The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1854-04-04 00:00:00

MONDAY, APRIL 3.

BREA.CII: OV CON TRACT.—RAFFERTY.V. HAYES AND CO.
—This was an action to recover the sum of £44 3s. 10d.,
being theamount of the alleged difference between 100
tons of coal, contracted to be furnished by the defendants
to the plaintiff, at the rate of 18s. 6d. per ton, and the
value for which they would have sold in Dublin. From
the evidence it appeared that, on the 20th of October last,
the defendants, through an accredited party, contracted to
furnish,the plaintiff with 100 tons of coal, to be delivered
on the tbllowing Tuesday, alongside a steamboat on the
quay c€ 'the Trafalgar Dock. The money to be paid on
delivery of the coal. The coals were not delivered ; and
the action was brought to recover the above sum as the
loss•of profit which would have arisen through their sale
in Dublin. For the defence it was contended that no
vessel had been provided for the carriage of the coals, as
conditioned in the contract—His Lordship concurred in
this. view, and directed the jury to find a verdict for the
plaintiff, to the effect:that the coals had not been furnished
in terms of the contract ; but for the defendants on the
second and third issues, which were to the effect that no,
means of shipping the coal had been provided as contracted.
for by the plaintiff.
ASSAULT.—IRWIN V. MILL—The plaintiff in this Case,
was Thomas Hastings Irwin, and the defendant was Mr.
Mill, deputy chairman of the Liverpool Stock Exchange
Association. On the llth of February last, whilst the
plaintiff was in the room of the Stock Exchange, he was,
at the instance of the defendant, expelled from the room.
No personal violence was offered to the plaintiff, and, in
point of fact, the ejection was effected in the mildest
manner possible. For this ejection the present action
was brought. The question really at issue turned upon
the construction of a rule (No. 27) of the Stock Exchange
Association, which provides that, in the event of any mem-
ber failing to fulfil his pecuniary engagements, a com-
mittee of three members of the association, one chosen
by the defaulter, one by his creditors, and. one by the
association, shall make an examination into: his affairs,
and report to the association ; the party in the mean
time being suspended from transacting business on the
Exchange. At the end of last year the plaintiff became
unable to meet his engagements, and gave the usual
intimation of that circumstance. On this, a committee
was appointed to examine into his affairs and report.
The report, it would appear, had not been favourable to
the plaintiff, and a notice was posted in the room, inti-
mating that he had ceased to boa member of the Stock
Exchange. Subsequent to the posting of this notice, the
plaintiffentered the room of the association, and, on being
requested by the defendant to withdraw, he refused to do
so; the defendant then called the porter, and gave him
instructions to have the plaintiff removed. This was
done, as already stated, without any violence, and con-
stituted the assault complained of. For the plaintiff it
was contended that the rule only provided for the suspen,
sion of a member from transacting business on the Ex-
change, but did not contemplate the expulsion of any
member, and that, in point of fact, the plaintiff had
never ceased to be a member of the association, and, as
a member, he bad a right to be present in the room,
and that forcibly to eject him was an assault. The
plaintiff was examined at some length, and it turned out
that the report of the committee of inspection had
not been communicated to the plaintiff's creditors, as
provided for in the rule of the association. Under
direction of his lordship, the jury found a verdict for the
plaintiff, with 40s. damages, reserving the question as
to the legality of the expulsion of the plaintiff from
being a member of the Stock Exchange for consideration
of the higher court.
SUAREBBOZING CASE. °ZELL V. CORBET.—The
plaintiff in this case was a sharebroker in Liver-
pool ; and, in: August last year, he and the defend-
ant had been engaged in some share transactions, which
continued up to the end of October, at which time there
was an alleged balance due to the plaintiff, amounting to
£143 Os. 4d. It appeared that the plaintiff and the de-
fendant had been on intimate and friendly terms. On
rendering an account of the transactions, and claiming
the amount of balance above stated, the plaintiff had it
returned, with the words written across it, " Never
ordered the Leeds shares," thus, as it were, repudiating
the amount of commission charged upon the sale of
4000 worth of railway sharct‘k hilt still tacitly acknow,

