The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1846-03-24 00:00:00

PERSONATION AT BOLTON.

Mr. CROSS applied to the court in the case of a person
named Richard Bent, who was tried at the last ass-zes for
personating a voter at the municipal election at Bolton-le-
Moors, and who had been found guilty, but an arrest of
judgment having been moved, the case was reserved for
the opinion of the judges. The learned gentleman now
moved for judgment.
Mr. Justice PA.frESON said he had the judgment of
Mr. Justice NN illiams in the case and would dt liver it the
next morning. As the derendant was in attendance, his
lordship intimated that the judgment was in his favour.

LIBEL ON AN ATTORNEV.-REGINA V. STEVENS.
The first case called on was the trial of a person named
William Stevens for a libel on Mr. Benjamin Peach, of
the firm of Owen and Peach, attornies, of this town. The
bill was found at the sessions and removed into this court
for trial. The defendant pleaded not guilty.
Mr. Sergeant Wilkins and Mr. B'air appeared on
behalf of the prosecution and Mr. James for the de-
fendant. _ _

Mr. BLAIR having opened the nature of the charge,
which was an indictment against the defendant charging
him in six counts with having written and published four
malicious libels on the prosecutor,
Mr. Sergeant Wfucttrs proceeded to detail the facts of
the case to the jury. They had heard that the charge
against the defendant was for composing and publishing
several malicious libels on the character of the prosecutor,
and certainly more vile, malicious, or scandalous libels be
(the learned counsel) had never read. Mr. I'each was a
solicitor, in partnership with Mr. Owen, of this town.
He formerly resided, at a place called Colesford, in Glou-
cestershire, and in the year 1840, the father of the de-
fendant, having occasion to borrow a sum of money, Mr.
Peach was employed for the purpose of accomplishing that
object. That object was accomplished; but in conse-
quence of something which afterwards occurred, the
transaction was not so fortunate for the parties as they
probably anticipated, and this gave rise to the vindictive
feeling which the defendant seemed to have; against Mr.
Peach. He would, however, here observe that the object
of the prosecution was not to punish, but to preserve the
character and reputation of the prosecutor. Ever since
the year 1840 it appeared to be the object of the defen-
dant to persecute—to hurt and annoy Mr. Peach, and, if
possible, to destroy his prospects in life. Mr. Wilkins
then proceeded to detail the facts of the case as they after-
wards came out in evidence, and in the course of his ob.
servations offered to give up the prosecution, if the de-
fendant would withdraw the libels and giv,e security to
cease from future annoyance.
Mr. Benjamin Peach was then called, and he stated that
he was an attorney at the Court of Queen's Bench, and
formerly in practice at Coleford, in Gloucestershire. Was
employed for the defendant ‘t illiam Stephens, by his
father, in 1840. Ceased to be so employed fur him in
1843. About August 1844, the defendant, made a threat
towards witness, at Coleford. He said he wculd not
mind sacrificing his life.
Mr. JAMES objected to this as not being evidence
against his. client. His Lordship ruled that it was not
evidence, unless it contained a threat to publish the libel
complained of.
. . . . _

- .
The witness then went on to state that the defendant
placed some papers on the front of a pew in church, with
threats on them. In July last witness came to live in
Liverpool, and on the 19th August saw the defendant
here. Previous to that had received a letter from the de-
fendant, signed D-1 on two sticks. After the de-
fendant came to Liverpool saw writing on the walls of the
town, particularly in the neighbourhood of Beroed's
Buildings, where his office is. They were in the hand-
writing of the defendant. One was, ."
Ben. Peach, solici-
tor, go to the d-I." Another, " Ben. Peach, solici-
tor, No. 4, Berned Buildings, from Coleford, Glouces-
tershire, known as the d-1 on two crutches. He is a
rogue and a villain, and he absconded from Coleford."
Then there was another in Sweeting-street, on some
boards, with the words, " Ben. Peecb, the Coleford
d-l. Ben. l'eech. solicitor, is a rogue." These were
repeated several times, and some of them chalked on the
Bark Buildings. Afterwards received a placard through
the post, addressed to himself and partner, in the hand-
writing of the defendant. [This contained one of the
libels.] In November last was shown some writing on an
iron paling in Sweeting.street, in the writing of the de-
fendant. It was, " Ben. Peech, the Coleford d-l."
Cross-examined by Mr. James--Lived at Coleford
about ten years. Was well acquainted with all the inha-
bitants. There were some illuminations at Coleford in
November, 1844. Believed they related to him. Did
not see the effigy of myself. Never was pumped noon or
ducked. Never was thrown into a horse-pond. Knew a
person of th' name of Simmons, and had dealings with
him, but was trot rescued out of his bands wheu he was
about to duck witness. Witmets explained that the per-
son Simmons had an action of ejectment brought against
him, and he went to point out the property, and there ea,,
a pond near, butt no threats were used. Knows Mr.
Alfred Butler, who is brother-in-law to witness, and is
sorry he ever did know him. In 1843 the father of wit-

ness took some mortgages ont of his hands, and the; were
placed in the lands of another attorney, in corsequeuce
of some family disputes. Knows Captain Jones ; he is
father-in-law to witness. He did not accuse witness of

filling up an acceptance for a larger sum than he autho-
rised. Did apply to him for an acceptance, but no sum
was named. It was placed in a beak, but not regcciated.
Captain Jones came over respecting the bill, which nas
for £lOOO, and he stated it was for a larger amount that;
he expected. No thrests were used by him in the hear-
ing of witness. He insisted on the bill being paid, and
it was paid by witness. There was £2COO borrowed on
mortgage by the defendant's father. The latter watem-
barrasaed in businras ii 3 IBM .and the defendant bad it

