Star.
London, England, 1828-08-30 00:00:00

ASSIZE- INFELLIGENOE:--

LANCASTRR, Ave. 27.
Canww COUST.BrfOre Mr. illitiCC BATLItY.

James lialdmin, a resiteerrde-kok,og man, aged 50.
was placed at the bar, on the charrle • f having wilfully
and maliciously, with a certrn knife, rt, uck, stabbed,
and cut James Kenyon, with intent to murder him,' at
Spotland.
The pror•cotor, it appeared, was at the !rinse of an
acquaintaiice, at Spotland. on the day in quer:inn.
About twelve at night, however, some reason induced
him to go out of the house into a field, situated near at
hand. He there found the prisoner lying, apparently
drunk, on his back. He spoke to him fir the purpose
of rousing him. Immediately the prisoner slatted up.
and told the prosecutor he had a knife in his hand, and
if he spoke to him, he would kill him with it. The
prosecutor, however. spoke to him again, and the pri-
soner instantly wounded him severely in the calf of the
leg ; he then made the best of his way to the house, out
of which he had just come, and shut the door. In a
few minutes he was followed. by the prisoner, exclaim-
ing that he would tut the throat of the man he had jest
wounded. These were the facts proved on the put of
the prosecution. _

Mr. l3aowN, on the part of the prisoner, called a
woman named Scholes, who proved that in one account
of the transaction which the prosecutor had given, be
had said that he had taken the prisoner by the waist.
band of his small-clothes, and thrown him into the dirt.
hole near them ; that then a fight took place between
them, and on that occasion the prisoner wounded him
in the way above described.
A number •f witnesses were called by the prosecu-
tor's Counsel, who had been present at the time when
it was alleged this different account had been given by
the prosecutor, but they had nut heard any such varia-
tion.

Mr. Justice BATLIT left it for the Jury to say whether
they believed the account given of the transaction 'by
the prosecutor on the present occasion, nr whether, from
the partial contradiction given by the witnesses last
called, the witness Scholes might not have been mis-
taken. If they thought the account now given by the
prosecutor was a true one, they would find the prisoner
guilty ; if they had any reasonable doubt in their minds,
they would of course give him the benefit of that doubt.
The Jury having consulted a few minutes, returned
a verdict of Guilty. - -
, Mr. Justice Baytav then remarked, in very strong
terms, on the highly improper manner in which the pri-
soner bad conducted himself. He understood, however,
that it was only while under the influence of liquor that
his conduct was so violent. Although the law rendered
him liable to be put to death, he should only direct
death to be recorded against him. Further inquiries
would be made with respect to his general habits of
life, and their results would guide him in the represen-
tations proper to be made to his Mikity.

Oyu. Sum—Before Mr. Baron Hou.ocir.
BREACH OF FRONTS' OF MARRIAGE.

DUCKWORTH V. JOHNSON.

This was an action to recover compensation in da-
mages fcn‘ the injury done to the plaintiff, in conse-
quence of the defendant making a promise to marry her,
which he afterwards refused to fulfil.
Mr. J. WILLIAMS and Mr. ALDSRSON were retained
for the plaintiff; and Mr. BROUGHAM for the defendant.

Mr. ALDERSON opened the. pleadings.
Mr. J. WILLIAMS stated the case to the Jury. The
present action was brought to obtain at the hands of
the Jury something like reparation for the injury which
the defendant had inflected on the plaintiff. The plain-
tiff was the daughter of a small manufacturer, and the
defendant an overlooker of colliers. An acquaintance
having been formed between them, proposals v ere made
by the defendant in 1825 to the plaintiff, which were
accepted. They even proceeded so far as the. purchase
of the license. However, subsequently, without assigning
any cause, the defendant thought proper to break•off
the connection, and marry a woman named Mutts
Holt. The plaintiff's rightof action, of course, taccitried
at the moment this marriage took place, but from some
cause which he could not explain she had slept on her
rights since the year 1825. The case would be hid
before them by the witnesses he should call, and they •
would, he was sure, think her entitled to ample com-
pensation.
Margaret Deickworth.—l am a younger sister of the
plaintiff; there are four iii family besides myself; the
defendant visited my sister as an accepted lover, from
1822 to 1825 ; I heard that be was going to be mar-
ried to Martha Holt in 1625, and I spoke ti him about
it ; he said, you know I can marry no other than your
sister; he repeated the same obseriation in the Decem-
ber following, but in two days•alterwards -he married
his present wife, Martha Holt..

