The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1853-11-29 00:00:00

proceeded only a short time, when Lord Justice Turner
suggested that the opinion of the full court h
an
ad tober be
taken.—Lord Justice Knight Bruce said he agreed
mode of proceeding his learned brother preferred. ~
MAJOR BERESFORD.—In the Bail Court, on Frtu
(before Mr. Justice Crompton), an applicatioa was made Major
for a rule under the following circumstances : .
Beresford and others, to the number of eleven, were 7.
nested with the election for Derby. Two of there, gr..
Beresford and Mr. John finish, had removed thean
ment into this court, and were bound to plead, d give
.
notice of that, or they would forfeit their recognizan
°lc;
Mr. Beresford pleaded on the sth of November, all"
the notice of trial on the 14th for the Middlesex sitti!a.;
Mr. Huish had pleaded entire on the 14th, and had gi'!aci
due notice of trial. Five other defendants did not 11`_!to
until the 21st of November, too late for the prosecuto.r.,
give them notice of trial for the same sittings toquewree
Mr. Beresford had given. notice of trial. The-con,et,
would be, if matters remained as at present, the gr,
ment would be tried against the two. d,efendauts,ios„
Beresford and Mr. Huish, and the others would not per
their notice. He believed, therefore, that the Pr°,eg
course would be to move for a rule calling uP°lloiwt of
five defendants, who had not pleaded till the take
November, to allow cause why they should not t3'ee or
notice of trial' as the prosecutors could' forthwith give'
why the trial of the indictment, as regarded tbe when
two, should not be postponed till after Tern:l'ollin.;
the prosecutors would give notice; and further. _ trial
upon Mr. Beresford and Mr. Huish to show whY rtuedots
should not be postponed unless the other deielmih 111,1
should consent on the above terms, or unless tirrieti.e- should
procure their assent to such notice of trial.__,A7Dece,"
another ground for the application. It wel"-„,e of the
saryo
of the
on thetrialtc.
House
of Commons,havetleatte as w
attendance
officers
hand-writer who attended the select committee 0
but there was a resolution of the house that all wl-tbe
examined before the house, or before a committee_ with
house, were entitled to the protection of the boil!, and
respect to anythin? said by them in their evideuujder.ce
that no officer or'horthand-writer should give e mitt&
in respect of any proceeding before the house or not, no
without special leave of the house. There wo ttained•
h—odSirt.oFko.nTheveseir3g,ermeaalp:oafre4,
any house sitting, so that no permission could be,°l4 whe
only for ..,0 a s
senses
termination. He wanted no'delay, but he w"--+l, atto"
of the inconvenience of the beinc, heard smith ore
other defendants. Mr. Macaulay %
retained by Mr. Huish, and -an 4. oreselit'
they were not the
Justice • Crompton said the rule would ge, Soa)
hasreit
ponement unless Mr. M. Smith consenteo.-lirhad 111°
tihihoorauiftgt3e,hrttocuictomolieskeenilnyt,toibioectosurhuo,otui,oiadanftlouletsoaliiidsotlilicoaiurst lel:
ow,
t4l
.la'igthetatteerrei° 'Peei
adopt
w the
by Sir F. Thesiger.

THE LIBEL ON A LADY.
The case of the Queen v. Willmer and Smith Fri
brought hefore the Court of Queen's Bench cause
when the defendants were called upon to show c,e7t phi
criminala information should not be filed agsu'llnitar,
foir a libel published in that journal on the 0411'
imputing to a lady of great respectability ill the rot.
bourhood of Liverpool the crime of adultery aith a se id be
Mr. ASPLAND, on the partofdefend-qtas' said be
the ress
of
did. not appear to justify the libel, but rather to e%P. ea
their part their great regret that the libel col:110311/0d
should have appeared in the columns of their P 8 Per. of the
begged to state that they did not act as editercserted
paper, and the paragraph in question had beer
itted;
without their knowledge, and they deeply re-,,,r60
The editor also joined with the proprietors ill `'`orst
his regret, and all of them withdrew, in the strong': 61 in
sible manner, all imputations of every kind colltsT Area
the libel, and they most sincerely and humbly aPled to
for any annoyance which the parao•na occ3slP
the family whom it concerned. 11
P
Lord CA.MPBELL : What does the counsel for the
plicant say to the apology ? ropitY
Sir F.THESIGEIL said he could not allow this olVner Ole
to-pass,without condemning in the strongest 01311.,i-ctirees
iiiipscirlety of which editors of newspapers were soP'etto3.