ledging a sum of £llO 45., contained in the account, and
as part of which £2O was paid by him. For the defence,
it was contended that the whole of the transactions were
merely speculative and gambling transactions; that, in
point of fact, no bona fide sales or purchases of stock ever
took place as between the plaintiff and the defendant,
the latter never, in reality, having had any shares.
Evidence was given on both sides proving that the
defendant was a clerk in a merchant's office, and was
well known to be so by the plaintiff; it was also proved
that little or no money had passed between the parties.
His Lordship, in summing up, pointed out to the jury the
distinction existing between rash speculations and mere
gambling, in the sense contemplated by the recent statute;
and said, if the transactions which had been submitted to

their consideration were in their estimation such as to
bring them under the latter denomination, the plaintiff
could not recover; if, on the other hand, they were satis-
fied the transactions were bona fide, they must find for
the plaintiff, remarking that £ll6 4s. seemedtobe admitted
by the defendant.' The Jury, after a brief consultation,
returned a verdict for plaintiff, damage £96 45., being the
full sum claimed, minus the £2O paid, and the commission
on the £2,000 Leeds shares.
DISPUTED PAYMENT.—MACGILDOWNY V. GREGORY.
—ln this action, which was for the sum of £l5, being the
interest for one year of the sum of £3OO of money lent by
the plaintiff to the defendant, it appeared that the de-
fendant is married to a niece of the plaintiff, and that in
December, 1848, he lent the defendant the sum of £3OO,
and that some time after the latter granted a promissory
note for its repayment, along with interest, by annual
instalments. The first year's interest was paid, or offered
to be paid, by the defendant's wife, for which purpose she
tendered £l5, but at her own request was allowed to re-
tain £lO of it, to be repaid by her in a short time. The
£lO, it appeared, had, in point of fact, been repaid, but,
through some confusion in recollection as to dates and
circumstances, she also considered she had paid the next
year's interest. This latter fact was denied by the plain-
tiff, and hence the action. Evidence was given, and after
having been addressed by his lordship, the jury consulted
for a few minutes, and returned a verdict for the plaintiff
for the sum claimed, at the same time expressing their
conviction that no imputation as to the motives of the
defendant was in any way attributable.
The court adjourned at three o'clock, in consequence of
Mr. Justice Cresswell having to return to London.

NISI PRIUS COURT.—TUESDAY, MARCH 28.
(Before Mr. Baron PLATT.)

In Hodgson v. White and another, an action to recover
compensation for personal injuries received by an up-
holsterer, by the falling of a gate belonging to the de-
fendants, a verdict for £2OO was agreed to by consent.

ALLEGED BREACH OF A CONTRACT FOE lEON.—BULL
v. ROBINSON .—The plaintiff is an iron-master, at the
Ravendale-works, near Tunstall, Staffordshire, and about
the end of last year he entered into a contract to make
and supply to the defendant, who is a metal merchant in
Liverpool, a quantity of iron, to be delivered at different
times. Iron to the value of £1,325 was received by the
defendant ; about this there was no dispute ; but two
boat-loads, one sent on the 24th December and the other
on the 2nd January, were rejected on their arrival at Li-
verpool, on the ground that the iron Fas wholly unmer-
chantable, and for this alleged breach the plaintiff claimed
£555, or such damages as the jury thought him entitled
to. The defendant submitted that, even if a verdict were
given for the plitintiff, only ls. damages could be given ;
for all the compensation he could be entitled to was the
difference, upon the quantity refused, of the price per ton
at the time of contract and the refusal ; and in this case
there was no loss. There was a great deal of evidence as
to the iron-makers and merchants ; and it came out in

