been worked against us for upwards of a year, the
name of the accuser remaining conCealed to this day ; but your in-
justice to us did not stop with your repott. The moment we
saw what the accusation was, we saw its falsehood, and set to
work to prove it. We caused a full and accurate investigation
to be made by competent persons, who have demonstrated that
falsehood upon oath, and We caused an indictment for perjury
to he prepared against your principal witness, the 'trial of which
would have proved how basely we were maligned; but this legal
redress you prevented, by extending your own mantle of impunity
over your false witness. On presenting our petition to the House of
Coninions, you had an opportunity of making some show Of com-
punction—some offer of reparation ; but you embraced that oppOrtU-
nity only to attempt to reproduce your demolished case, and do us
further injury by your assertions. You had the hardihood to re-
late the fiction about two members, so laboriously worked up in
your minutes and report to give an appearance of collision with
the Chairman of the Board of Stamps; and upon this you boldly
asserted, that " that fact was so strong, that if submitted to a Jury,
it would inevitably bring down a verdict of guilty!" The gross and
wicked misrepresentation of that pretended fact, however, has
been so unanswerably expressed by Mr. Sedgwick, in his fourteenth
letter to you,.that my chief wonder ii, how you can show 'your
face in society after such an exposure. But your temerity carried
you farther: you said this—for k took down your words—" I
venture to say, that every one of the i ems in this 7561. is a fraud."
To this you added, in effect, " and this is but a part —we have dis-
covered insteh more since." Now, this you could not possibly know
to be true. You have evidence before you to prove that it could

nut be true. lu point of fact it was totilly untrue. There had not
been one shilling ut fraud on the Stamp Office ; no, nor even one
shilling fur duty lett unpaid. It is now proved that the trifling Cr.
rors in the duty account, made by the two bad, cleiks Whom see
dismissed, were against the County Fire Office, and fa favour of the
.tamp Office.
It Is needless for me to deccribe to you your acts in further detail ;
for if you ate constituted like other men, you will never be able to
. . . _

shake them from your mind. I will not be so severe on your un-
derstanding, as to suppose that you believed a word of the imputa-
tion. which you pubii-hed. I will not dispute that, in what you
did, you bore no ill wit. to the County Fire Office nor to tee; neither
nor any one, can doubt your object, who has attended to your
pei forntatwea. Indeed, your Report discloses it, when you say.
that if a traml were committed, and the Chairman of Stamps ( Mr.
Sedgwick) connived at it, " that you would have made a case, in
which there could have been no choice how Government must have
acted." and then proceed, with the delusiveness of a Jesuit and the
artifice of a special pleader, to thew that such fraud and connivance
existed. But can you suppose that I and my colleagues will sit
tamely down with the insults and injuries you have heaped on us,
although only done to enable you to wreak your vengeance on Mr.
Sedgwick?
Sir, I know that however atrocious your acts may be, I can have
no legal redress, nor the alternative which a person in the rank of
society of a gentleman is entitled to claim from another in the same
rank who has basely calumniated him. This alternative, to which
I should long since have resorted, bad your acts not been surrounded
by the halo of privilege, I will not for obvious reasons name ; but I
think there is no breach of privilege in my at length demanding of
you, either to justify your acts, or to give me the best reparation in
your power. I am, Sir, in the usual phrase, your obedient servant,
J. T. BARBER BEAUMONT.
Extracts from the printed Report (the 14th) of the
Commissioners of Inquiry in reference to the County
Fire Office Here then put in and read; as was also the
correspondence between the defendant and the Com-
missioners subsequent to the publication of the Report.
With the reading of these documents, the case for the
prcaecution closed.
Mr. F. Pott.ocit then addressed the Jury on the part
of the defendant. The single question which they bad'
to try in this case was, not whether the letter addressed
by the defendant to Lord Wallace contained calumnious,
imputations upon his Lordship; but whether it had
been written with a view to provoke him to a breach
of the peace? The Commissioners of Inquiry had been
invested with a most extraordinary power—a power
which he (the Learned Counsel) had no hesitation in
saying, was riot only contrary to the spirit of the law,
but was altogether unconstitutional. The Commis-
sioners, it should seem, had made thirteen reports before
the report in question; and, if he might judge from this
last specimen of their labours, be apprehended it would
be beneficial to the constitution and the public justice
of the country, if they were now to cease. He could
not help thinkinr, that in their zeal the Commissioners
had overstepped their duty, and done that with regard
to the taking of hearsay evidence, which had worked a
great injustice to many individuals. In considering tilt
question of guilty or not guilty in this case, it would
be necessary that the Jury should advert to several
points connected with the report, and the conduct of
the Commissioners. This 14th report, it appeared, had
been laid before the House of Commons its May,1826,
and was generally circulated towards the latter part of
September or the beginning of October. Pi for to that
cane the defendant, who, as one of the Directors of the
County Fire office, was materially interested in the re-
port, had applied for information connected with it.
That information, however, he had not been able to
obtain. As soon as the report got into circulation, he