assigned over to him. Witness's bills against the defen-
dant might be £5OO or £6OO. Have sent in one for £540
and another for £145. Knows a person of the name of
James Court. Had several bill transactions with him.
Don't recollect ever receiving a blank stamp from him.
He has once signed a blank stamp. It was to be filled
up, but no sum was stated, but cannot recollect the
amount. It might be £3OO. Don't recollect his saying
it had been filled up with a larger amount than he autho-
rised. None of the bills were honoured, and C6urt now
owes witness about £4OO. Knows a Mr. James, of Cole-
ford. There was one guinea charged in the bill of tie
defendant, for a fee to him. Told the defendant it hid
been paid, but on a letter being received from Mr. James,
credit was given to the defendant for it. May have
brought four or five actions against the defendant.
Re-examined.—The defendant caused the illumina-
tion, and would not/have been surprised if he had burnt
witness in effizy. The bill drawn by Captain Jones
was renewed by him. The first bill sent in to the
defendant for £145, included about £75 for stamps
and costs out of pocket. The bill altogether was
about £540, but a great portion was a good deal out of
pocket, and witness made the defendant a present of £ll5
when he signed a document thanking witness for his
clemency. .

[The document stating that the charges were reasonable
and thanking witness for his clemency, was then put in
and read.]
Ia further re-examination, witness said the amount of
the bill accepted by Court was all due to witness. -
Joseph Brace, process server.—Was employed to dis-
cover the author. of chalk writings in Liverpool. The
defendant had been pointed out to witness. On- the
sth of November last, saw him at the corner of Sweeting-
street and Castle-street. There had been chalk writings
on the wall, but were rubbed out, and he was looking a
the place. Followed the defendant to the post-office and
back again to Barned's-buildings, where he wrote on the
top of some railings,—" Ben Peecb, the Coleford
Afterward!, followed him to Dale-street, and saw some
writing on the Royal Bank-buildings.
Green Hill, del k to Messrs. Owen and Peach, denoted
to seeing a number of chalk writings ou the walls in pub-.
lie thoroughfares. _ _

Mr. GeOrge Wade, paper-dealer, stated that he received
a pripted placard similar to the one produced, at his
warehouse. had some conversation with the defendant
with reference to his transactions with Mr. Peach. Could
not tell d7lstinctly who brought it there. Had seen the
at his warehouse.

The handbill, on which was printed one of the libels
complained of, was then put in and read by the Clerk of
the Crown. It was es follows

. ,
" ABSCONDED,
"FROM COLESFORD, GLOUCESTERSHIRE.
" Whereas a man called Ben Peach, alias the Devil-oh-two-
Sticks was last seen at Barnard's-buildings,- in Castle-seet,.
and Sticks,
near Edge-hill Church, Liverpool, rny
person giving information where he may be found to the fami-
lies at Colesford whom he has bereft of their homes, will receive
a reward of .t'to."

This closed the case for the prosecution.
Mr. JAMES took an objection to the indictment,
the ground of there being a variance. In the indictment
the words were.' near Edge-hill, Liverpool;" in the bill
they were " near Edge-hill Church, Liverpool." . -
Mr. BLAIR applied to have the record amended.
After some discussion his lordship ruled that the
amendment ought to be made.
Mr. Jesus then addressed the jury for the defendant.
He could net help thinking that when his learned friend,
Mr. Sergeant Wilkins, opened the case on the part of the
prosecution, he was most anxious that it should be brought
to a conclusion without an exhibition before the court of
his client, for he had never heard so much abuse heaped
upon an individeal where his personal liberty was con-
cerned, as had been heaped upon the head of the poor de-
fendant. It was far from his intention to justify such
conduct, unless it was founded upon good grounds. The
mouth of the defendant was undoubtedly stopped, but if
he would enter into those circumstances, they would show
that be had been ruined in a manner most disastrous.
They would perceive that the defendant had originally
been a person of property, moving in a respectable sphere,
and could they suppose for a moment that the defendant
would have acted as he bad done, unless he had been
deeply and seriously injured. The defendant was not a
-malignant man, but one smarting under the ruin of him-
self and family, and after the jury took those circumstances
into consideration, would they say the defendant had been
guilty of libel ? Mr. Wade, who knew the family of the
defendant well, had given him a good character, but being
asked whether he was acquainted with the prosecutor, he
thought himself insulted by the question, and the inhabi-
tants of Coleford, where lie had lived felt ten years, were
so rejoiced at his departure, that they illuminated the
town, and made a bonfire of his effigy before his own
door. The learned counsel contended that the evidence
of the prosecutor was such as the jury could not im-
plicitly rely on, and without that there was not sufficient
for the jury to convict upon. He therefore trusted the
jury would not lend themselves to the machinations of
Mr. Peach.

,
His LORDSHIP, in summing up the case, observed that
the only question for the jury was whether or no the de-
fendant 1 üblished the libels. In a criminal proceeding no
justification could be proved, because the crown was the
prosecutor, and it was so in cases where there was danger
to the public peace. They were also to judge of the fact
whether the publications in question were a libel or no.
Now in law anything was a libel which had a tendency to
bring a person into contempt •, but it was for them to say
whether those words had such tendency, and if they had,
and were the production of the defendant, then he was
guilty of the offence charged.
The jury foetid the prisoner guilty of all four Mods.
His LORDSHIP ordered him into custody, and said he
would consider what sentence to pass upon hitn.