The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1840-08-25 00:00:00

NISI PRIUS COURT
LIBEL.--THE QUEEN V. PRENTICE AND ANOTHER

SATURDAY

This was a criminal information against Archibald Prentice
and William Cathrall, printers, publishers, and proprietors of
the Manchester Times newspaper, at the suit of Sir Robert
Holt Leigh, Bart., of Hindley Hall, near Wigan, for libel.
Mr. Cresswell and Mr. Cowling appeared for the prosecu-
tion ; Mr. Prentice appeared for himself and his partner.
Mr. COWLING having opened the case,
Mr. CRESSWELL rose and said, he had the honour to ap-
pear as counsel for Sir R. H. Leigh, who had instituted this
prosecution against the defendants for publishing of him that
which he felt, and that which every man must feel, to be a
grievous libel, imputing to him great misconduct, which, if
true, would render him unworthy of the situation he occupied
in society, and expose him to the animadversion and to the
contempt of the public. Sir Robert Holt Leigh was now a
baronet, far advanced in years, re!iding at Hindley Hall,
near Wigan. He possessed considerable property in that
neighbourhood, and, formerly, he had represented that bo-
rough in parliathent for a period of twenty years. In the
latter part of his life he had acted as one of the trustees for a
free grammar school, established for a long series of years in
Wigan, and it was in the capacity of one of those trustees
that this libel was published of him in the paper issued to the
world by the defendants. He said, that it was published of
Sir Robert Holt Leigh in that capacity, and not that the
transactions mentioned in it took place at a period when Sir
Robert Holt Leigh was a trustee, although, in one of the let-
ters he (the learned counsel) should have occasion to bring
before the jury, it was imputed to him that he did. Of all
the imputations that could be cast upon a gentleman in the
position Sir Robert Holt Leight occupied, one of the most
grievous and mischievous was that of malversation in the
office of a trustee of a charitable estate. He (the counsel)
did not know anything more calculated to excite and set one
class of society against another, than to impute to the higher
and more wealthy, who commonly acted as trustees for public
charities, that they were guilty of malversation in that office,
and that they appropriated to their own use and profit those
funds which ought to be devoted to the proper objects of the
charity. He should now proceed to point out the libels pub-
lished by the defendants, and of which Sir Robert Holt
Leigh complained. It was averred in the information, that
there was a free grammar school in Wigan ; that an act of
parliament was passed, at a certain period, for regulating the
affairs of that school. These two facts must be proved as
preliminary matters. It was said that the libels in question
were published respecting the school, respecting the act of
parliament, and respecting Sir Robert Holt Leigh. He (the
learned counsel) would, therefore, introduce before the jury
evidence to prove that there was such a school ; he should
lay before them the act of parliament which was referred to,
and which was made evidence by a clause in it, and the court
thereby incorporated to take charge of the affairs of the school,
and that certain powers were given them to dispose of a por-
tion of the property of the schb-01, under certain liMitations
and provisions. The act of parliament was passed in 1812,
27 years before the libel in question appeared : 27 years
after that had taken place which was made the subject of
attack upon Sir R. H. Leigh. The articles he was about to
read were published by the defendants in their newspaper.
The learned counsel then read the article in which one libel
appeared,. and called particular attention to the following
passage :—" Whose fault was it that the school was not long
since made more generally useful? Let the report of the
commissioners upon public charities answer. Paid R. Grim-
shaw, for the purpose of alienating the school property and
promoting the interests of Sir Robert Holt Leigh, £951."
Thus directly imputing to the plaintiff, that, by a job of the
vilest character with the trustees, he had obtained a portion
Of the school property for the advancement of his own pur-
poses, and not for the promotion of the interests of the school.
The learned counsel proceeded to read the remaining part of
the alleged libel, and also called attention to this passage :

