The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1840-09-08 00:00:00

LIVERPOOL SUMMER ASSIZES

NISI PRIUS COURT.-FRIDAY

THE MILITARY ASSAULT AND RESCUE AT WIGAN

At the sitting of the court this morning, Mr. Crompton
said he had to show cause against a rule nisi, for an attach-
ment obtained against the defendant, Mr. Adolphus Fraser,
for a rescue, at Wigan, of the body of Mr. Plunkett, now in
prison at Lancaster. The learned counsel contended, that
Mr. Fraser had already been sufficiently punished for the
offence and public justice satisfied; that the body of Mr.
Plunkett having been eventually taken, the plaintiff (Mr. J.
S. Stubbs, of Manchester) had had his remedy as a privatr
individual, in an oppressive manner, and at an unnecessarily
late period after the offence. He submitted that it could
answer no purpose but that of throwing costs upon the de-
fendant ; that the issuing of an attachment for contempt was
optional with the court ; and that this was not a case in which
the court ought to interfere.—Mr. Martin appeared in sup-
Full of the rule, and contended that the issuing of the at-
tachment on proof of contempt was a matter of course, and
that the court was bound to accede to the application. When
the application was argued on the merits, he should be pre-
pared to show that the application was not wanton or op-
pressive, but was in fact the only means the plaintiff had to
get at his debt and costs. He would assent, however, to the
enlarging of the rule, until nearer to the period of the de-
fendant's imprisonment; and 'applying for it in term time,
so as to allow both parties a full opportunity of being heard.
—The learned judge, after expressing his concurrence in the
view taken of the application by Mr. Crompton, acquiesced
in the arrangement. ~

PRESTON AND OTHERS V. FORD. •
The plaintiffs in this case are Mr. Robert Preston on his
own part, and Messrs. Jones and Dagley, as assignees to Mr.
Iferdman, bankrupt, formerly Mr. Preston's partner. The
plaint ffs, Preston and Herdman, were wine and spirit mer-
chants at Manchester, and the defendant is a publican in that
town. The action was brought to recover the amount of £27
odd, the balance of an account due from the defendant for
goods sold and delivered. The case possessed no interest.
The jury found a verdict for the plaintiffs for £26 lOs 4d.

PIXTON V. RHODES. •
This was an action brought by Elizabeth Piston, tenant of
T. J. Trafford, Esq., for the Croft Bank Farm, to recover
about £5O rent of the defendant, a farmer, to whom she had
let about 1,100 square yards of land. For the defendant it
was contended that he was not liable to the plaintiff, but to
Mr. Trafford, for the rent.—The jury found for the plaintiff,
damages £46 10s., there being a set-off of some £3 odd.

ALLEGED LIBELS ON A BEER RETAILER.
H AWLEY V. WA GG.—The declaration stated that the de-
fendant had published two libels of the plaintiff, and the de-
fendant pleaded not guilty. Mr. John Hawley, the plaintiff,
is a beer retailer at Greeuheys, near Manchester, and has
also been an excavator ; and this action was brought to get
compensation in damages for the libels in question. In Ja-
nuary last, the defendant, William Wagg, who is a police-
man at Staveley, in Derbyshire, came to Manchester, and,
amongst other places, went to the plaintiff's beershop, with
some of the Manchester police. The plaintiff was out, but
they told Mrs. Hawley that they had come to search the
house. She made no objection, and they searched, during
which procesg the plaintiff came in, found nothing, and went
away. Some time afterwards, ❑amely, on the 29th of Fe-

• .
contained one of the libels ; and, as that paper circulated in
Manchester and the neighbourhood, they had, it was illeged,
done great injury to the plaintiff in his business. The
libels in that paper, and in the Derbyshire Chronicle,
were the result of communications to reporters for those
papers, made orally by the defendant (Wagg) himself, and
appeared as news. That in the Courier was headed—
" Spirited and Successful Pursuit of a Thief." After stat-
ing that there had been many robberies in the neighbourhood
of Stavely, and that Wagg had been directed by the Staveley
committee of police to spare no expence to trace the thieves,
it went on to say, that Wagg, having some suspicion, ob-
tained a search warrant to search the house of Hawley, who
formerly lived in the neighbourhood of Staveley, but then
resided at Manchester ; and that in his house at Green Edge
IGreenheys], parish of Holme [township of Hulme], Wagg
found a quantity of property,—not, however, the produce of
the recent robberies,—which induced Wagg to leave Hawley
in custody. The article then related the circumstances of
the apprehension of a man named Platts.—The alleged libel
in the Derbyshire On onicle was in somewhat similar terms,
being headed,—" Dispersion of a Gang of Thieves, and Cap-
ture of one of the Leaders."—Mr. John George Portman,
sub-editor and reporter of the Derbyshire Courier, proved
that the defendant communicated to him the paragragh in
question for publication, which was read over to him, and he
said it was all right. The defendant, subsequently to its
publication, said if any one came to inquire about it, the
printers might give his name as the author.—Mr. Henry
Adams, editor of the Derbyshire Chronicle, gave similar evi-
dence as to the oral communication of the statement by Wagg

to him for publication in that paper. He subsequently
showed Wagg a proof, and Wagg said it was quitecorrect.—
Mr. Cyrus Alcock, superintendant in the Manchester police,
stated that he went with Wagg to search the plaintiff's house,
and on the way there he told Wagg that he he had known
Hawley and his house some years, and he thought him re-
spectable and honest. Witness was very sorry afterwards
that the search was made at all. No stolen property of any
kind was found.—lnspector Richard Green gave similar tes-
timony.—Mr. Brailsford, of the Brown Bull, Salford, proved
that he took the Derbyshire Courier; and another witness,
named Lowe, proved that he had read the paragraph aloud to
the company, and then he and his companions determined
amongst themselves not to go again for beer to the house of
Hawley, in whose neighbourhood they lived and worked.—
Robinson, another workman, gave similar evidence.—For the
defendant, Mr. Watson addressed the jury, admitting that
the plaintiff must have their verdict, but urging circumstances
in mitigation of damages.—The learned judge said there could
be no doubt that the defendant was the publisher of these
statements ; and it would be absurd to say that they were not
libels. He thought juries ought to deal liberally with plain-
tiffs in cases of libel of this kind ; and if it was once allowed
to defendants to escape, on the supposition that a man who
publishes what injures another is not to be civil!y responsible
for it, there would be an end to all free discussion. The de-
fendant, there was reason to believe, had not been actuated
by any malignant motives. This was one of a class of libels
which ought to arrest the attention of juries, being so parti-
cular and specific in statement. The jury found for the plain-
tiff, damages £2O.