Cross-examined by Mr. BROUGHAM—My father does
not keep a shop; I have a brother, Louis Duckworth ;
Mr. Thickness is James Johnson's (the defendant's)
master; the defendant is a labourer; he is paid wages,
believe; he is an overlooker of colliers ; he goes down
the pits in a basket, I believe—(laaghter); Mr. Thick-
ness brought lace to my brother's; Alice Duckworth,
the plaintiff, is a Catholic, and so is defendant; the
never did refuse to be married by a Protestant Clergy-
man; I never said that I wished the defendant might
be smashed down the coal pit as small as meal ; I never
said I would have their case tried if it cost 1,0001. nor
any words to that effect.

The Rev. Edward Hill—l am a Surrogate; James
Johnson, the defendant, obtained a iicense (tom me in
the month of October, 1825 ; the affidavit he made for
that purpose is dated le 14th of October, 1825.
Here the plaintiff's case closed.

Mr, BROUGHAM then rose to address the Jury on the
part of the defendant. He must confess he never saw
a mote scanty case for damages brought into Cou►t in
the course of his life. The Jury would, no doubt, have
observed the manner in which his Learned Friend -had
introduced this case to their notice. He told them that,
in his experience, which was not short in these matters,
he (Mr. B.) meant as Counsel—(laughter), that he had
observed, generally, a great disposition to avoid,—at
least with those who had any knowledge of conducting
these causes—any general observations on the nature of
the case, as having no kind of effect, and in fact leading
to no kind of result, and consequently perfectly bootless.
For every case depended merely on its .parlitulas cir-
cumstances; and certainly there was a great peculiarity
in this ease, which had pressed on his friend (Mr. J.
Williams) from the beginning to the end et the CAM: It
hung about him like a millstone. "He could not explain,"
his Learned Friend said, how it was, or what WAS the
cause of it; but somehow or other this good ,woman
had slept upon her remedy, and did not bring her action
as speedily as she might: Certainly she had not. .For
the cause of action, if, indeed, there were any, had arisen
in the year 1825—and yet he need not tell the Jury
that they were now trying it far on in the year 1828.
She had certainly bad a very long -nap. His Learned
Friend could give no account whatever how it was,
that, displeased ai she was-from not gaining possession