guilty in publishing such paragraphs as the one io (litifortir
It was true that an apology bad been made; botil,ll.res4
natelyrthat could not remedy the evil which 113 hours e'•
been done, nor efface the recollection of those under
unhappiness which a most respectable familY
gone. Even with regard to the future, it was the to
there were many persons who would be too prepe t°tL
that the charge would never have. been madqtdi which
not be some foundation for it ;so that the inise°''„lttors'
had been done was almost irrevocable. The- Pres" were
however, had no desire to be vindictive, heythe
anxious,. moreover, to discharge the subject fret „oloP
minds as,soon as possible; and therefore, after 011ie ciiiehlf
which had. been made, he (Sir F. Thesiger) wo +AO.
and consent that no further proceedings shoAkl be 0f the
But, in order that the Court might mark its se?sebad re:t
offence, he (Sir F. Thesiger) insisted, though. e ho.'
ceived no-instructions on the subject, that tha•re ;)). the
be discharged only on the payment of the costs
defendants.acted 1/14
Lord C.I.OIPBELL said, the prosecutors had• tbe pro-
liberally and handsomely in withdrawing fro° ,ified iii
secution of such a üblication. No editor wnsjll,' nalists
inserting such a slander in his journal. Public Pt° to tile
had nothing to do with private slanders ; and it was_as vot
credit of the press that the sanctity of private rife beet
now trenched upon. The prosecutors would- b5,,,`. bat,
justified in this case in pursuing a more severe-court' pare
as it was, the character of the lady would reniiit° aas•
and unspotted as he (Lord Campbell) believecl. (lc-
_ Rule discharged, on the payment 'of costs by i"'

fendants. - , v
THE RAMSHAY el,,'-',l" y sir r• I.ifi.
In the-Court of Queen's Bench, cia - - "i,-:a Cerliora.,...'.-
SICIER moved for a rule to show, cause r'''; the QuarW
should not issue to bring i) n order Made hff ~ yherehi
Sessions of Lancashire, onuthae 30th of June,lBaoed by the
it was resolved that the sum of X 53 IS. 6d', Pathe ttea"
order of two magistrates, should be allowed- in issl, a
surer's accounts. It appeared that,
complaint had been made to the Chancellor of thecovety
in the- Year DuchY
of Lancaster of the conduct. of. Mr. RainshaY, the ~,,‘,O ill'
Court judge at Liverpool. An inquiry
stituted;. before the Chancellor and his learned AnayS.
(Mr. T. F. Ellis), who sat at Preston for seve their
Several-34' the justices attended this. inceirY, with_tributed.
Was therenr'sset
families, and refreshments were very freely dis riptio
These refreshments were not of a very costlY desethe
consisting only of sandwiches and wine, but .005
plolf of
amounted to 1:53 7S. Gd. In the first itv3iance,
t • 4..
ordered to be paid and charged to the- OreenD as clitic
Preston sessions ; but the payment was: afterivaTeo mato
lowed by the county sessions. Application was Wlijiag A
to the Chancellor of the Duchy, who said. be was !,, learat
pay for whatever might have been consumed bYllif,oo, 171-,li
assessor, which, however, was a very small perl'ol-` in Isl7l
for nothing beyond that.. The matter was !•,d thatt.o
before the quarter sessions, when it was PrOP°'-gi0115,,,i,
mandamus should be applied for to compel the ee mow
pass the account ; upon which an amendment was
-10 i.
of which no notice had been given,.that the.,,,5a'.',.:00170
°eof naipiti,;:tiAstee P ,°,
be allowed and paid out of the county rate. 111)plied to
meat was opposed by the gentleman who now aought_.,
the Court, upon the ground that the expense tiea °-
have been defrayed by subscription. This reeelli
state
carried. , 0
Lord CAMPBELL said he was not aware
which authorised such an application of the
Sir F. TIIESIGER said the order was bad, heiitred !„
notice of the resolution had been given, as re 9 bete'
L ~,, tion,ditil '
the 15th and 16th of Victoria,. c. 50. His ---° ' r, ': •
fore, was for a certiorari to. bring up the orde
view to its being quashed.
Rule nisi granted.
~ of
THE LAW OF LIBEL. the 0.5'104.