" Do the public expect that any good will be derived from the
interference of Sir R. H. Leigh ? Is it reasonable to look for
anything from him who has been the only gainer by a previ-
ous act of alienation of the property of the school?" Thus
imputing to the plaintiff such conduct in a transaction with
the trustees, in 1813, under the act of Parliament, that now
no good could be looked for from him, for he was disgraced
by it. Perhaps the Jury might be told, that this was not an
attack upon the plaintiff, but upon the governors of the school.
What was it but an attack upon the plaintiff leading the pub-
lic to expect that no good could be expected from him, he
having been guilty of so much misconduct with regard to the
property of the trust ? This article was published on the 16th
November, 1839. It would seem, that, between that time
and the 30th of November, some communication had taken
place between the parties, either directly or indirectly ; for,
in the Manchester Times, of the 30th November, we found
this article. The learned counsel then read a letter, addressed
to the editor of the paper, signed " Your Reporter," con-
fessing that fact; and inference had been improperly coin-
bined in the article in the previous paper, that he ought to
have stated, that the sum of £951 was paid for obtaining a
bill authorizing the disposal of a certain part of the property
of the school . the writer then apologized for this uninten-
tional misstatement, and concluded his letter by stating, that
the funds of the school were sufficient to effect twelve times
a greater amount of good than had been effected. Here (the
learned counsel proceeded) the " Reporter" admitted, by
that which was offered as an excuse, that he had not quoted
correctly, as he affected to do, from the Commissioners' Re-
port, that the abbreviation was for the purpose of promoting
the interest of Sir Robert Holt Leigh. According to the
first publication, he quoted from the Commissioners' Report;
and his affected apology in the second was, that the commis-
sioners did not state that management to be for the sale of
the property. What excuse did he make ? What explana-
tion or retraction of the charge ? None. He left the matter
as it was before. Again, the jury would find, in another
part of the same paper, of the 30th of Nov., another article
appeared, purporting to come from " An Occasional Reader,"
and they would observe how artfully it was written to make
it supposed that the writer was a political friend of Sir Robert
Holt Leigh, but that, on the affairs of the school, he was op-
posed to him, In this letter there was this passage :—" In
your last week's paper you showed us what good may be ef-
fected : a large sum of money was squandered on lawyers'
bills in getting an act of Parliament to enable the trustees to
sell the best part of the school property to one of themselves."
Here, then, was the " Reporter's" excuse, and this letter of
"An Occasional Reader" making charges worse than the
other. This last letter then went on to describe some meet-
ing of the trustees, and what passed at that meeting. The
learned counsel having commented on this letter, observed,
that these constituted the libel of which the plaintiff com-
plained. The learned counsel, in conclusion, explained, that
the plaintiff had resorted to the remedy of a criminal infor-
mation as the best means of clearing his character from the
imputations thus thrown upon it. The rule for it was made
absolute ' • the record was brought down to Liverpool to be
tried, charging the defendants with the publication of the
libels, and the only question for the jury would be, whether
they contained that which was an imputation calculated to
injure, to degrade, and to disgrace the plaintiff.
Mr. Wall, a clerk from the Stamp-office, proved that the de-
fendants were publishers of the Manchester Times, and the
publication of the paper containing the alleged libel was ad-
mitted.
Mr. John Thompson, an iron-merchant, in Wigan, said
he knew the prosecutor, Sir Robert Holt Leigh. He resided
at Hindley Hall. Sir Robert was, for many years, member
of parliament for Wigan, but now he lived retired. The ar-
ticles in the Manchester Times related to Sir Robert Holt
Leigh. . _ _

Cross-examined by the defendant.—Sir Robert Hoit Leigh
acts as a trustee to the Wigan Free Grammar School, but wit-
ness does not know when he commenced acting.
A copy of the act of parliament, authorising the alienation
of the lands in question, was then put in. It named and in-
corporated the trustees at the time it was passed : the name
of the plaintiff did not appear among them.
The alleged libels from the papers of the 17th and 30th of
November, were then put in and read by the Clerk of the
Court.
Mr. CRESSWELL said, this was the plaintiff's case.
Mr. PRENTICE submitted, that no case at all had been
made out. His lordship would observe, that the publication
of the two papers from which the alleged libels had been read
bad not been proved.
The JUDGE.---I understand you to admit that.
Mr. CRESSWELL.—CertainIy, my lord.
Mr. PRENTICE said, he merely admitted that he and his
partners were the publishers of the Manchester Timex, but
not that they had published the two papers now produced.
Mr. CRESSWELL cited the act 6th and 7th George IV.,
chap. 4, sect. 76, as disposing of this question.
The JUDGE said, it was certainly necessary, before pro-
ceeding against a newspaper publisher, to prove that he sold
the paper in question.
Mr. PRENTICE contended that the plaintiff was bound to
prove the publication of the two papers he had produced.
If he did not, he might, for any thing he (Mr. P.) knew,
have brought them for the express purpose of bringing some
other charge against him.
The JUDGE said that what he had taken down was this,
that the defendants admitted they were the publishers of the
papers in question.
Mr. PRENTICE.—I admitted I am the publisher and pro-
prietor of the paper, but I did not admit the publication of
these particular papers, because I wished to cross-examine
the person who was to prove it.
The Junoz.—What is it that you do admit ?