of her dusty swain, who they had heard was in the
habit of going down into the, coal-pit in a bucket, she
had submitted to the wrong she had suffered--had al-
lowed her excited feelings to remain in the uns.ititfac-
tory state which had been described—how it
brought to her knowledge, in fact, all of a sudden, and
she was awakened to the sense of her wrong,, and had
thus became a plaintiff instead of a wife, and found
herself among lawyers instead tf being in the arms of
her lover. If there had been nothing else in the case,
his Learned Friend would have left it for them to dis-
cover why it was that a woman in this situation should
lie by for such a length of time before she even thought
of taking one step in furtherance of the remedy which
she sought by the present anion.' There was, however,
a little explanation of this affair given by the witness who
had already been called before them. She had said
something of love, though she had spoken nothing
. of the lace ; the love the plaintiff bore the defendant
she had mentioned, but nothing of the laws to the
plaintiff's brother. Louis Duckworth had somehow
or other lace brought against him. That was ascribed
to the defendant ; and 'then she instantly brought,this
action against Johnson, the plaintiff. This was mani-
festly not for any injury sustained by herself; but be-
cause a supposed injury had been done to her brother.
His Learned Friend feat ing that something might come
out, that some witnesses might remember what others
forgot, had left the whole case resting on the testimony
of Margaret Duckworth. The Jury must- be led to
suspect that there was some connection between the
bringing of this lace and the present action. But they
would lose .111 wonder at the present action being de-
fer red so long, when he told them why this Marriage
had not taken place. This would, in fact, entitle him
.to a verdict in favour of his client. He would prove
that his client had always been perfectly ready to marry
her, as he had promised—that it was broken off on her
account. They had beard, on the part ache plaintiff,
of some difficulty to the marliage, with respect to the
Catholic Priest. Now the delay consequent on that
was perfectly consistent with his case. They would
find that if she would have been married by a Protes
taut Clergyman, which marriage in point of the law
of England was the only marriage worth a straw,
she might have been married to the present plaintiff.
They were. perhaps, aware that it was a form which
the members of the Catholic faith thought necessary,,
, that no Catholics ought to be married according to the
forms of the Protestant Church until they bad been
martied according to the forms of their own Chotch.
At this time the defendant was on bad terms with his
priest, Mr. Ewsham, and therefore he was unwilling,
and indeed absolutely refused to marry them. His only
alternative remaining, therefore, was the marriage by
the Protestant Clergyman, which marriage was the only
legal one. This she refused from conscientious motives,
with which be I ound no kind of fault, but she had surely
po right to blame him for the non-performance of a
promise which she had chiefly caused. If he could
prove this, be apprehended he should be entitled to their
verdict.
Elisabeth Spencer—l am a sister of the defendant ;
I know the plaintiff; I had a conversation with her in
the year 1825 ; she told me my brother was gone out
in a gig ; I said I supposed he was going to be married ;
. she said. ult is my own fault, for if 1 would have gore
to the Church he would have married me."
Eli:Moth Johnson—l am the mother of the delft-
dam; I know Alice Duckworth, the plaintiff; I spoke
with her on the subject of my son's marrilge: I said,
" I always told you he would marry Martha Holt;
ale said," the fault was mine, for it 1 had gone to
Church with him be would have married me: She
said he asked Mr. Ewsham to marry them, and he
:would not, as he would not comply with the rules of
the Church. I said. 8, you may be as well without him."
Peter Arabin-1 spoke to Martha Duckworth about
the marriage of the defendant, and she said, u 1 hope
the moment be puts his foot into the basket, the rope
may break, and he law be smashed as small as oat.
meal." I said, " No, you don't say to." She said,
u.Ye-, but I do, and you may go and tell the poor devil
so." . I think he is paid about IL a week wages.
. Mr.J. WILLIAM:I6es replied. 'He contended that
or far from what had been proved on the putt of the
defendant dm:teasing the plaintiff's claim to d.mages,
it increased it. Here was a man. actually going to
procure a license tomarry the plaintiff, entertained the
idea throughout of casting her off. on the *flabby, mean,
shuffling pretencenow beenghtfixward before the Jury.
.He.was well swam that sdch-ra form was prescribed,
rbythe religios art the plaintiff. and himself, as the pre-
miers Marriage, according to the. Catholic ritual. He,
therefore, made hit promise subject to that condition,
and it was only by such means as he chose here to
employ that be could free himself from its obligation.
So far. from this contemptible subterfuge freeing him
from the consequences of its breach. he hoped that they
would regard it as a reason for their giving still higher
damages.
, Mr. Baron BULLOCK summed up. He remarked that
there did not appear to be any reason to doubt that a
promisehad bear made by the defendant. The question
Was then, had anything occurred which could legiti-
mately dispense with his fulfilment of that promise ?,
Although Mr. Ewsham had refused to solemnise the
userriege ceremony according: to the Catholic form. it
.did not appear from any evidence, that an application
had been made to any other Priest for his interference. j
Mr. Ewskam himself, too, had not been called to prove
the facts of the case. If, on considering these circum-
stance% thop were of opinion that the plaintiff was en.'
titled to a verdict, they were nest to determine thee
amount of damages which they would award. After
the greet period of time which had bees suffered to
elapse before the bringing of this action, and as the
evidentsproved the defendant to be only in the seceiFt
of a.peond a week, they would probably not. think the
damages might to be very large. The case was in their
hoods, and they would dispose of it as seemed most
comment to justice.
The Jury, after a few minutes' consultation, returned
a verdict foe the plaintiff—Damages, len Pounds; costs
Forty Shillings.
PALACE COURT, Amoy no
IOMPUTZ V. lItILLY.
This was an action for slander. The defendant pleaded
the gemeal issue.
Mr. hAneocx stated the case. The plaintiff was.
a Veatiemaa who had always borne an irreproachable
character, and the defendant was a saddler and harness,
maker, residing in Finsbury-place. The plaintiff had
no* to complain of one of the most atrocious acted's
that ever was made upon the fair fame of any-iodiviC
deal, and the Learned Gentleman said he felt happy
that rice and luxury had not yet gone so far in this
emsetry as to say that character was not useful and
necesiary. Let the Jury then examine their own minds.
and theirfeelings-would at once answer, that no man
keeld or ought with impunity to use thelangtrage which
the defrodalt in this action was charged with applying
to the plaintiff. It would be unnecessary to waste the
this of the Court and the Jury by a kogtheaed