rote to the Commissicriers, apprising them that it was
intended on the part of the County Fire-office to insti-
tute a pi osecution against the witness Hubbard for
perjury. He requested to be furnished with such in-
formation and documents as might be necessary to
enable the Directors to support an indictment. He
was informed, however, that the Commissioners did
not conceive themselves warranted in complying with
his request. Now, the Directors of the County
Fite office had been calumniated by the statements in
the report—they had been accused of fraudulent trans.
actions with regard to the revenue, and had• had ro
°ppm tnnity of rebutting the charges made against them.
'What, then, must be the impression made upon the de-
fenclint on meeting with a refusal of his request? Was
it not calculated to produce a feeling in his mind that
lie had not been dealt fairly by ? Was not this refusal
something like a denial of justice? The great hardship,
however, was, that the Commissioners had examined
persons in support of the charges against the Fire-office,
to whom they had not the power of administering an
oath. The matieer in which the inquiry had been con=
ducted throughout, was such as to call forth the strongest
reprobation from every one who knew . how, to value
that protection which the law casts around character.
To the members of the legal profession, the mode in
which the witnesses had been examined before the
Commissioners must be a subject of deep regret. Even
his Lordship on the bench, upon A_ recent occasion,.
when a proceeding arising oat of this report ;erne be-
fore him, expressed his regret at. the manner in which
the inquiry had been conducted. His Lordship ob-
served, with respect to a part of the examination,
" that it was altogether irrelevant to the object
of the inquiry, at least as far as the public was con-
cerned." The Learned Counsel then read, extracts from
the report, for the purpose of showing that hearsay
evidence had been admitted by the Commissioners
upon serious charges against the County Fire Office
Directors, and that improper questions bad been put to
the witnesses. How bad, the defendant proceeded after
the publication of the report? He had addressed se.e-
ial letters to the Commissioners, and had preserved a
petition to the House of Commons, but could obtain no
redress for the injury done to his character. One of the
newspapers had published extracts from the report con.
taining the libellous imputations against him, and he in

„„ •;,„f„,,
consiNuetice tiodiat an ?cerr,ii t
he purpose of jusiliyiiiikt;htintAT ti ;1113,y; 1
tts.i..l them teemed to Tliiniu•spaPPl 'ef
cetVed no prnteetion from lie r4,,,m4ssionets as it dog t'
have dope, had ihey ben able to sai,stantlate by Irg .1
evidence, AO thatitts,Mide against tie defendant. In
that aitionstite general)isitiublY was, tdeaded, so that
Mr. Oe summit. Was recluded from havink the charves
made against Mm ikrestigated, and the d lily, spit sidet 7
ing that the Commi?sioiters or the Rollie of Cotnnknn..
under whose authority the reptart.hid beesiput Soto ci.:
culation, were alone tesponsihle for those charges, guy;
Mr. Beaumont on that occasion only Is. damages. lit
was under these circumstances that the defendant, as a
last resource, resolved upon making an appeal to 1.01.41
Wallace.
.The letter yias,not written until May, 187.
He would now consider its character. Here the Learned