Mr. PRENTICE repeated what he had said before.
The JUDGE said he would leave the question to the jury.
Mr. PRENTICE.—WiII your lordship take a note of the
objection ?
The JUDGE said he would, as follows :—The defendants
object that there is no evidence that they have published the
two papers in question. They admit themselves to be the
publishers of the Manchester Times, but say there is no proof
that these two papers are the Manchester Times. 1 over-
rule the objection, and leave the question to the jury.
Mr. CRESWELL.--Your lordship has a copy of the certi-
ficate from the Stamp-office.

The JUDGE

Yes

Mr. PRENTICE then proceeded. to address the court and

jury. He was not at all surprised that Mr. Cresswell should
have been anxious to prevent their hearing that rigmarole
read, which either he or some of the lawyers in the case had
contrived to put in the bill of indictment preferred against
him and his partner. He was sure, when they heard it, they
must have asked themselves what it' bad-to do with the case
between Sir Robert Holt Leigh and the publishers of the
Manchester Times. Sonie of them might think he was taking
something like a lawyer-like objection, with regard to the
publication of these alleged libels ; but he had not taken it to
prevent the case coming before the court, but because he ex-
pected be should have an opportunity of cross-examining
Mr. Gaskell's clerk, who purchased the papers, and who,
he expected, was to have proved the publication of them
this day. He had been deprived of that advantage, and he
had now no opportunity of proving the truth of anything he
might say. All the explanation he could give must be given
by himself; but, at the same time, he could not but think
that he should have had all the advantage the court could
give him. He ha& therefore, to complain that evidence had
been withheld from the court, and that the other side.had