address; for if (s sid the Learned (lentlemar) 1 were to
speak for three hours, I do not think that hi any re•
marks of mine I could add to the enormity of the de.
teudant's offence. The slanderarus language of tie de-
fendant would speak its own t ontlennato ion. It would
appear in evidence, that whilst the, plaintiff's servant
was proceeding down Chancery-lane in his master's
g;g, he was met by the defendant, who accosted him in
these words" What, are you and your master still on
town ?" The next question went a step higher, until the
last inquiry crowned t'ywhole—'• What (continued the
defendant) ate n. t you and your master hanged yet
Who did you and your master do out of that gig
in which you are now sitting ? Why do you wear
that coat with a crest on your button? You are
no servant—you ate a partner with your pretended
master, and you go about swindling together. He
has rohbed me of 1001 worth of harness, and you may
tell him I have said so; I'll pull you both up together ;
your Master is a notorious thief; he has been guilty of
many felonies, and has compromised them to prevent
his being transported; he is a felon." This was the
slander, of which the plaintiff justly complained; and
as long as character was dear to man a Jury would
prevent scoundrels from .using such language in the
public streets. It would. theLearnedGentleman thought,
be an insult to the understanding of the Jury to attempt,
to aggravate the offence which rendered the present
action necessary; and he only regretted that. consis-
tently with the jurisdiction of this Court, they had been
obliged to limit the damages to 191. 10s.
Samuel Andrews was then called and examined—He
proved tbat,on the %A of June last, heawas present in
Chancery-lane when the plaintiff's servant, whose name
is Spurting. was addressed by the defendant in nearly
the very words stated by the L-arned Counsel.
On his cross-examination} by Mr. Ross, the witnest
said, I am a wire-merchant; I am frequently passing
through Chancery-lane—indeed, I may say, five days
out of the seven ; I reside at No. 13, Lambeth-place ; I
knew the plaintiff. Mr. Gonsperts, for about six or eight
months; but I never accepted bills for him or drew
bills on him, but I have frequently sold him ale and
cider; I 'sever saw Spurting dressed otherwise than as
a servant ; the affair took place between Cursitot-street
and Symond's•inn.
This was the case for the plaintiff.
Mr. Ross took a preliminary objection, namely, that
there was no evidence of the slanderous words having
been spoken within the jurisdiction of this Court—that
was to say, in the City of Westminster, in the County
of Middlesex. Chances y-lane being within the walls of
the City of Lond.in.
The Lear ed JUDGE overruled this objection.
Mr. Ross then submitted that the plaintiff must be
nonsuited, i asmuch as the words imputed to the de-
fendant cutatiined no substantial charge of felony. as
stated in the declaration. The whole contest of the
words went no farther than to convey a charge of swim'
ling. The Learned Gentleman contended that altht:ugh
the defendant, in the ebullition of passion, and with
irritated feelings, might have applied the epithet thief"
to the plaintiff, still that as he had coupled that express
sion with a generalcharge of swindling, the particulat
charge of felony must merge into that.
The junta was of opinion that there was a substan
tive charge of felony contained in the words proved to
have been spoken by the defendant.
Mr. Ross said, that as the point of law was against
him, he trusted that the Jury, after an attentive consi-
deration of all the circumstances, would think that
justice was on his side. The Jury. he hoped, wpulsi not
higd doer* the defendant to any particular epithet
wbitb be spigist have used in a moment of passion,, but
,world 'infer from the words. takers together, wh. t everil
bystander rusts have inferred, that,he meant to charge
the plaintiff, aith being a swindler only. It the defen•
dant had taken up goods from different tradesmen;
without ever intending to pay for them—if he had
swindled the defendant and others, surely he could have
no character to lose; and although the Learned Couto
*el was now precluded, wider the plea of general issue,
from proving the truth of the charges, yet he could and
would prove the plaintiff Gompertz to be a swindler,
and that his character was not worth one farthing.
Mr. FLANAGAN objected tO the admissibility of any
such evidence, as there had not been a plea of justifies.
_don put upon the record. To give such evidence for
the purpose of mitigating damages, would be to admit,
in this state of the cause, a justification, although under
a different name. It would, moreover, be taking an
unfair advantage of the plaintiff, who, from the plea
pot in by the defendact, did not expect any such evi-
dence, .and therefore was not prepared with witnesses to
rebut it.
Mr. Ron admitted that there was a sort of intermix-
ture between justification and mitigation, but said than
by producing evidences: the plaintiff's being a swindler,
he did not mean to prove the truth of any p..rticular
felony against him. The object merely was to show
that the plaintiff bad lost nothing. because he, in fact,
had no good character to lose. The Learned Gentleman,.
in support of this view of the law, cited the case of Lord.
Leicester in 2d Campbell, in which it app- ated that.
Lord Mansfield had, under the plea of general issue,
permitted the defendant to prove rumours of the offence'
which the libel imputed to the plaintiff.
After some discussion upon this point,
The Learned JUDGE ruled, that the evidence offered.
by Mr. Ross was admissible in mitigation of damages;
but he would give the plaintiff permission to move for
a new trial, if it should subsequently appear that'he
was wrong in this decision.
Mr. Ross was about to call evidence to that effect,
when another discussion took place, the result of which
was, that the Learned Judge altered his opinion, and
refused to receive the evidence proffered by Mr. Ross
in mitigation of damages.
.Mr. Ross then proceeded to address the Jury. His
hands, he said, were bound, but he hoped that hitting°,
would have little .di/lenity in showing the Jury what
the character of the plaintiff was. His Learned Friends
en the other side had adopted the old rule of stating
broadly and proving shortly. They contented them-
' selves with calling Mr. Andrews, when they might have
produced Spading, to whom the words were said to
have been addressed. Why not place Spurting in the
witnelf-box ? . He could best have told the Jury whether
the -charge made against his master was true or false.
He could have told the Jury whether his master had or
had not been three times a bankrupt, and whether he
did not owe between 30,0001. and 40,0001. He could
ban told the Jury. whether his master had or had
not watches upon his person for which he never paid.
He could liave told the Jury whether his master had or
bad on given two small bills to a tradesman, receiving
sew money for the difference between the amount and
the goods purchased, and whether those bills were not
afterwards prOtested.✓. He could have told whether his
master had ever compromised his character, or borne
that of a swindler: Spurliig could best have spoken
letribeta charges, and, it false, he could have cleared
She charactet of his friend.
Mr. FLANAGAN protested against the course which
ileilßess. was &Ming. 'After the -decision if the