the course of the case that the defendant had a cross action
for non-delivery by the plaintiff. Vie jury retired about
twenty minutes before four, the casehaving occupied about
six hours. After half-an-hour's absence, they returned,
and stated that they were of opinion that the iron was not
merchantable at Liverpool or at Ellesmere Port. Verdict
for the defendant.
LIBELLING A SHIP-STORE DEA'LE'R—Meadows and
Another v:-Mottram was an action brought by Messrs.
John Meadows and Thomas Sampson, ship-store-dealers,
17, Strand-street, in this town, against John Mottram,
trading under the firm of A. Robinson, and Co., and a rival
in the same line of business, a few doors from the plaintiff's
shop. The libel complained of, which was cutting out or
reprinting a report of a police case from a newspaper of
November 4th,1853, and exhibiting it in his shop window.
The inquiry before the police authorities was as to the
quantity and weight of various kinds of provisions sup-
plied by the plaintiffs to a family of the name of Brooks,
passengers by the Marco Polo, on the 31st of October
last. The consequence of this was, that the plaintiffs'
business entirely left them. The defendant had been re-
monstrated with personally, and a letter from. Mr. Rymer,
solicitor, had been.addressed to him without effect, as the
report was printed in larger tye, and. again. exhibited,
headed " Caution to Emigrants." Mr. Hill, for the de-
fence, said that the defendant had done wrong to plaintiff
in continuing to exhibit this placard in his window ; and
informed the court that he now withdrew all imputation on
the plaintiffs' character. With this explanation and ac-
knowledgment the plaintiffs' counsel expressed himself
satisfied, and stated that, as his clients only sought to set
themselves right with• their neighbours, they would con-
sent to a verdict of 405.. This the jury found.
In Thompson v. Walsh, an action arising out of an
alleged illegal restraint, a vote was returned for the plain-
tiff : damages, £le.. 10s..

WEDNESDAY, MiacK 29.

LIBEL.—SIMIVALL V. MeCLELLIN.