taken care not to produce witnesses who could prove any
thing. The witness they had brought from Wigan did not
prove that Sir Robert Holt Leigh was a trustee of the school,
but only his belief that he was ; and, consequently, the court
and jury had no means of judging of that part of the alleged
libel. He should ask the court to lay before the jury the
information upon which he was indicted. It was a very ex-
traordinary document, and he could not imagine upon what
ground it was called an information. He supposed it must
be upon the same principle that the gentlemen behind him
called their briefs brief because, they were not brief ; and
that, therefore, this was called an information because it
contained no information. It had been found convenient to
keep information out of it, which information as it was im•
portant to him should have been given. He should, there.
fore, have to show them what it contained and what it die
not contain ; and, he believed, they would find that what ii
did not contain was vastly more important than what it did
contain. The reason why he appeared himself was, that this
had been such a vexatious, troublesome, and expensive pro-
secution ; he had been so troubled, vexed, and angered with
it, that he was determined not to pay a single farthing more,
and not to spend the little money he had in getting up a
case. He had, therefore, himself come before a jury of his
countrymen, knowing that Englishmen always looked more
to the judgment of their own conscience than to the elo-
quence of the advocate. Mr. Cresswell' had been exceed-
ingly magniloquent about the way in which the plaintiff had
proceeded : he (Mr. Prentice) had observed, that whatever
course was adopted in cases of this kind, the lawyers were
always ready to argue it was the best. The learned counsel
said that the plaintiff had not brought this action for dama-
ges, because he did not wish to put money into his pocket
by means of his character. The learned counsel talked on
this subject as if it were necessary that Sir Robert Holt
Leigh should put any damages that he might obtain into his
own pocket. He might, for instance, if he were above re-
ceiving pecuniary compensation for the injury done to him,
have presented it to the school of which he was a trustee.
There was, therefore, nothing in this part of the learned
counsel's argument. Mr. Prentice then proceeded to show
the disadvantage he was under by the mode of proceeding,
and to contend that, if another had been adopted, by which
evidence could be called, the whole of the facts in the case
would have been elicited. The affidavits of Sir Robert Holt
Leigh and Mr. Gaskell certainly contained the truth, but
they did not contain the whole truth, which would have been
elicited if he (Mr. Prentice) bad had an opportunity of cross-
examining them.
Mr. CRESSWELL the defendant might put these affi-
davits in.
Mr. PRENTICE intimated, that he would put them in. He
had always admitted, that Sir R. H. Leigh paid the full
price for the estate : he had always been willing to publish
that, but this willingness to make this acknowledgment had
not stopped them from proceeding with this troublesome pro-
secution. There was no charge of anything unfair on the
part of the plaintiff. What the reporter had said—for the
court would recollect that none of these things were his own
production—was, that he imputed no fraud to Sir R. H.
Leigh, but that it was an improper act, on the part of the
trustees, to pay £951 for obtaining the act of parliament,
and that, therefore, they were not so much promoting the
interests of the school as the convenience and pleasure of Sir
Robert Holt Leigh. Nothing dishonourable was imputed to
Sir Robert Holt Leigh, but only mistaken policy, on the part
of the trustees, in alienating any part of the property. Sir
R. H. Leigh was an honourable man ; and he (Mr. Prentice)
would declare his conviction that a full price had been paid
for the estate ; but his affidavit of that did not justify him in
declaring, as he did in the information, that everything the
defendants had said about him was false, malicious, and done
at the instigation of the devil. The jury would observe, that
the whole sum and substance of the alleged libel was a mere
inference on the part of the reporter, that it was not for the
interest of the grammar school for any part of its property
to be alienated, and that the reporter had taken an opportu-
nity of declaring in the letter just read, that he had made a
mishap. Yet, all this was charged upon him (Mr. Prentice)
as a false, malicious, and scandalous libel. Did it not strike
the jury as very strange, that the information should suddenly
stop at the very point where the reporter apologised for hav-
ing mixed up fact and inference. The reporter apologised to
the plaintiff, to the public, and to the proprietors of the paper
for the mistake. Again he would ask, did it not strike the
jury as very strange, that the " information" should sud-
denly cease at the time they wanted information ? Here he
felt the difficulty he was under of not having an opportunity
of cross-examining Mr. Gaskell's clerk, because be would
have proved, that the defendants offered to make any repara-
tion in their power. However, they were to bethe judges whe-
ther the publication had been proved, and of the hardship he
was under of not being able to prove the preliminary part of
The infrmatio" took fr.-FrAnted that all
reparation had been refused, and that he (Mr. rrentice) had
obstinately refused 'to give the name of the author. Mr.
Prentice was about to read Mr. Gaskell's affidavit, but the
judge held that it had no 'relevancy to the question. Mr.
Prentice proceeded- to enlarge on the hardship he was again
under, and to state that he had written.to Mr. Gaskell offer-
ing to snake any reparation. Mr. Gaskell, therefore, was
his witness to furnish him with all the facts, and all those
facts he could establish. He (Mr. Prentice) was, therefore,
now in the situation of being prevented from having the evi-
dence fully sifted, because this case was taken out of all the
rules of the court, and came before the jury not under any
statute, but judge-made law. He would now proceed to ex-
amine the indictment against him. In it was contained all
the documents that had been read ; and they would recollect,
that, if they found him guilty of one part of it, they would
find him guilty of all. This precious document—this most
beautiful instance of the folly which still lurked about courts
of justice, contained four counts. Mr. Prentice then pro-
ceeded to examine these counts separately, but we have not
space to give his speech. He told the jury, that they must
take the indictment, look its averments carefully over, and,
before they pronounced him guilty, satisfy themselves that
all the counts were proved. They were sworn to give a true
verdict according to the evidence; and could they, upcn the
evidence now produced, pronounce him guilty ? They had
not to find, simply, that a libel had been printed, but that it
was a false, malicious. and scandalous libel, and that every
word therein charged was false, scandalous, and malicious,
It might be said, that, if this doctrine were acknowledged,
a loop-hole would he made whereby any man who had 'shelled
another might escape. That, however, the jury could not
consider ; the fault of that lay in the practice, and ought not
to be visited upon the defendants. He concluded by a strong
appeal to the consciences of the jury to give their verdict
according to the evidence before them. The speech of the
defendant occupied about forty minutes in the delivery.
The learned JUDGE then addressed the jury, pointing out
the principal question for their decision.
The- jury withdrew to consider their verdict, and after an
absence of a quarter of an hour they returned and pronounced
the defendants Guilty.
BUTTERWORTH V. WADE AND OTHERS.

