Star.
London, England, 1827-08-30 00:00:00

ASSIZE j?;TTELLIGENC§.

WEITERN CIRcUIT.—BIIESTOL, Miran
nand. M01t... •
The Court sat at nine o'clock thii morning, and the
Ladies being excluded-from the Court, the fbllovring
libel case was called on
batrtnw b. ANTFOINV.
Mr. MANNINO stated that this was an baron against
the defendant for writing two ltbelloui letters reflecting
on the character of the plaintiff, one of which Was ad.
dressed to the plaintiff himself, and the other to the
plaintiff's father.
Mr. C. P. WILLIABIE said, that in this tine both the
plaintiff and defendant were surgeons. He had nothing
to impute to the defendant, except that he had lived
upon mistaken infbrmation, while, on the part of hii
client, he was willing to admit that hii conduct had
been such as demanded an apology, but by no theani
justified the attack that had been made upon his cha-
racter. Mr. Anthony, owing to circumstances, wag
obliged for a time to leave his patients, and he pitched
upon the plaintiff to fill the situation of visiting them
while he himself was absent. Unfortunately for Mr.
Britian, there was a servant in Mr. Anthony's house of
the name of Pbsebe Yates, who, though but 16 years of
age, was of so precocious a disposition and temperament
as to be most forward in her advancements to his client.
Such being the case, it was impossible that he had corn.,
mined the crime which was the groundwork of the pre:-
sent libel, for he should be able to shew that the girt
was. in the habit of peeping into his room, laughtnge
and then running away, and that, in another instance,
she had gone into his bed-room while he was in bed,
and stripped the clothes off his person, so as to leave
it naked. After this the Jury would know how to
appreciate the charge that he had twice attempted to
•iolate this young woman. The Learned Counsel how
stated publicly, that his client had no feeling against
Mr. Anthony, he had no desire to dip his hand into
that Gentleman's pocket—aU that he wished was to
give the young woman an opportunity, if she dared; to
come into the witness box, and repeat on oath the state•
ment she had made to injure his charac er. No doubt.
it .was a dangerous thing for him to have done what he
had ventured to do, for certainly there wit. cause for
apprehension, that a woman who bad *del as be had
stated would not hesitate to confirm her sta anent, even
though it should perjure her up to her lips. That, how.
ever, was the die, and his client was determined V,
stand the hazard. Mr. Williams was willing to admit
that the risk he ran wa. highly dangerous ; but never.
theless he could not but applaud the courage of his.
client. He came into Court for no-other purpose but
to refute a charge which, if left alone, wou'd blast his
future character ; and he did trust that the Jury wouid
see enough to satisfy them, that though this young fr lend
had acted imprudently, in toying with suds a girl, yet
that such an imprudence was by no meabs an adequate
justification for the publication of a libel that attri.
buted to Mr. Brittan a course of conduct so unprinci.
pled and improper.
Charles Bigg Chewers examined by Mr. MANNING—.
I called upon defendant three months since, with the
letters in question. He admitted that he had addressed
them to the father of plaintiff. I said Mr. Britian would
be satisfied with an apology.
Cross-examined by Mr. Sergeant Wirria—LDefendant
did not tell me that the letters were in answer to or e he
had received. I am plaintiff's attorney ; the 8y covers
are torn off these letters. I do not know what has be.
corned them. The advertisement was to be put in the
newspapers--defendant told me that I mu,t refer to
Mr. Miles and her housekeeper. He said the young
woman had been an orphan placed in his house by Mrs.
Miles under sixteen years of age. He said that plain.
tiff had been in his house for a short time, while he was
absent, to attend his patients, and that when he returned
home he was informed by the housekeeper, that the
young woman bad complained to her, that plaintiff had
attempted to commit a rape on her, and that on hear.
ing that he had sent a messenger to plaintiff. to desire
him to quit the house; and that upon that the plaintiff
had quitted the house; and that this transaction took
place in 182.5. He also told me that he had tendered
the greatest kindness to the plaintiff during the period
that he was practising under him. That was his answer
to my request for an apology, adding that he would
rather die than make an apology. I don't know how
long Mr. Peart has left Mr. Anthony's service.
The letters were then read. The first one ran thus s