Counsel wen; through the aperg libejilptis letter, and
endeavoured to show that its object was not that im-
puted to it by the intorniationv was flee to confess
that many parts of it Were objectionable, considering
that it was a.ldressed to a person 611ing the situation
that Lord Wlrljace did; and notwithstanding it was
written at a time when the defendant was smarting
under a sense of the wrongs that had been• ii,fllctrd
upon him, many of its expressions were certainly tin
justifiable. Still, however, he contended that the Jor y
could not put upon it th4t construction which had been
put upon it by the information. Let them look at the

. .
last paragraph of the letter, and say whether that was
meant to provoke Lord Wallace to a breath of the
peace, or to a•k for a reparation of the injuries tl,e
defendant bad su+tained, by putting him in a cootie
of bringing the charges that had been made against
him before the legal tribunals of his country. If
the Jury would only look at the letter, they would
see that the defendant had expres•ly disclaimed any
intention of calling upon Lord Wallace to wave his
privilege, and to miet him in a duel; and it was
quite clear that if the letter was not meant to provoke
a breach of the peace, the charge upon the present in.
fog m ition c•:uld not be sustained, however calumnious
the letter might be. I, the defendant, had wished to
challenge Lord Walla e, he woukl aithave suffered the

communication to remain private. He would have
blavmed it to the wort ; he a ould base advertised it.
It was, however, MUD' for ,his Lordship's private e) c
only, and the detenclaotbal tl erefore sent it sealed up to
his Lordship's private residence. As a private commu-
nication, it was not even a libel ; jelled never been pub-
lished to the world, and no indicttsent for it as a libel
could be sustained. The jury would. no d. übt hear an
eloquent veil from the Attorney General, as he had a
right, in a Crows prosecution, which this was, to ad-
dress them'. again. The questing after all, however,
would come to this,--What was tie de fa mlant's intention
in sending the letter to Lord Wallace? D:d lie •voish to
provoke his Lordship to a breach of the peace, or did
he merely want the means of justifying his character?
He (the Learned Counsel) should have liked to hear
Lord Wallace asked whether he at the thine considered
that the letter was meant to incite him to a breach of
the peace? That question, however, had not been
asked, and it was now for the Jury to say what they
conceived the defendant's intention to be. The case was
now in their hands, and the defendant looked to them
confidently for that justice which he had hitherto
elsewhere failed to obtain.

The ATTORNEY GENERAL having replied,
Lord TENTERDEN bh..xtly summed up, leaving it to
the Jury to say whether or no the letter was written
with an intent to provoke a breach of the peace? if
they were of opinion that it was, they would find the
defendant guilty; otherwise they would acquit him.
After the Jury had 4feliherated in the box for about
half an hoer, they reque‘ted to be furnished with the
letter, which was handed up to them. it was then about
six o'clock. Shortly before seven they requested rer.
Mission to retire to comider their verdict. An officer
was accordingly sworn to attend them.
The ATTORNEY GENERAL and Mr. Potxocic then
'addressed his Lordship. and said ttey'clicl not tbink it
necessary that he should be detained to take die verdict,
' as it was not likely that any question of law would arise
on which*the Jut y would aeciuste to be instfucted.
His Lordship assented, and shortly after left Court.
The Jury remained loChedm until nearly,um o'clock,
when they returned into Court, and pronounceda
tret-
dict of Guilty. • .
The trial occupied the entire day, from balf•past nine
o'clock. Lord Wallace sat on the Bench from the
commencement until after the summing up, at nearly
six o'clock.
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Fes. 40.

Sittinp after Hii.ry Term, before Mr. Justice PARK and a Special
Jury, at Westminster.