_
This was an undefended action. A verdict was of course
returned for the plaintiff for the amount claimed, £l2O.
TINKER V. WAGSTAFF.. _

The parties in this case reside in Ashton-under-Lune.
The plaintiff was tenant to the defendant, and the action was
brought to recover damages for an excessive distraint. Ver-
dict for the plaintiff, damages £65.
MORRIS V. SPEED AND ANOTHER.

In this case, which was of no public interest, a verdict was
returned for the plaintiff for £270.
TYRELL V. TOLLEMACHE.
_ _

This was an action against the Sheriffs of Cheshire for a
false return to a writ against the goods of a party named Brit-
tain; against whom execution had been obtained: The jury
returned a verdict for the plaintiff, damages 40s.
Several undefended causes were afterwards disposed of,
and the court adjourned about half-past five.

CROWN COURT.—MoNDA'e
His Lordship took his seat at nine o'clock.
CHARGE OF MANSLAUGHTER.

This was one of those cases which have recently been so
common, in which a man met his death from rough fighting.
The prisoner, a stout low-set man, aged 30, was indicted for
having killed George Crumby, in this town, on the 3d ofMay
last.
Mr. Cardwell conducted the prosecution.

It appeared that the poisoner cohabited with the sister of
the deceased, Catherine Crumby, otherwise Catherine Win-
ter. On Saturday night or Sunday morning, the 2d or 3d of
May, the deceased and the prisoner_ met at the house of the
prisoner's brother in Jordan-street, wheee they had some
liquor. It • was stated that the deceased ivas exceedingly
cross with the prisoner, on account of the loose life which his
sister was leading. The prisoner sent for a pint of rum, and
endeavoured to appease the wrath of the deceased, but as
they became more intoxicated the fury of Crumby increased,
till at length when they went out to go home. the deceased
said to the prisoner, who lodged with him, " if you come
home to-bight I'll have your life or you shall have mine.
Soon after Crumby got home, the prisoner entered the house,
where the deceased knocked him down. The prisoner was
at first reluctant to fight, but at length, he was exasperated
to it, and they rushed at each other. Several violent blows
and heavy falls ensued on both sides, and at length the pri-
soner struck the deceased a blow which felled him to the
earth, and he never again stirred or showed signs of life.
The police were called in, and a surgeon was sent for. The
officers.found both the prisoner and the deceased stripped to
the waist, the prisoner intoxicated. The surgeon, Mr.
Hutchinson, stated that Crumby was quite dead when he ar-
rived. He made a post mortem examination of the body,
and found many signs of heavy blows beneath the scalp, and
effusion of blood at the base of the brain.
The jury consulted together about half a minute and ac-
quitted the prisoner.

MANSLAUGHTER

James Potter, a decent-looking man, aged 53, was charged
with having, on the 29th of April last, at Prescot, caused the
death of John Berry, by striking, &c.
Dr. Brown condueted the prosecution.
The deceased was a brickmaker. and he worked under the
prisoner at the brick-fields near Prescot. On the morning
of the 29th of April, the prisoner went to Mrs. Hewitt's
public-house, which was near the' brick-fields, as was in-
ferred, for the purpose of finding the deceased, who was
sitting there drinking. The prisoner asked the deceased why
he was not at his work. The deceased, who had had some
ale, called the prisoner " a d—d old scut," and said he
would not work for him any more, as he had not paid him for
what he had already done. The prisoner struck the deceased
a blow on the cheek, which the latter returned by another
blow, and immediately " collared the prisoner fast." A
struggle ensued, and the prisoner got the deceased down, and
kneeled upon him, pressing him violently with his knees, but
whether this were done purposely, or whether the prisoner
was pulled down in that position, could not be accurately de-
termined. The deceased after this went to a surgeon, and
told him that he had a pain in his side, which he accounted
for by saying that he had fallen over a stool. A fortnight
after, the prisoner called again upon the surgeon, and com-
plained of being very ill. The surgeon then examined him
more particularly, and found that the second and third ribs
were broken. The surgeon 'found that he was iu considerable
danger, and the deceased himself naw became convinced that
his case was hopeless. He died on Saturday,. the 23rd May,
having previously made a deposition which was taken down
in writing in the -presence of the prisoner. The surgeon