address, but I have not done so. My advice to you Is to quit this '
neighbourhood immediately, u I cannot tell where this affair may
end.—lam,&e.
CHARLES ANTHONY.
I have felt it my duty to tell your father the whole of this inns-
action.
This was the plaintiff's ease.
Mr. Sergeant WILDS asked his Lordship whether he
thought these was enough of malicious publication to
go to the Jury on the record?
The Cm's' Justrez said, that he thought the case
was pretty clear. There certainly was, however, a point
for the Jury to decide—whether the letter had been sent
to the father through malice, or as a friendly warning
to plaintiff, to get out of the way of the prosecution ?
Mr. Sergeant WILDS said, that he could have no
reason to complain of the mangler in which his Learned
Friend had stated the plaintiff 's case, for he had can-
didly stated, that if the charge was without foundation,
Mr. Anthony was at least misled. He had, however,
to complain of the conduct of the attorney, who chose
to take the course of a personal application inste id of a
Written one. It, however, gave him the advantage of
remarking upon the answers of Mr. Anthony, when
taken on the moment without any consideration or any
study. Mr. Anthony was applied to to make an apo-
logy--a very cheap mode to avoid the present suit, if a
person was withcsut honour and without truth. At all
times an action for a written slander was a most perilous
affair, but there were occasions when to apologise, while
it would do nothing to clear the one, would have done
every thing to have stigmatised the other. He was
addressing men of a certain time of life, and he was
therefore before the best possible tribunal to judge of
the conduct of Mr. Anthony. The character of a me-
dical man is above all others of consequence. Mr. An-
thony was the master of a family—a highly respectable
lady, Mrs. Miles, had put into that family an orphan,
under 16 years of age, where she might be under the
immediate observation of Mr. Anthony s sister. What
spoliation could be more vile or reprehensible than the
spoliation of such a female? Mr. Anthony left his
house in the care of the plaintiff, but no sooner does he
return than he hears of the violation of that house by
the plaintiff. On this, what was the conduct cf Mr.
Anthony? It was quite evident he was indignant on
hearing it. What did he do? Did he whisper it to
others, keeping it concealed from the plaintiff, or did he
instantly shew his indignation by desiring Mr. Brittan
to quit the house? Could the most delicate or the most
honourable act with more propriety? Now what was
the conduct of the plaintiff? . .

Mr, C. F. WILLIAMS here interrupted. the Learned
Sergeant. He said, that after what his Lordship had
stated, and knowing as he did, that his Learned Friend
was labouring under severe indisposition, he thought
that he should be best doing his duty to his client and
to the Court, in consenting to a nonsuit.
The CHIVE JUSTICS said, that he thought Mr. Wil-
liams had adopted a very wise course. There certainly
was a very small fact, and that fact he should have left
to the Jury, for he trusted that he should never intrude
himself upon their province. The present course, how-
exer, was certainly preferable, as it at least left the
character of the plaintiff in the same state as it was when
he came into Court.

The plaintiff was accordingly nonsuited.
AUGUST 29.
WHITE V. SODEN.
- -

Mr. SMITH opened the pleadings in this case. It was
an action against the defendant for uttering slanderous
words against the plaintiff's character, in which he im-
puted to him a felonious assault upon the person of a
little girl, under 12 years of age.
Mr. Sergeant WILD/ addressed the Jury for the
plaintiff, and said, that his client had come into Court
to refute the imputation which had been brought against
him by defendant, which, if not refuted, would injure
his character for ever. The defendant having made
the charge in the most distinct manner in the hearing
of a Gentleman whom he was about to call, the present
action was begun, and from that hour to the present no
attempt had been made by the defendant either to ex-
plain away or to justify the words which he had uttered,
and now he had simply pleaded not guilty, meaning,
as he understood, to deny that he had even used the
words; but according to the Learned Sergeant's in-
structionr, he should be able to prove most satisfactorily
that the words had been uttered, and in that case, the
question that the Jury would have to consider woul.l
be, what amount of damages they should award to the
plaintiff for the very unjustifiable attack that had been
made upon his character.

Mr. William Fortescue Quick was then called, to
prove the plaintiff's case. I reside in College-street,
and know both the plaintiff and defendant. On the
21st April last, plaintiff was standing at my door, when
the defendant crossed over to him, and some angry
language passed between them. I did not bear all that
Was said, but I heard the defendant say. " I never com-
mitted a rape on a child under 12 years of age," on
which plaintiff said, " Did lever?" Defendant replied,
•' I never did." There was then a pause for two or
three minutes, after which, defendant, apparently much
irritated, added, " You fellow, you have committed a
rape on a child under 12 years of age; I have heard it
from your own men, and I can bring the father of the
child to prove the fact.* This I heard him repeat twice..
Cross-examined by Mr. ERSKINE—This conversation
took place between three and six in the afternoon; 1
was standing at my own shop door ; defendant had
previously lived its my house, but there was not at that
time a 134 carrying any thing out from my shop that
belonged to him ; detendant was much irritated through-
out, but plaintiff was quite cool ; there was no other
person near when the words were uttered; no one
within 30 or 4.0 yards; plaintiff did not previously say,'
that I heard, to the defendant, " If you were an honest
man you should have the house, but you are a d—d
scoundrel;" I did not hear plaintiff call defendant a
scoundrel ; but I will not swear that he did not do so,
for I did not particularly attend to the first part of the

