The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1854-03-28 00:00:00

mother. He is the son of a farmer,who resides atCartmel,
in this county, and was brought up and educated by Mrs.
Rawlin,son, who is a lady of property and great respect-
ability residing in the neighbourhood. He was originally
apprenticed to a cabinet-maker, but, from ill health, was
unable to continue. A few years ago he was apprenticed
to the defendant, Mr. Bell, who is a printer and stationer,
in Cartmel, and he remained there till August in last
year. He kept the stationer's shop, and had a book where
he had to enter what he sold, and put the money in the
till. He boarded in Cartmel, but went each night to his
grandmother's, two or three miles off. Matters went on
agreeably till the month of August, when there was a
charge of embezzlement and felony against the plaintiff.
The accusation, Mr. Watson said, was an extremely
anxious one to the relations of the young man, because
of his prospects in life, and whether he was to be branded
as guilty or acquitted of this charge depended upon
the result of the trial that day. The slander was contained
in thislithat Mrs. Bell had called on a Mrs. Copperthwaite,
with whom the plaintiff boarded, and stated that they
wished to see Mrs. Rawlinson, as the boy had taken
10s. 6d. out of the till. The circumstances respecting the
10s. 6d. were these. The defendant, Mr. Bell, was at the
Liverpool assizes in August last, and was absent from
Cartmel from the 11th to the 15th of that month. The
boy had attended the shop during that time, and he had
sold in all articles to the amount of 375. 7d. On the
Monday, Mr. Bell took the money out of the drawer, and
on the Wednesday asked the boy "did not Mr. Dodgson
buy a pocket-book from you ?" The plaintiff' stated that
he had, and stated that he had omitted to put it down.
The defendant called his wife, and said to her " the
money is gone again, and the book is.wrong." On this,
the plaintiff left defendant's service, and never again
returned to his employment.
The plaintiff, Isaac Pearson, was called in support of
the case. On cross-examination by Mr. Sergeant Wilkins,
he admitted that his cash was 7s. short at Whitsuntide,
and that he could not account to his master for the defi-
ciency. He also admitted having made presents to one or
two friends of several small articles, such as penknives,
pocket-books, &c., but he alleged that he paid for these
with money allowed to him by his grandmother. He also
admitted that he was in the habit of frequenting public-
houses.

Mrs. Copperthwaite deposed to the fact of Mrs. Bell
having called in on her, and saying that she wished to see
Mrs. Rawlinson about 10s. 6d., which the plaintiff had
taken from the till:

Mr. Sergeant Wilkins, at great length, then addressed
the jury for the defendants. He contended that no proof
of slander had been given, for it could not be said that the
conversation of Mrs. Bell with Mrs. Copperthwaite was
anything but a friendly intimation of what was certainly
a very suspicious circumstance. It was, he maintained, a
privileged communication, and they would not have heard
of the action that day but for the interference of an
attorney.

The two defendants were called in evidence, and Mr.
Watson then replied, after which his lordship summed up.
The jury then retired, and after an absence from court
of about half-an-hour, returned a verdict for the plaintiff,
with one farthing damages.
Mr. Aston applied for a certificate entitling the plaintiff
to his costs. . _

His Lordship said that he had no power to do so.
Some of the jury then observed that they had imagined
the verdict would carry costs, and that if such were not
the case they had given it under a misapprehension.
His Lordship replied that, as the verdict had not been
recorded, they might reconsider it.
Mr. SeKjeant Wilkins objected, and his lordship took a
note of the objection.
The jury then again retired, and returned shortly after-
wards with the same verdict as before.