made a post-mortem examination, and found that the immr-
diate cause of death had been inflammation of the lungs, pro-
d uced by pressure of the ribs on the fractured lungs. The
-sed was a man of bad constitution. His lungs were
nsound, and the surgeon was of opinion that the same fatal
esult would not have occurred in a man of a good habit of
iody. The lungs were very extensively diseased, inde-
pendently of the injuries from the ribs. The surgeon had
attended him during two years, and he bad had considerable
difficulty in getting over the two preceding winters. It was'
the surgeon's impression that be would not have survived
many months even if he had not received any injury. The
deposition of the deceased gave a more circumstantial detail
of the quarrel and the fight. His statement was that when
struck he fell over a bench.
The prisoner called a witness named Richard Hornby, who
detailed -the circumstances of the fight without any material
deviation from the facts stated for the-prosecution.

The jury found the prisoner guilty.
His LORDSHIP said he would take into consideration the
provocation which the prisoner had received. Sentence,
3 months imprisonment and hard labour in the House of
Correction, at Kirkdale.

CUTTING AND STABBING.
Philip Malone, aged about 36, was charged with having,
in this town, on the 9th August, inst., cut, stabbed, and
wounded David Mooney.
Mr. ELLIS and Mr. BLISS for the prosecution ; Mr.
WILKINS for the defence. _

On the night of Saturday the Bth inst., the prisoner and
Mooney were playing at cards and drinking together at a
public-house in Toxteth-park.
On their way home, between twelve and one o'clock on
Sunday morning, they had some altercation about the game
which they had been playing. Both were intoxicated, and as
the prisoner had won some money from Mooney the latter
said—" If I had won so much money as you have from a
friend, I would return him the half of it." At length they
came to blows, and after a scuffle both came to the ground.
A policeman went up, dispersed the crowd, and sent the com-
batants home. The prisoner had been at another public-
house that night, and had a scuffle with another person who
played at cards with his brother. He swore, however, that
he had not, "to the best of his knowledge," encountered
any other any after he left the prisoner. A man, named
M'Allister, who saw the scuffle, endeavoured to separate
the parties and received two stabs in his thigh.- As Mooney
was going home be found himself very faint, and that blood
was dripping from him. He sat down upo►► some steps and
became nearly insenstble. In this state he was found by the
police-officer, about half-past two o'clock on Sunday morn-
ing. When the prisoner was taken into custody a penknife
with two blades was found in his possession. The wound
was described by the surgeon as superficial and not dan-
gerous. There were eight or nine wounds, one of which was
across the nose. The surgeon was of opinion, from the
thickness of cloth cut through, that the penkniffe found oil
the prisoner was not the weapon with which the wounds
were inflicted.

While Mr. Wilkins was doing all he could for the defence
of the prisoner the latter was, in dumb show, threatening
vengeance against the witnesses who had appeared in support
of the prosecution. With a most fierce aspect, looking at
Mooney, his brother, and M'Allister, he clenched his fist
and repeatedly threw it out from him towards them, as if to
indicate how he would punish them if he were near them.
He was repeating these actions still more vehemently, when
he was restrained by Mr. Davenport, his attorney, and by
Mr. Wilkins, who, however, saw only a few of his ges—
tures.

Mr. WiLaiNs impressed upon the jury that there was no
evidence that the prisoner had inflicted the wounds upon the
prosecutor.
The Jury, after a few minutes' consultation, acquitted the
prisoner.