Learned Judge, he had no right to state chilli ges which, I
it uue, he knew he would not be permitted to prove.
MI. Ross, under these circumstances, lett the case
altogether in the hands of the Jury, who' would judge
of the character r f the plaintiff as Well from the evidence
which he kept back, and sought to keep back, as from
that which had been received. tie trirsted dial, it Upon
a view of the whole case they Mid find a'single
hole, they would meet the justice of 't
e matter at l'asue
by giving the advantage o it to thndefendant.
The Learned Jonas summed' up ; end the Jury, after
a few minutes consideration, returned 4 veidict for the
plaintiff—Datnages. One Farthing.
Mr. Ross asked the Judge Inceetify, for the 'ayn't
of depriving tire plaintiff of his costs.
The Learned JUDGE said that 'be would consider as
to whether he would certify or not.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.

IHANUON►HOVSL

In the ease of the plate claimed by Sle. Cooper from Ur. Baylis
the pawnbroker, the Limo MATOS yettetdoy beard witnesses and
the arguments of Counsel. •
Several witnesses gave evidence as te the identity of the whole
Of the plate found in Mr. liaylis'a.two shops.
•
After hearing Mr. Adolphus and Mr. Alley,
The Data Alarms then directed Mr. Cope to OH' lap to Mr.
Cooper the property found in the city ; with respect to the plate
found in Poland-street, his Lordship strusid not issue any order fOr
the delivery of that, but Mr. Cope /pee it up to Mr. Cuitper wpm
receiving an locksmith y in the event of proceedings.
Mr. Baylis then signified that he iboold immediately proceed at
law for the recravery of the plate.