Mr. &scum for the defendant, said that it was
certainly impossible for any man to stand up in a
Court of Justice or elsewhere for the purpose of deny-
ing the seriousness of the charge made by defendant
against plaintiff; but, nevertheless, the Jury were
always bound to consider the circumstances under
which the slander was uttered. He was not there
to state that even under these circumstances the words
were justifiable; but at the same time, he had no
doubt that the Jury would remember how they
had been uttered, and the fact that the defendant
was so irritated that he really did not know that
he had uttered the words, nor did he believe that
he had until Mr. Quick had come forward on his oath
to state that such was the fact. He, however, was in CO
condition to prove that the words were not uttered, for
Mr: Quick bad told them that there was no other person

!present withia 30 or 40 yards of the spot. The jury'
should also take into consideration that if any injury had
arisen to plaintiff from the uttterance of those word., his
Learned Friend would hate been able to show that it jury,
but no such injury being shown, the jury were bound to
take it for granted that the charge had done Isis charac-
ter no harm. The defendant did not pretend to say he
would support the charge; and, therefore he was most
happy in saying that the plaintiff went out of Court
with his character entirely cleared. Under these ctr•
cumstances the Learned Gent. thought that full justice
might be done without awarding heavy damages
against his client, especially as he was but a tradesman
in a middling station of life, with a family looking to
him for their support, and, consequently, the costs of
the action alone would be almost ruinous to him.—The
Jury found a verdict for the plaintiff—Damages 51.

APPLEBY, Aua. 27.
The Assizes for the county of Westmorland com-
menced this day. The Commission was opened on
Saturday. The calendar is unusually heavy for this
county, as it contains no less than nine prisoners.
Mr. Justice BAYLEY presided on the Civil Side, and
Mr. Baron fleLLocz on the Croton Side.
CIVIL Stns.—Before Nr. Justice BAYLIT.
POSTER O. AtKINS AND OTHERS.

This was an action to recover compensation in da-
mages for the injury suffered by the plaintiff in conse-
quence of an assault and false imprisonment by the de-
fendants. The defendants pleaded that they had been
informed and believed that the plaintiff had been guilty
of a felony. The plaintiff, in replying, joined issue on
the justification.
Mr. BROUGHAM stated the case to the Jury. It was
one which, from its aggravated circumstances, Mould
call for the heaviest damages at their hands. One of
the grossest outrages of which one citizen could be
guilty towards another, had been suffered by his client.
In cases like the present it was an excuse commonly set
up, that the party committing the injury was in some
situation or office in the gradation of justice, and there-
fore *sat no fair reason could exist for visiting him with
severe animadversion. lint here no pretence, even As un-
founded a one as that to which he alluded, could be
pleaded. About the begihning of last January a rob-
' berg had been committed in the neighbourhood of
Milnethorpe, in this county. On the evening when the
robbery took place, the prisoner by chance came to the
Royal Oak public-house, between the hours of six and
seven o'clock in the evening, after he had been to pur-
chase some cattle. He sat down by the kitchen fire,
called for a glass of ale, and prepared for bed. lie had
scarcely taken off his shoes when Scarfe, one of the de.
fendants, entered the kitchen, took up a candle which
was burning on the table, and flashed it in the plain-
tiff's face. As soon as he had done this, he directed
another man to wale)] him, and said, 40 This will
do." In a few minuses, Atkins and Humber, the
other two defendants, entesed, and immediately
handcuffed the 'plaintiff. In spite of his remonstrances,
they removed him into an adjoining room, and
searched his person, brit could find nothing on him.
During the infliction of this insulting injury, several
tradesmen were present. The Jury would naturally
demand what was the cause of such an outrage? The
sole pretended reason was, that the ilaintiff resembled,
in some degree, the person who had been since tried and
convicted of the robbery. The Jury, however, would not
allow such a mere pretence as that to pi event their giving
his client exemplary damages.
Witnesses were stalled, who proved the substance of
'the Learned Countet's statement ; and that the plaintiff
had not made the slightest resistance to the defendants
in their proceeding.
Mr. ALDERSON, for the defendants, contended that
the plaintiff had received no real damage, as he had
been liberated within half an hour after he had been
taken into custody ; and subm tted, that if persons in
the situation of the defendants were subjected to heavy
damages, it was more than probable the ends of justice
would be frequently frustrated. Tile Learned Counsel
then called witnesses, who stated that on the night in
question an old m tn. who had been robbed in the di-
section whence the plaintiff had come, described the
robber as a person ex ctly resembling the plaintiff. The
latter had also admit'ed his having been near the spot
where the rubbery war c ,mmitzed. It was also proved
that the plaintiff was really very like the man convicted
of having committed the rubbery.
Mr. BROUGHAM replied.
Mr. Justice BATLEY, in summing up, observed, that
as it did not appear that the defendants had ever seen
the plaintiff betwe the transacti n in question, there
was no room for attributing much malice to them. The
Learned Judge left it for the Jury to say whether they
thought the defendants had or had not acted from a
conscientious belief that the plaintiff was really the per-
son whom they were pursuing as a felon.
The Jury having deliberated a few minutes, returned
a verdict for the plaintiff—Damages, One Shilling.