This was an action to recover compensation for damage
alleged to have been sustained by the plaintiff, through
statements contained in a letter written by the de-
fendant, and published in the Liverpool Mercury in
November last. The plaintiff, Mr. Frederick Shri-
ven, professor of music in Liverpool, and residing at
Huyton, had been summoned at the instance of Jane
Wilcock, as the putative father of her illigitimate child.
Wilcock had lived in the house of the plaintiff as servant
of all work, at the time the alleged intimacy between her
and the plaintiff was said to have taken place ; and in one
of the hearings, under the summons of affiliation, (for the
case was adjourned oftener than once) a girl who had been
a fellow servant of Wilcock's made a statement as to re-
marks uttered by Wilcock relative to alleged familiarities
between her and a former master, named McClellan (the
defendant in the present action). This, the, plaintiff
averred, was done :merely to show the character of the
girl, and not in any degree to impugn the moral character
of the defendant, of whose person or habits he had not the
slightest knowledge. In the letter complained.of the de
fendant described the circumstances of the hearing before
the Magistrates,. and commented upon them, as well as
upon an accountgiven in the Northern Daily Times ; he
charged the plaintiff with being guilty of improper inti-
macy with Wilcock; and he made imputations of conspi-
racy and perjury as connected with the (now) plaintiff's
case.—The defendant pleaded not guilty, and a justifica-
tion; the justification comprising a recapitulation of the
statements in the letter, and alleging that theletter itself
was no morethan a fair comment upon. an. examination
before the magistrates.—ln his opening address, Mr.
Sergeant Wilkins, who was for the plaintiff, commented
at great length upon the value of an unimpeachable moral
character toone, who, like the plaintiff; . was engaged in
the tuition of young ladies, and who, if tainted in reputa-
tion, would not be permitted to enter, as . a teacher, into
any respectable seminaries or families. He also touched,
in forcible language, upon the vindittiveness, which he
maintained,. could alone have actuated the defendant in
publishing a letter of the nature alluded toi which con-
tained, among other assertions the following
There. was certainly no necessity to leer a word in
support. of the girl's claim, or in condemnation of the
coursepsursued by Mr. Shrivel/ and his witnesses. The
impression made upon the minds and consciences of all
present will never be erased from the memory. The
evidence on behalf of Mr. Shriven appeared to be of the
grossest character.
"It is impossible to convey to any one not present any
idea, of the character of the evidencegiven by the Shriven
conspirators. There was the semblance of falsehood in
every expression of feature, every gesticulation, and every
intonation of voice.
" Shriven and his witnesses had come there prepared
to, swear through thick and thin that the girl was scarcely-
ever sober ; but, in the harry of their arrangements, they
had forgotten to agree among themselves as to the details,
that each would have to swear to. Therefore, although
they all made oath most unblushingly as to the constant
drunkenness of the girl, they contradicted each other as.
to many important details."
He, the learned Sergeant did not find fault in thefirst
instance with the Mercury's report of the proceedings;
but how any paper or journal, laying any claim, to re-
spectability, assuming to be the censor of public morals,
setting itself up in this town as the leading jou,•rnal, (as
he supposed it did), and as the advocate of all that was
enlightened and for the public good,—how any journal,
laying claim to respectability, under any circumstances,
could lend itself to publish such an infamous letter he
could not understand. He supposed they were indemni-
fied. He supposed they were indemnified as, far as money
was concerned, But if the conductor of that paper
would condescend to take a hint from him (and very
probably he would deem it a condescension), he would
tell him that there was something against which money
could not indemnify him. If he wished• his paper to
take a high position and maintain a high, reputation, he
would take advice from him (Mr. Sergeant Wilkins), and
content himself with giving a fair report, without ap-
pending to that report, either in his own name or that of
any other person, such infamous comments as those to
which he was about to call the attention of the jury.—
The plaintiff, his wife, and several witnesses were called.
The plaintiff totally denied the truth of the charges
against him, contained in the libel ; and the other wit-
nesses stated, in substance,, that instead of being likely
to take liberties with a servant, the plaintiff was cold,
and rather harsh and distant towards them—that the
girl, Wilcock was charged for habitual drunkenness,
although otherwise an honest and good servant—and that
she had denied the truth of certain statements reflecting
upon the plaintiff, which was sent to Mrs. Shrivel',
and which had been written for her (Wilcock) and
in her name.—Mrs. Shrivall admitted that after
Wilcock left her service, in March, 1853, (having been
engaged in Jane, 1852), she gave her a character for
cleanliness, honesty, and being a good waiter at table.
Wilcock was discharged three days after being found so
drunk that her master had to be called to assist in getting
her upstairs ; but she was paid a month's wages. In
cross-examination, Mrs. Shrivall said that when the lady
called about Wilcock's character, she (Mrs. Shriven) sim-
ply replied to the questions ; nothing was asked or said
about the girl being sober or otherwise. Witness only
consented to give the character after Wilcock had called
upon her several times. At the last interview Wilcock
went on her knees, and begged for a character, as the only
means of saving her mother and herself from starvation,
Wilcock solemnly promising never to get intoxicated again.
Mr. Atherton, in his address for the defendant, denied
that his client was the volunteer in this matter he had
been represented to be. In fact, the girl Wilcock had
lived as a servant with his (Mr. McClellan's) mother, and
he was compelled to see so much of her general conduct
as to be utterly incapable of believing that she could be
so drunken or so dissolute as she was represented to have
been. He believed that she was unprotected while de-
serving of protection ; and looking at all the surrounding
circumstances, he believed that he did right in penning

__.......--....,......----......---_
q ev to
lbe
t
the letter and now coming into court to '° the cleo
learned counsel commented strongly uPen ,octer
wanitdnheseseasr
for the plaintiff, as to the giving of a goo" c"drukell'
Wilcock, although it was believed that she los dile
,gtuhe:lr
et hwaats
ge%edpgt
rasournedgafordr
ccloncitidoLur to toll,
i.
id
had been guilty of a sort of conspiracY orderaglins t;clr
Wilcock, by representing her as drunken,
in
tter of to
wage her credit as a reliable witness in the rel the cor,
affiliation.—The case for the plaintiff oceilPie" clad,
more than eight hours ; and when Mr. Atherton ceeil.,,,,nii•
his address for the defendant (it being about ti
fe,coe
nutes to six o'clock), his lordshi said that ag V.' foore
could not be concluded that night, there could be 11ddeds
fitting point at which to adjourn. His lord to
be doll
caution to the jurors, not to allow themselves ...1),,....0
into conversation on the matter during the evew"-`2'
court then rose.