TAR TRUSTIES OF THE BRITISH MUSEUM V. WHITS.
Mr. PATTISON opened the pleadings.
Mr. Sergeant WILDS stated, ihat this was•an issue

directed by the Court of Chancery to try %sherbet a
Gentleman, of the name of White, had duly executed
his will, conveying certain land to the platatiffs, accord-
ing to the tsrovisons 01 the 29th Charles II cap 3. corn-
manly called the Statute of Fr acor•. That Act re-
quited that every devise in lapd should be in' writing,
signed by* the devisor, and attested by three or more
credible. witnesses. Here the will was in the
hand-writing of the testator. After writing it,
be obtained the signature of two of his 'servants,
and of a Carpenter living in the neighbourhood, to
whom.heesplained the nature of the in!trument. The
conclusion' oldie will was in the testators hand writing,
and contained these- words---" And to this. asylum will
and testament. I have set my hand and seal, in the
presence of the following witnesses." Now this Statute
drd not require that the witnesses. should-have seen the
testator sign it ; nor that the witnesses should sign in
the presence of each other; nor that they should know
it was a will. Here the will was in two sheets; brit it
had been held in a case before Lord Mansfield, that it
was sufficient it both sheets mere in the room at the
time, when one of them was signed, whsch was the case
in the present instance. These were the circumstances
on which the Jury were to decide.
Witnesses were called, who proved the facts as-stated
by the Learned Sergeant.
Mr. Sergeant I3oSaNQUET contended, for the heir at
law, that the statute was in this case imperative. All its
previsions must be fulfilled, in or der to render the in -
strumeat for the conveyance of real property valid. In
the pieseut instance this had not bern done, and there-
fore the verdictsrf the Jury must be for the d. [entrall.
The Jury found a verdict for the plaintiffs. They
found that both stiii sheets were in the room when the
will watsigiteds that the will was sigiled before the
witnesses signed it ; that the two servants did not know
that it was the ',statues% ill when thersigued the sheet;
and that the carpeuter knew the nature of the instru-
ment he flad signed.
' CONSISTORY COUrtT, Fes 20.
Dr. LUSHINCITuII to.ik his seat to-day as Judge of this
Court. a
GRANT AGAINST GRANT.
This was a suit JOY divorce on the pound of adultery,
promoted by Major Charles Grant, against Mary Ann,
his wife. The libel had been admitted, and the vies-,

E'C

4 : i
4
. '
1
,
I :
i
It
. : f
(
t a, •
Ve
1. 4 ;
i .
I ..
I
ftl
i'
i . J
!
I') ,
..
,
, ..,
, . ~t
11
1
,
. ,
i 1
! .
li''
~.,
~.. .
...,..,,,
4,,
1
1.,
T t 1
i ll ,;
ii 4,•

lion now raised was as to the sufficiency of the answers
of the husband to an allegation of faculties on the part
of the wife. The article alleged that the Major pos.
sessed an undivided moiety of the Adelphi estate, in
the island of St. Vincent, the average rent accruing to
him from the said moiety was 3,5004 per annum.—
Major Grant, in his answer, stated that the clear rent
of the aforesaid moiety was only 2,5001. bot he denied
that for the last seven years it had yielded him any
produce to which he was entitled, ina,much as the estate
was burdened with debts contracted by his father, to
the amouot of 100.0001. His only income was derived
from the half pay of an unattached Major in the army.
After Dr. JINNER and Dr. ADDAMS had been beard
for the wise, and Dr. DODSON and Dr. HAGGARD for

the husband,
Dr. LUSNINOTOW gave seatence. If he were required
to decide whether the answers of Major Grant were
completely satisfactory, he should have some difficulty.
But the question was, whether sufficient information
had been given to the Court to enable it to apportion a
sum to the wife fur alimony pendente lite? It might
not be right to require a full statement from Major
Grant of all the particular concerns of his father's
estate. Such a statement would throw upon the
Court the difficulty of deciding upon the validity
of the debts, and it would be called upon to exer•
cise the functions of a Master in Chancery. Major
Grant had, however' admitted, that whilst at St. Vin-
cent he remittesl 6001. per annum to his wife. This
admission was sufficient to enable the Coutt to ground
upon it an allotment of alimony, when the question
came regularly before it ; for it could not be assumed
that Major Grant had been guilty of devastation of the
estate, by paying that sum out of what was due to the

. _
creditors.
The Collar subsequently directed that 41. per week
should be paid to the wife till the question of alimony

was decided.