CRAW* Stor.—(Before Mr. Baron Ilin.LocK.)
James !$l'P/person and George Williams, two young
men of the ages of eighteen and nineteen, were charged
with the commission ut a burglary in the house of a per-
son named Gateside, on the 18th of last June.

The evidence produced proved that the house of
the prosecutor had been left quite safe on the night
in question. The next morning, when the servants
got up, it was discovered that the parlour window
had been broken open, and a cheese and a silver
cup removed. On making inquiries in t►te neighbour-
hood, it was learned that the prisoner Williams had
been seen linking about the premises on the preceding
evening, and subsequently to join another man. These
'two were subsequently seen on the road towards the
prosecutor's house, at three o'clock in the morning.—
These circumstances led to the apprehension of the pri-
soners. On NlTherson was found a quantity of cheese,
which the prosecutor swore to be his propetty ; and a
pair of this prisoner's shoes were found on the other.
.I'Pherson also pointed out to tire constable who appre-
hended him, where be could find the silver cup which
had been stolen.

The Jury found both the prisoners Guilty. Sentence
of Death recorded.

Joseph tiartky, aged SO, was placed at the Bar, un-
der a charge Of Dtraling a mare, the property of the
lie•. Wm. Railton, of Cumber north, near Huddersfield,
in Yorkshire.

From the statement of the witnesses, it appeared that
the prisoner had been seen riding the mare through
Appleby, when his appearance exciting some suspicion-,
he was followed. When he perceived that persons were
watching bhp, he put the snare into a field, and at-
tempted to run away. After some resistance, he was
secured. He afterwards confessed that he had stolen
the animal, and requested that an intimation of the fact
might be sent to the reverend owner.
The prisoner pleaded his great distress as a reason

for cominitti:)g the crime.—The Jury ft.und him (udty.
and judgment of Death was record:d against t int.
Edward William I lodgson was indicted for feloniously
uttering certain forged notes, he knowing them to be
forged, with the intent to deli aud Launcelot Wharton.
Other counts charged him with an intent to defraud Sir
Wm. Forbes and Co. bankers, at Edinburgh.
The following were the facts of the case f—ln the
morning of the 10th of last May, the prisoner, who is a
publican at Orton, in this county, called at a publ c
.house about two miles distant, and asked for sonic re.
freshmen,. He tendered, in payment, a bank note of
the Edinburgh Bank, and received the difference in-
change. He then asked the landlady to change him
another note for the same amount, which she did. On
inquiries being made, both turned out to be forgeries.
Tile prisoner then Kent to another public house, kept
by a ltvTrs. Taylor. He there called for a glass of brandy
and water; in payment he gave a sixpence, saying at
the same time that he was dispos 4 to take another
glass if they would change him a note. Mrs. T. agreed
to change it, on his assurance that it was quite good, as
he had that morning received it from Wak.fiAd's Bank.
Her suspicions, however, being excited from having
heard that a large number of forged notes were in circu-
lation, instead of changing the note, she related what had
passed to a Magistrate, in .an adjoining room. The pri-
soner was then stopped, and the note was discovered to
be a forgery. On searching him a great quantity of
silver was found on him; he said he had received the
note in payment for a horse he had sold at Dumfries
that day. He was also proved to have uttered five other
forged notes to a publican at Cleburn, and a grocer at
Strickland. It was in proof, besides, that he had passed
by a feigned name of " John Gilson, of Hunton.'
The Jury immediately returned a verdict of Guilty.
Mr. Baron HULLOCK, in passing sentence of Death,
told the prisoner that is must not entertain the slightest
hopes of mercy. The law must take its course.
The Grand Jury ignored the bill against John Miller,
for the murder of his wife, by throwing her into a river.