Ix the Court of Exchequer, on Monday, ~01 ee ht
Galway v. Marshall, was brought before the , proareSe
This was a demurrer to a declaration in an act yet
by a clergyman against the defendant for slal,e iith
defendaat having alleged. that theplaintiff was t' t
aea 05:
of an illegitimate child. te- ctioli
Mr. Turner, in support. of the demurrer, con ot A tO•
the statements imputed to the defendant were .0.. bie, P_,,,,,.
able, because they did not affect the plaintiff ilis in es
fession, and they could not be connected will not ePtrle
tions as a clergyman. The declaration did andu, ,
that the plaintiff was a beneficed clerfatalantig tiaLl
charge was one which could only affect t noted AYI' or
spiritual court. The learned counsel n„ i 3., in
Craven, 10 Q. 13., and James and Brooke, " "*. the
port of his argument.
Mr. Baron Parke.-No doubt the beenchargel at%ilvear:
plaintiff would be actionable if there had, Jelergrioa
meat in the declaration that he was a benenee"e„ outer,o the
The chief Baron.-If what is said is o°baro
in his profession, so as to affect him in thatcher eastroeu
law presumes damage ; it does not ill 0"Y,., and, t.siei'lllk.
Mr. Baron Alderson.-The case of --- e a Pa.' nl,"
decides that it it is not actionable to ell goiarge„tei, a
with being incontinent ; but surely such avow °
manl
u rt o. comeu
mt,i:adeees intodischarge
aagainst
las
im ni
support
ohiroohtifi seohfe.i
affect him in his profession. I would °a ...,1 tillit tile
tor, 1.5
hchimargfoer ts plaintiffh
se adc re e
sacred
1 . i i l r ay
001 f
IA :,,e A; such g.
„rill
10.s,htvo
ii:
,c ol injol!ji
such a man hear the confessions of -.11 Cllui- P.
f the ad boo oe•
pronounce absolution in the naraa erii it b ~ ahe t
case of Parrott v. Carpenter, in wi'l.c-. • tiff vc•-ed tho't
that it was necessary to aver that the elliliontend, ~,, set
ficed clergyman, had been overruied. ,li,eeince,,t,lleff ser3
if the:words affected the plaintiff in 'Li' line Ae"rived t
actionable ; and, under the Church Disc ht
be der
sorcell,
a charge were proved, the plaintiff mfg he wo ill ia 11.;
his living. To say of a merchant that he , bite ~ pip
would be actionable, because it would affect $ .rt'
Or
business. So, to say of a bishop that he l'l`
loixoatmrienaedrlGerr c .t
would be fiirly the sub'ect of an action. 1 that 11 oti,
Mr. Baron Alderson To say of Lionh9l,, Ile
ge ey
men -in u 1 Greek. that tile
tut 0 -
The Chief Baron.-To report of a clerpin„, all) „tate',
a common liar would be as injurious to hil,n'''''sucii 9,f0501
charge, but you could not bring noto i"1- ,„ genet
this sort. bandent li•ecl
inent. The law of England does encourab- ty
. Mr. Baron Parke.-They were so very a 1 _,lttliet .
time of Queen Elizabeth that the courts n a."
I,DcOf
retheka.t be acble r
he 0
rule to stop such actions. • c the Illie rc'
The Chief Baron.-If we were to rel% ,_ a nol
~
has existed for centuries, it would give ri-e tu -ad'
the 'le,
contentious actions. „c that ,i,g off` ot
The learned counsel went on to err,
a. „will 1. ,„0e „
spoken were such as would injure the pl 11,,1,`;;1tt statvt OP
and that there was in the declaration a sutu;,`fer, thaiergre
to enabw le
re the court to see, and a jurY t°,.,'„inclieed Cof til
words e spoken of the plaintiffs as a ",`,diction
to
man in Buckinghamshire, within they
dale
bishop of the diocese. would take
he Chief Baron said the court we-

-...., __
consider its judgment.
Judgment deferred. a
_......--
.....,—.r._......,_..._.
ti
JuLLIEN has been appointed one of the ro, lepe
distribution of prizes at the New York Exhihi luisb.
.e,04
PERSONELLE OF OMER PACT-lA.—VW 9CI/1; wilo ~-1,10
ralissimo served in Syria under Admiral NaPi.eiaefittiell'
a very high opinion of him. He is a" 11 erfeetroo94
soldier, an excellent horseman, in manners alio &IP.",
tlenaan, and is much beloved by the troops.
very little to Mahometan customs—amengo well?'
openly drinking wine 0 table. lie hag 11,...dcanuu
cleaves to 011 Q wife, aliAleitrian lady froreTrol'4
otlier tll,l t;tl,