ILICHAIMOM V. RICHARDSOW.
This was a suit for divorce by resson of adultery,
promoted by Dr. Gerard Richardson, of Demerara,
against Sarah Henrietta, his wife. The parties were
married at Demerara in March, 1809, and cohabited
together till August, 1823, when Mrs. Richardson,.
partly, as it was alleged, on pretence of ill health, and
partly on account of her apprehension of an insurrec•
Lion of the slaves, obtained the consent of her husband
to go to England, where she arrived in October, 1823,
leaving Dr. Richardson in Demerara. Instead of pro.
ceeding to the residence of her husband's relatives, ac.
cording to his direction, Mrs. Richardson did not ac-
quaint them with her arrival, and went to reside at
Wornington-place, Hampstead r• and in July, 1825,
she was delivered of a child.
Dr. DODSON, for the. husband, was proceeding to
open the case, when
Dr. JIONER, Counsel for Mrs. Richardson, declared
that, under the circumstances, he could make no de-
fence to the suit.
Dr. LUSIVINGTOI4, after recapitulating the facts of the
case, was f opinion that the marriage of the parries,
•the birth of the.child, and the identity of Mrs. Richard-
son, were fully proved. Und-r these circumstances,
and as the e was nothing in the case to debar Dr.
Richardson from the remedy he sought, he should pro-
*ounce for the separation as prayed.
COURT OF EXCHEQUER, Fn. W. •

LIBEL.—CUUMING D. I/EYLER AND ANOTHER,.
The plaintiff in this case is the Reverend Patrick
Matthias Cumming, and the defendants, •Mrs. Meyler
and Mr. Mulligan, are the Proprieter and Editor of the
Bak Herald. The declaration stated, that the defen-
dims bad printed and published three libels of and
concerning the plaintiff. With respect to the two first
the defendants had pleaded Not Guilty, and upon that
plea issue was joined. To the third libel a plea of jus-
tification was put in.
Mr. JERVIS Stated the case.—The plaintiff was 11'
Clergy man of the Established Church. who had a large
benefice in Iceland. In the year 1825, he came to Eng-
land under the license liana his Bishop, and settled at
Rath for the benefit of his health. He placed in the
bank of Messrs.Cavenagh, Brown, and Co. a large sum
of money, for the purpose of meeting the cutreneez-
vrisesof his establishment. This bank tailed in Deem
, 1825, and .a-Commission of Bankruptcy having is-
sued against them, the plaintiff was chosen one of the
assignees. This appointment, for some reason or other,
gave offence to those who had sued out the commission;
and one Gentleman, who was actually a Commissioner of
Bank. upts, published an anonymous letter, imputing
such conduct and motives to the Rest. Mr. Cumming as
Made it necessary, for the vindication of his character,
so bring atraction•of libel against him. This was com-
promised inJune. 1827, by the defendant's withdrawing
his plea, and thereby confessing the utter falsehuld of
' the libel. and also by his paying to the plaintiff 600
guineas and all the costs of the action. The defendants
-soon atser commenced the publication of a series of
libels against his character, the first of which was con•
rained in a pamphlet. The second libel imputed to him
improper motives in compromising the action ; and the
this d libel was contained in The Bath Herald, under the
!wait Assize Intelligence," and was as follows:
4. The Grand Jury have found a true bill of indictment
against the Rev. Patrick Matthias Cumming, late of
Nlonagh, in the county of Monaghan, Ireland, now of
!lie. 1, Brunswick-place, in ibis city, for an indelicate
assault upon Mrs. Hayden, of Chapel tow"
This, the Learned Gentleman submitted to the Jury,
was not a fair report, but rather an advertisement, cal-
culated to draw the attention of the public to the person
of the plaint.ff; and yet the defendants pleaded a ;esti;
ficatien, thereby undertaking to prove its truth. In
conclusion, be entreated the Jury to restrain the de-,
Pendants from persevering in the course of injultous at-
tacks upon the plaintiff, by making them pay ezemp-
laty damages.
The libels were then put in and read, but the evidence
having failed to connect the defendant Mulligan with
them,
Mr. Jeavzs declined pressing the case as against him.
Mr. BstouGUAM (with whom was Mr. PARES', then
ptoceeded to Address the Jury for the defendant. The
tat) first alleod libels, he said, were published in'
September, 1826; so that sixteen or seventeen months:
were suffered to elapse before this action was brought,'
before one step was taken by the Reverend Plaintiff for
the vindication of his character; and )et all this while
his character, of which so mach bad been said, remained
with wounds not green bet old—(a laugh)—.raging with
pain, and smarting until they should be skimped over and
• cicatrised by the healing result of an action at law. The
fact was, that upon the plAintirs own showing, his
• character was either worth not more than one farthing,
it was .epast praying," or it was-so unimpeachable as
to care not for mail, or tbarother Banns with whom the
":Reverend Plaintiff communed. once a week. This was