THURSDAY, Mascu 30.
Mr. Baron Platt took his seat at nine o'clock.
LIBEL.—SHRIVALL V. McCLELLAS' the ti+
deuce for fortehewasclefreensdaumnted. this
srvirsruadiligini' tteuitilitilslt 411
1
oyy
plaintiff might have appealed against th;ir.
trates' order, and that he had not done so.-- 1, se.' 1
Wybergh, clerk to the magistrates at Liverllo4
notes taken by. himself of the evidence at ear
crow k
before the magistrates when the order was granteuefused
exami yned b Mr. Sergeant Wilkins: lle had r for tbr
give a copy of his notes to Mr. Evans, attorneYee
plaintiff. He had furnished a copy to the attebrwoall
the defendant, but only /after he had been silthat ttl
produce them in court. He would not swear „„a
were reporters present at the first exaraination;
verbatim copy of the notes he had read that vtoptet• l
which appeared in the Liverpool Mercury, watlootee'e
by him. This was in consequence of an app i•ogi 1/031
magistrates, by Mr. McClellan, at the second his nee 11;
complained of the improper introduction of Do mosel,„
the first hearing, and asked that in justice to
~Te,--41
full report should be allowed to go to the on' pat P.,,
)
Judge : Then you refused a copy to one sidle ;co s 111'"
gave a copy to the other, and you also supP on
publication.—Jane Wilcock, in her examination wall pet
declared that Mr.•Shrivall began to take liberties,,od tllse
about a month after she went into his service; '0" ile,.
he was always very free in speaking to her, °lett
Mrs. Shrivall was present. Her evidence 'Vat Der,,.5
given in affiliation cases. She never got dranTh,als
"
She refused to go to a oargeon, or to take soree he`''
Mr. Shrivall offered her. She left her service eii:fers;%
Mrs. Shrivall said she (witness) had been dali-t, 31,1
time, and would be unfit for the extra work fro
lodger, as was intended; but Mrs. Shriven ctonbat
her that they were not parting upon bad ternll'ter
Mr. Shrivall thought change of air would do 101 ute,.,
And she also said that if a young person wh!iflastl'
engaged for a fortnight did not suit, Mr. Shrivn‘,o.
willing that witness should return. Mrs. Shrnsfter,'s
mended her to go to Ireland to seeher mother. fag,
left she got a young man named Walter Nelson 'ruoil 907,
letter to Mrs. Shrivall—she could neither,
it td
write. Nelson read the letter to her, and '..„'ae
the words, "I am surprised to hear that Yon,_ a.s' for
e
take back Harriet [Kingsley, who was a wiw'sh he
plaintiff], after you calling her so meth ; ancia th'ira
a great deal to say about the master. She, saidiat 311,e
was keeping two. or three fancy women, ann —far
afraidof coming down stairs when he was' in istey;tie
his taking hold of her. She afterwards had an he* (0
with Mrs. Shriven, in the presence of Emir letter
then told Mrs. Shriven that all that was in t'aehrilP-10
true ; that she .had also told Harriet that Mr: ••-' .00 t(.),,5.
kissed' her in the bedroom, and that she svouldlla.
Shriven, went out, but returned alone ;
face if. he was fetched from the draw'ng' Ite'"
and then 03; seti#-
" You had better get a situation as soon as Yen /3 aieh
Pr.
will give you a character to any lady that cailsI 110 e, for
you deserve, and that will not be a bad one. itorie,
given you for sending the letter, and so has she
thing
acknowledgeda `c
what you've said." Witness never said that wsa
know what was in the letter, and that if thereof it. 4"0,
ytruwtohmoefn" al;shthe ftanhee
Shrivall oath, poi) P-i•
all never required' her to take an t
promise not to get drunk again; she never wen'auetilt4ea.
irL the rue her.
knees and begged for a character. She had ilet'weat
this, ever asked for a character ; and Wiwi' sh,e,,dr I"tfis,
Shrivall made an appointment to meet the ,i',beiegr„rhe
never was a syllable said about her (witness °oy. 1.-o,l*
charged for drunkenness, and drUlakenneBS,°rvier, cri•
