Star.
London, England, 1828-08-26 00:00:00

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.

GLOUCESTER, August N.

- MOWS ;es barbs.
This celebrated cause, which has been already several
times before the public, came on again at the Gloucester
Assizes on Thursday, and the plaintiff's case, which was
led by Mr. Sergeant Rusatte., was not closed till twelve
o'clock on F►iday. Mr. TAUDITON then addressed the
Jury for the defendant, and the rest of the day was oc-
cupied in the examination of evitlentir on that side. An
immense number of witnesses were produced by both
parties. Saturday morning Mr.'Sergeant Russzt.t. com-
menced his reply, which, with the sumusing.up, occupied
the attention of the Court till the afternoon. The facts of
the case are doubtless in the recollection of our readers.
They are briefly these:—A Mr. and' Mrs. Morris sepa-
rated, but afterwards lived within fifteen miles of each
other. During their separation the wifecohabited with
a former footman of the family, and the husband used
to visit her. The present plaintiff was born during the
intercourse, and the que►tion is, to try whose •issue the
plaintiff is? It being a Welch cause, it was twice tried
at Shrewsbury, in the next adjoining English county,
when conuadictot y ye diets were giveni, bet this time
it was deemed prudent by the. Lord Chancellor to try
it in another place, acd the record was entered for
Gloucester..

At igall-past two o'click age Jay retired to consider
their verdict.

The Jury, in abent two hours afterwards, came into
Calla again, and the fo eman state) that they had con-
sidered what verdict ouitbt to be returned. and eleven
of them bad come to the conclusion that nn verdict
ought to be given but one for the plaintiff. One Gen-
tleman, however,(of the name of Morris, who formerly
was a banker of this tril). dissented from the opittioa
of the other Jurors, but could assign no reason what•
ever for his dilsension.

-Mr. Morris immediately avowed himself, and• stated
that he was the person of whom his brother Juror (the
foremai) complained. He stated, that though he• be.,
lieved personal intercourse had been proved, actual
sexual. intercourse, is his judgment, .bad not beau
established. t
Mr. Justice GAIRLEZ said, that the Jury' must agree
in their verdict, and be unanimous in their decision.

•
The Jury then again retired.
At half past eight they sent a message to the Learned
Judge, stating that they wished t i speak. to him.
Mr. Justice GAOLER sent for them, and dae foreman
then informed. his • Lordship that Mr: Morris still held
-our, but would not assign any rational reason.
Mr. Justice Gissaute told the Jury that they must
unanimously agree.
The Foreman said, that if he sat for a month longer
he should adhere to the opinion which he held con-
scientiously, namely, that the plAintiff ought to have the
verdict.

. .
Mr. Mort is stated that he should remain twelve =Ow,
and would not alter his opinion.
Captain Lloyd:who was tie Foreman. stated to the
Learned Judge that they had told Mr. Mortis over and
aver again.that it he would state his reasons why he &s-
-peared from the majority, they were perfectly open to
conviction, and would willingly join with him upon any
rational groom'.
The Juty weir then locked up in the Civil Court.
where they remained in high and noisy discussion until
after two o'clock. • The night was exceedingly colds
,and some of them then betook theniselves to their great
coats. and lay down upon the table' of the Court. 'At
*bout 4 o'clock this morning they resumed their discus.
sioo, but in a loud and angry tone; one side insisting
that the plaintiff uught.to have the verdict, and. Mr.
Morris boldhig out in favour of the defendant. .At
nine o'clock, however, the Jury again sent a message to
the Learned Judge, and immediately had an interview
with him. Captain Lloyd stated that it was utterly-inn-
possible they could agree; and the. Learned Judge then
ticharged the Jury without receiving, any verdict.—
Thus, therefore. dm case remains exactly the same as it
triaLwas
LANCASTICR, Avavvr
. •
43.
Ctitc arsa.—Before Mr. Dania liscurcz..
• ILI v. NORIO&

.• • '