clearly proved by his delay in seeking to vindicate it.
Mr. Brougham concluded by exprebsing his intention
4:01 proving the justification to the full went.
Mr. Walter. a clerk in the Jndictineot Office on the
'Weetetn Ciscuit, produced the indictment. which bad

been preferred against the Rev. Patrick Matthias Cum-
ming, for assaulting Mrs. Elisabeth Hayden. A true
bill was found by the Grand Jury.
Mrs. Elizabeth Hayden examined by Mr. PAW—
I live in Chapel-row, Bath, where I carry on business
as a milliner. I know the plaintiff, and had been em-
ployed by his wife ; there was a bill due from her to
me. Mr. Cumming called at my house on the second
day of the Bath races, in July last; it was about tin in
the morning ; there was a young person with me in the
front room; he said, I see that you are engaged; I re-
plied that [was then ready to attend to him; he then
went away immediately, saying that he would call
again. He came back between two and three o'clock on
the same day ; I was then in the work room at the back
of the house ; the servant called me to him, and I went
into the parhiur, , the plaintiff was there before me; he
told me he was come to pay Mrs. Cumming's bill, but
that he had left his purse on his dressing table; he asked
me if I could tell the amount of the bill, and I accord-
ingly referred to the book; he then asked me why I had
not gone to the races? I told him I was not in the habit
of going to them ; he asked me if my husband had gone;
my husband had, in fact, gone ; the plaintiff immedi-
ately told me that he had been in love with me for two
of three years—indeed, from the first moment that he
had seen me. lat once said, "Good gracious me,
Sir, do you know what you are talking about ?" He
passed a variety of compliments on my person, adding,
44 you know that we can't help our feelings." " I think
that you ought, Sir," was my reply. He next asked,
whether I would sit by him on the sofa; he at the same
time made an effort to rise, but I drew back and said,
certainly not; there were two doors to the room, and I
was going out of that which was farthest from him. This
door leads into the back room,w hich communicates with
the passage ; he followed me and took hold of my hand;:
he asked me then, if I would not allow him to kiss
me; I instantly declared that I would tell Mrs, Cum-
ming and my husband of his conduct ; he still held my
hand, and obliged me to tell him; that unless he de-
sisted.' would ring the bell, and get the servant to turn
him out. I dragged my hand forcibly from him, by
which I hurt it very much. • He begged me to be se-
:act, and to sympathise for him. -He wished me to
r make an appointment with him, and promised to re-
turn at eight in the evening with his.purse, to pay the
bill ; I, however, went to a friend's house for the pur-
pose of avoiding him ; I did not tell my husband any
thing of this, because I feared that from his hasty temper
he might take it up warmly; besides, Bath is a cen-
sorious place, and I did not wish to have it spoken of.
In about a fortnight or three weeks afterwards, the•
plaintiff again came to our house with another Gentle:
man. I was sent for into the work room, and as soon
as I saw him, my feelings were soiseerpowered, that .1
rushed into the room o here nip 'husband was ; but I
scarcely had strength to reach it ; my husband, however,
went to him, and the bill was paid ; my husband asked
what was the cause of my running away in such a
manner ? and 1 told him all. I afterwards preferred a
bill-against the plaintiff for the assault. - -
Cross examined by Mr. Jaavta—l asked Mr. Cum-
ming to recommend me to customers. He told me
that he knew Mrs. Allen, and I asked him to mention
me to her. Mrs. Cumming has been very kind in re-
commending me. The first time I saw Mr. Cumming
was, when he called for the purpose of looking for
lodgings. There are Venetian blinds to the window
of my parlour, and persons passing in the street might
see when the blinds were partly open what was oc-
curring inside. I should rather think, that the blinds
were a little teen when Mr. Cumming called in the
morning, as the p alour is our shea-room. I had pre:
viously sent in my bill to Mr. Cumming, but he did not
say that he came to pay a bill which had been left at
his house while he and his family were at Cheltenham.
Upon my oath, he did not produce a 101. note and ask
me to change it for him. I refrained from calling for
assistance, or from pulling the bell, because the lan-
guage of Mr. Gumming was so shocking, that I did not
wish any one to know it. I, however, mentioned the
circurnstante to Miss Bryant, who then lived with me,
on the following morning. I also told her sister of it
a few days afterwards. I begged of a Mr. Stroud to
persuade my husband not to insist on my going to
Bridgewater to prefer the indictment, as people who did
not know the circumstances might, perhaps, think I
deserved blame. I would rather have borne the insult
than make the matter public.
Mr. Hayden, a conveyancer, the husband of the last
itness, corroborated her evidence, so far as her state-
ment respected him.
Cross-examined by Mr. CAMPBELL.: I never had ti
quarrel with the plaintiff, but he has. most grostly its
stilted my wife since she came into Court; he also ina
suited her last evening, for which I threatened to pull
his nose, and kick him.
Mr. Jaavta replied.
The LORD CRIS* BARON, in summing -up, told the
Jury, that as the defendants had not attempted to prove
the truth of the first libels, the plaintiff was entitled to
a verdict as respected them. But if the Jury believed
the evidence of Mrs. Hayden, they were bound to re-
turn a verdict for the defendants upon those counti
which had reference to the last publication (fiat in the
newspaper), charged as libellous. .
The Jury retired at seven o'clock, and in a quarter:of
an hour returned a verdict for the plaintiff on the eight
first counts, with one farthing damages; and found for
the defendant on all the other counts ; thereby declaring
that in their opinion the justification had been proved.
Mr. PARKE asked his Lordship to. certify, for the
purpose of depriving the plaintiff of his costs.
The Loan Cruse BARON said, he would take time to
ccrisider.