witness was examined' as to many other h"e.di, PY,at
awtaswasnot awarttter.
circumstances upon. whieh Mr. and Mrs. Shric ixistao
eachmco eoitiahnerw.]
asShheerne never told ley, and other witnesses were examined for the ?tweet lila
Wednesday. The accounts were wholly at rtha to
_AA /en. a-
marry her; she never.said'anything of the p aid
effect ; she never made M °CI rt
*mention of r. the 0° ' aid 11°
to Kingsley. She never said anything of she
tioned M'Clellan's name to Mrs. Everson' 's
recollect that she ever mentioned Mr: %cells tescll,l,lr4
and she cogiwitsl'erti:eor,itil
any one. On one occasion; _when she went do sayetbia.o,
rooms, and saw the plaintiff, he refused tO "-oroahrt
her and she threatened; if he did not, she what Isrhea
young lady pupils and tell their rattinssaaias'u,a on
man he was.—Cross-examined by Sergeant sheby Ole
she came into court on Wednesday na.orn,„,"l her
a white straw bonnet; Mi. McClellan
~'""bettr
arm and led her out, saying that she ha 4 else' oil'
it ; she did so, but did not change anythina, teetot,
had found through life that she had had a baa tl)
she could not tell whetherit was morning, n oorl, 0"H • a
o.
when Mr. Shrivall first kissed her. It was abet,' .
after she went into his service. She never had anil iole:at
or love for Mr. Shrivall ; in fact, she Tether cm' sclo,l
It was against her will that the irnproPerY re it
took place. She screamed with all her might a„,„"aot eler
with all her might. Mrs. Shriven came hcanes;ythiata
o'clock; but witness did not cry or tell hiefiiat daY
what happened. She did her work as usus."-:—,flit. „fect
next morning she gave Mrs. Shrivall notice Lt°,,,,A, Pe'hosi
Shrivall persuaded her to stop. She had, in '''ne to as,
hatred for Mr. Shrivall ; but there was II i° °iler lij-10"1
she could make complaint. There was oni_AY if sbefoo
nurse, and it would have been rather awk"'—or• 'et
gone out, as there was no one to answer the do she 0(0
had asked, Mrs. Shriven would have refused ; by het
have gone without asking, and could not tell nied teer
not.—Re-examined When Mr. McClellan asLisg•
of court on the previous morning, she was fala'n
recoillooo
thing she had said had been front her °wiTieoli
and a quarter.] Several witnesses
[The examination of this witness ocenPie" - ge" sn
c
hours ° • as
examined. They contradicted, directly an,,teplej, an
".eret
that had been said on the other side, ae an
tween Wilcock, her mother, Mr. and °lrei;.cieg rfaeli• 3,;
others ; and they represented Wilcock as "*;a r
years sober, modest, and truthfal.—Mr. Pa,l9 ojetk!,4
the defendant, said that Wilcock lived With he he7ao er
about three years, while he was residing the'";it--hearist
widower. He never saw a nicer„handier seirgeted nee;
saw or heard of anything as to her being an, her_re,i
He never saw or heard anything contrarY°,),, Peresei
every respect honest, truthful, and trustw°T, st Pt TA
conducted himself in any way with the align ei aoa
towards Wilwek.--[Mr. Sergeant Wilkinsbet's wit
tPri
heard before the
to insinuate anything of the•sort.]—aae A; .10‘1
6th and 12th.of 'November of the proce"--aser,
magistrates; that the girt had no legal ads
„..„a iP
his own name had been most imprPerly draarohl,rete.
case. It was for these reasons he interfered. re ),,0r;
a report in the Northern. Daily Tides, heed
0,1
~sve
,1 ; Ile ot
his letteis—Cross-examined: He never aay.:,s,,
change her bonnet ; it was done by his sis'ohli''.aai• t
gave the Mercury any indemnity for theixeoanrjpir
his letter ; they had asked for none, and heres,,ioae, st:
tothe paper several times.—Mr. Sergeant N' 0;0 tat • '
ing, described,the defence as a shameless via atte all
insult to the understanding of the jurY, hetWerle,p
desecrate justice. Aa to the thecontradictioa cps
Leiehman and. Mrs. Shrivall, respecting , /Idea t°
Wilcock, there: waa no doubt that both hneoely
