The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1840-08-28 00:00:00

DRINKWATER V. WOODCOCK

The declaration in this case stated the defendant had
driven a gig against a car driven by the plaintiff, whereby he
had done certain injury to the plaintiff. The defendant set
up three pleas in answer;—first, that he was not guilty, that
the accident had arisen from the plaintiff's own carelessness
and improper driving, and, lastly, in consequence of a colli-
sion between the defendant's gig and an omnibus, the acci-
dent was unavoidable.

Mr. Wightman and Mr. Martin appeared for the plaintiff,
Mr. Cresswell and Mr. Cowling appeared for the defendant.
On the part of the plaintiff, who is a bleacher at Harpur-
hey, near Manchester, it was proved that he intended to visit,
with some friends, Newton races. The defendant was a so-
licitor and clerk to the magistrates, at Bury, in this county.
The plaintiff had a horse and gig of his own, but as the gig
was not large enough to accommodate the party, he hired a
car, attached his own horse to it, and they proceeded to the
races. At seven o'clock in the evening, and before the races
were over, the plaintiff quitted Newton on his return home.
When they arrived in Market-street, Manchester, as they
were driving on the proper side and only a few feet from the
curb stone, the defendant, who was coming in a gig in an op-
posite. direction, and upon the wrong side of the road. drove
against the car, upset it, and in the end one of the shafts was
broken. The amount of the damages was stated at 30s. The
defendant, on being asked his name, refused to give it, and
threatened, " if they wanted law, they should have plenty of
it, as he could get it cheap." Eventually the police inter-
fered, and the whole party, gig and horse (as one of the wit-
nesses said), were taken to the watch-house. The .plaintiff
was somewhat hurt by the collision ; alai the defendant hav-
ing refused to pay for the damage or to apologize, the present
action was brought.

For the defendant Mr. CRESSWELL contended that the
whole was a trumpery affair, and that the action was brought
not so much to serve the interest of the plaintiff as for the
purpose of putting costs into the pockets of a third party.
He should be able, also, to prove that the plaintiff was drunk
at the time the accident happened, and that it happened
through his own carelessness, whilst the defendant was per-
fectly sober.

The jury found a verdict for the plaintiff, damages 40s.
RIVAL QUACRS.-LAMERT V. BEDALE.
Mr. Alexander and Mr. Watson appeared for the plaintiff;
Mr. Cresawell and Mr. Green for the defendant.