.•

Mr. ARMSTRONG opened the indictment. It 'charged
the defendant with writing a defamatory letter with
intent to injure the character of one James Clegg:.
Mr. BROUGH4M stated the case. The prosecatiost
was instituted at the suit of Mr. James Clegg, jun. who,
the Jury might know, was One of the firm of Clegg and
Co. extensive cotton spintieri at Manchester.. The de-
fendant was a person who had been in: thcemploy of
the prosecutor, and during a time of distress bad, beta
supported by him, and they would see how he bad
requited that kindness., It, Would appear thit 'on the
26th of December the defendant had bratOglit two
pieces of warp to the warehouse of the prosecutor, which
upon being measured were found to contain 48 yards
ani a ball, and for that measure the defendant had been
paid. No objection. had at the time been made by the
defendant, who had, upon getting an order for payment,
gone away apparently contented. About a fortnight
afterwards another piece of warp had been sent to
Messrs. Clegg and Co. by the defendant. It had been
brought by the defendant's mother, an old woman,
and upon opening the outer cover a letter was disco-
vered which formed the ground of the present proceed-
ing. The letter was addressed to a person of the name
of Ashton, but the subject of it was Mt. Clegg, jun. and
it would only be necessary to read a few lines of the let-
ter in order to convince the Jury that it was as false as it
was gross and libellous. (Mr. Brougham here read part
of the letter, commenting upon it as be proceeded). The
Jury would see that the pretence for writing the letter
was ea assumption on the part of the defendant that. his
pieces had been underrated is measure. Now aotbing
could be more false than such an imputation, and he
would satisfy them of its falsehood .by the evidence of
the individual who bad measured the pieces. They
would find that the defendant had not contented
hith-
selfwith sending the letter in the manner already alluded
to, but be bad publicly' read it over at a Mooting of the
men, and avowed himself to.be the author. Such were
the facts of the case; and he (Mr. Brougham) felt that.
it would only be necessary to prove what he had stated,
in order to secure an immediate verdict against the
defendant.
John Ashton examined—l am in the ,employ of
Messrs. Clegg and Co.; lam the putter mat of work ;
the defendant hid been employed by the arm fdr about
two years. On the 26th December defendant brought
home two pieces; I measured them ; they measured
48 yards and a half ; Irold the defendant so, and gave
him an order for payment; be made no complaint. and
went away; defendant took oat some more work; he
returned one piece on the 2d of January, and the other
on the 20th of January; the last piece was brought by
defeedant:s anther ; on opening it I found a letter ;Ibis
is the letter; I afterwards saw the defendant, and asked
bin why he had written such a scandalous letter 1 1 e
said it was because his work bad been short nsmasci
I am quite certain that the meastire was correct ; I

1'

consider the word Jemmy" used in the mita to mean
Mr. James Clegg, jun.
Cross•examined—The father of the prosecutor was
also called James.
John Dawson was called to prove that the defendant
bad read the letter at a meeting of the workmen; but
as it appeared that the transaction had taken place after
the indictment was found, his evidence was not insisted
upon.
The letter containing the libel was then read.
Mr. COLTMAN addressed the Jury for the defendant.
There were two points, he said, necessary to be proved,
befote the Jury could find a yrs:het against the drfen
dart. In the first place they most be satisfied that the
prosecutor was the person alluded to in the letter by
the name of ...Jemmy," and in the nest they must be
satisfied that the letter had a tendency to injure the
into
contempt. name of the prosecutor, and to bring him
contempt. Now it had been proved that the father of
the prosecutor was called James as well as the prose-
cutor, and therefore, for ought that appeared, the letter
might apply to him as well as to his son. He contended
also that no person who knew the prosecutor would
think worse of his character on account of the letter
which had just been read, for it was evidently an angry
and inflamed effusion from a man who imagined that he
had been imposed upon, and as such it would appear to
the world. If the indictment had contained a count,
charging the intention to have been to excite a breach
of the peace, then it might possibly have been supported;
but, as it was, he submitted that the proof had failed.
He could scarcely imagine what could have induced
the prosecutor to institute an expensive proceeding of
this sort against a poor man lace the defendant. It could
n,,t be a d-sire to vindicate his character, because he
must be ..ware that in the Ilia of an indictment,qhe
question of the truth or falsehood of the libel could nor
arise, an.l therefore that his character could not be

affected either one way or the other. He (Mr. Catalan)
hoped that the Jury would give the case a fair inves-
tigation, and unless they were satisfied on both the
points to which he had adverted, return a verdict for
the defendant.
Mr. Baron Huctocur summed up, and the Jury found
the defendant