the truth ; but. Mrs. Shrivall was them o.redod to•
led what did occur, because she had ten the ate,'
portunity. of Wilcock, and was from thallberstiocoe''
if the question should be put, yet she ue le od 39'
that it was not: He attributed the ellargeohla tlire
to adesireto father .er guilt upon, a:rl.)
MC LO P'S be fo t, „lie
parently wealthy ~ who might betrthetiletcrte-
assdrter
act of her paramour ; and he appeale
before:the libel complained of was blamewrittenlessest
must not have been—while perfectlY thoaeeft j
Wilcock's position—at least actuated 11,„ .4000!es,
sonal malice and malevolence towards t•L`..'l;b chn"of 'to
premium• were given to the making 01 svirtaes pre
~a
man would be safe. Even the exalts head i)
Gladstone could not save him from a'--pver,l,+"
the attributing of motives which shpt 1;a•• aio""dge Olt a le.
entertained for an instant.—The learnea ty, that
as the ease had occupied, such was its gr3.st 110 ;00',"
impossible to regret a single moment th
l• 1 the ev'etke'cia
voted to it. There was so rauch or thebe °•,;11
so much dreadful wickedness ou one s•L"eboold t ah3o.
that it was absolutely necessary theY, miss eta. tea
cautious how they trod, lest they shoal", :4o re€4,/00
he was sure was the object of both,--a,rey, was net;
hat
sistent with justice and truth, The ael'°:ellar'''.4l) idly
compensation for a slander upon a mall' 010 05he,,03
libel was of a veay strong, kind ; but voBololo' baenihe
written and published it, took thebull bY r its We it
—he neither denied its publication ,!.1° ilcv-1 P,lea
character ; he came forward and said,." ifcesuaea qv)
whole of it ; but 1 justify its publication,
iq true." No. man, was permitted to utter ; raild
by written, or spoken language, unless he rif he,,„•acad
prove the truth of what he uttered ; an 2010'401;
the law would protect him. The ,roal';
contained not only a charge of adulterY 11.1olia
in his own house, and upon one of his to P 01.1 ,
whom, as the head of a family, he was bottle wasoriair,
in addition to this, it charged that shen,, on 4 olv,•
upon to do that ordinary justice which atiL, I%r 1370
done ;wrong in this way ought to perfpWr oid.,aoje"4
himself resisted the miserable suppliant
tion Was '1'4.10
innocent child, but that when an appaea
the magistrates he not only by his own .„erlt tll
the perjury of others, that he brought to ,S „,
iL';
all that he could to defeat the ends of i,isadly poiseteasok
possible to conceive a deeper or more ckefis any pr,ea
that imparted by this libel; no man, with wily wer&At ,
to character, could ever show himself jt
if what were alleged were proved to be trlle,.%fied the 1:4
Notwithstanding this, if the evidence at,,'oaelf, het,
that the plaintiff was guilty, it was the 11,' ,ote„; ‘o_,
give a verdict for the defendant : they 113',a,d, tnipp7,
with consequences. But if, on the other
so ocn
not satisfied—if they thought there
wasot trnst
to it tree
bability in the evidence that they could 11_,,..aict,0 ,a
plaintiff would be entitled to their
_v'.3;" tnit
too, for such an amount of dantages,flietion, the
their sense of the enormity of the 7.".-5,0 ai,ao
be to any man of honourable feeling,,,,oi.
matter would depend upon the jurY's, nnataatit3.e eaalec;4
which it must necessarily have eans.ea-iieTin th; VaPc
of the criminal connexion between the Plain t
cock ; if they believed Wilcock as to this Junoi.i,
_Teo
ifele.;
s shouldh isa
for the plaintiff could scarcely be r,altne orragist!: beto
haved it was strict Pstiliable
o lii°lthat
the parties ; his having done so, rendered-000
Halt
and whi
oyerlo°-veilt
suspicion that he Aught have taken k
militated against ane party, very aid „tai
It was. pcadget
had an oppos4e,. 'tendency.
waasbanthdobenedregra ecottedurstehl
had In s ~,• dtre-
what interest Harriet Kingsley
• sva
but the, WWI • and her evidene