Mr. WATSON said, the plaintiff, Samuel Lamert, was a i
surgeon and apothecary, carrying on business in Manchester,
and the defendant was a surgeon, also carrying on business.
there. The declaration stated, that the defendant had pub-
lished a libel of the plaintiff concerning his profession ; to
this the defendant pleaded not guilty.
Mr. ALEXANDER said, the plaintiff was a person of the
Jewish persuasion, who, after passing through the Univer-
sity of Edinburgh ten or twelve years ago, was admitted a
member of Apothecaries' Hall, London, and of the College
of Surgeons. He then commenced practice in the south. In
1838, he removed to Manchester, where he commenced the
practice of a peculiar branch of the profession ; he met with
great success, and had a great number of patients. It was
his'misfortune to have in his neighbourhood, Isaac Bedale,
the defendant, who was formerly an operative spinner, but
who had left that trade and took to the medical profession,
education for the purpose being, of course, out of the ques-
tion. From the evidence he should lay before the jury, they
would find, that about the close of 1832, a Dr. Taylor, who
resided in Lever-street, was obliged to leave the place, and
settle elsewhere, in consequence of being libelled and de-
famed in a similar manner, as the present plaintiff had been
by the defendant. The defendant, it appeared, had had a
printing press upon his premises, and finding that Dr. Tay-
lor was injuring him, he published the same libel of him which
he had of the plaintiff, with the exception of the address. In
the same manner, he had driven Dr. Berry, Dr. Davison, Dr.
Perry, and other practitioners in the same line from the town.
That had been his practice from 1834, to April in the present
year ; and this, he told his servants, was merely an experi-
ment. When he heard the plaintiff was obtaining business,
he said he must have Falkner-street introduced into the bills
instead of Lever-street, and then, he said, they would suit
the plaintiff. Immediately, he began to issue the bills, they
were distributed in the streets, and the result had been a con-
siderable loss to the business of the plaintiff. Now, what-
ever might be the fate of Messrs. Davison, Perry, and Tay-
lor, from this system of persecution, the plaintiff was deter-
mined not to submit to it,. and he had brought the present
action. He would now read the libel. It was beaded
" Quackery exploded," and it went on to state, that in con-
sequence of numerous applications made to Dr. Bedale for
aid, by those who had been duped out of their money and
health by a notorious Jew impostor, who lived not one
hundred miles from Falkner-street, Manchester, and, for
the public good, Dr. Bedale was induced to lay be-
fore them an abridged account, taken from those given
by the sufferers from Jew quackery. " The Jew," it
went on to say, " is a young man of fashionable appear •
ance. He generally commences his impositions by looking
into the patient's mouth ; then he starts back in apparent
astonishment, &c., &c." It then described the large sums
demanded by the plaintiff, and asserted that his pills never
did any good, but sometimes harm. After the words "So
much for Jew quackery," it ended with " The itch cured in
one hour." The learned counsel went on to argue that this
bill was a gross libel upon the plaintiff, for which lie was en-
titled to receive damages.
Thomas Kenniwell, a man in the service of Lamert, proved
the publication of the libel. In cross-examination, he said
his employment was to cut up paper for those sort of bills ;
that Lamert employed seven men to distribute the bills, and
that he cut up a ream of paper for them every day • and that,
in short, these bills contained announcements as filthy as the
one just described. He stated further, that when he first
entered his service, Lamert had from fifteen to twenty pa-
tients on Saturday and Sunday, but they had decreased, in
consequence of Bedale's bills, to five or six.
Charles Gresley, who called himself a chemist and drug-
gist, said he entered the service of Bedale on the 10th of
June, 1839, as his assistant, and left on Easter Monday. He
had since that been in the service of Lamert. This witness
stated that he had heard Bedale give orders for the address
in bills to be altered so as to mean the plaintiff.
Charles Hassel proved that the placards and bills had pro-
duced the desired effect, of driving out of Manchester the
quacks hostile to Bedale, and that Bedale sent him with some
of the bills to Lamert's.
Patrick Dunn gave similar testimony.
Philip Solomon, collector of the pew-rents of the Jews'
Synagogue in Manchester, proved that there was no other
Jew but the plaintiff, living in Falkner-street, Manchester.
Simons Leir, of Bold-street, Liverpool, said he knew the
plaintiff ten years ago, was a student attending medical lec-
tures in Edinburgh. The libels were then put in and read.
They excited great laughter, in which the learned Judge
heartily joined. This was the plaintiff's case.
Mr. CRESSWELL addressed the jury for the defendant. He
admitted that the plaintiff, if the jury considered the libel
proved would be entitled to their verdict, but he contended
that the very lowest damages would satisfy the justice of the
care. Indeed, he thought, Bedale had done some good in
driving away the other quacks whose names had been men-
tioned. It might be bad enough to have Bedale, but to have
them all was really too much.
The JUDGE in summing up, told the jury that the only
question for their consideration would be the amount of da-
mages.
The jury immediately returned a verdict for the plaintiff,
damages one farthing.
WILD AND OTHERS V. HOLT AND OTHERS.

This was a case in which a question arose as to the posses-
sion of a coal mine in Middleton, near Manchester. Under
the direction of the learned Judge, the jury found a verdict
for the defendants.
The court adjourned shortly before six o'clock.

CROWN COURT.—WEDNESDAY
His Lordship took his seat at nine o'clock.
SENTENCES.

Isabella Wensley; a decently dressed young girl, aged 17,
convicted, on Saturday last, of having robbed her master,
Morris Yacoby, of certain money, trinkets, &c., and of hav-
ing broken out of his house, was sentenced to transportation
for ten years, with an intimation that she would spend the
term in imprisonment in the Penitentiary.

William- Montgomery, aged 24, convicted, on Monday, 6
manslaughter, was sentenced to 15 years transportation.