Thursday morning the shop of Mr. Tootell; a'grocer
t Etigeware, was burglariously entered, and a large
quantity of tea, sugar, bacon, &c. was taken.
The last Number of the Limerick Chronicle contains
a notice to its past and present subscribers, who have
not paid up their accounts, that if they are Lot paid by
a certain day, a list of the " incorrigible debtors" will
be published, and the debts will be sold to some attor-
ney, who may make a good job of the purchase.
A few days ago an extraordinary circumstance took
place at the village of Empsall, near Wakefield. The
report that a poor woman residing there had " a small
matter beforehand,* induced a neighbouring botcher to
disguise himelf with a buck's head and horns, and to
'visit his old crony through the chimney. With dread-
ful bellowing. he announced woe and punishment to
come, if one hundred pounds were not procured before
the fated hour of twelve the following night. The old
dame waited next morning upon her banker in Wake.
field to obtain the money ; and in the urgency of her
fears she stated the curse of her withdrawing so serious
a sum out of their hands. These gentlemen sent a
couple of stout fellows to see fair play on the occasion.
At the midnight hour, vivid flashes sit lightning were
seen in the chimney, and the horrid bellowing. repeated.
, In five minutes, Herne, the hunter, was taken into cus-
tody, and is now exercising himself in the House of
Cor roc tion.---Bredford Courier.

INNwilliew.