The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1840-04-07 00:00:00


s &mined by Mr. JERVIS.—The check was dated as
payable on Monday. Knows little of Mr. Oxley. Is not a
friend of his, Gave the £5. for procuring a document which
he otherwise could not have obtained.

Re-examined by Mr. COTTINGIIAM.—The.£S was given
for getting possession of an agreement. Mr. Oxley made
no direct charge, but it came from witness himself. Had
not sufficient money, or he should not have given the check.
Mr. Oxley said it would be of service to him or he should
not have done it. It was after banking hours.
Mr. John Conway Brooks examined by Mr. COTTING-
ITAM.—Ie a licensed victualler in Liverpool. Has known
Edwards between seven and eight years, by coming back-
wards and forwards to his house. Remembers his bringing
a cheek, to the best of his recollection it was a little before
six o'clock. Gave him two sovereigns on account of it, and
kept it till Monday morning following, when he got it
cashed at the bank and gave him three sovereigns.
Mr. John Evans examined by Mr. JERVIS.—Is clerk to
Messrs. Moss and Company's Bank. Mr. Oxley has no ac-
count there. Inquiry was made whether he had, and the
answer was that he had not.

Mr. JEnvis submitted that no libel had been proved.
Mr. Justice WILLIAMS was of opinion that it was a ques-
tion for the jury.
Mr. JERVIS then addressed the jury for the defendant as
follows :—Gentlemen, I put that point to his lordship, ex-
pecting he would decide if this was a libel or not ; that will
now be a question for the court to pronounce upon here-
after, and therefore I will not trouble you at all upon that
matter, I will merely observe as to the publication itself.
The simple question will be as to the malice and the truth of
the publication. It may be convenient for me, in the course
of the observations I have to make, to say something upon
the character of the publication ; and before I take notice of
some of the remarks of my learned friend, I beg to say that
I perfectly concur in the observation of my learned friend
the Recorder, that to an attorney it is of the deepest import-
ance that be should be a man of character; and there are
honourable men in the profession who stand in that enviable
position, but as in all other professions, there are black
sheep ; and, although it may be of great importance to a
man to have that staple commodity, a good character, it is
certainly a much greater misfortune to his neighbourhood,
and a much greater infliction and injury to his clients if they
should happen to meet with a man who is paid for bringing
in business, and to be put under the controul of an attorney
who employs such unworthy means of acquiring professional
engagements ; and it is the bounden duty of every man, if he
knows an attorney is so situated to expose him, in order to pre-
vent parties being entrapped in a manner that may lead to ex-
pense if not to their ultimate ruin. Character, my friend says,
is the staple commodity of Mr. Oxley, the plaintiff. Certainly,
gentlemen, we have not had a good specimen of the manner
in which he has treasured and valued his character, when,
upon the evidence of his own witness—Mr. Abbott, a gen-
tleman of high respectability, as I am bound to admit—it
appears that Mr. Oxley. took £5 actually to behave in a
very unbecoming way towards the man who had placed confi-
dence in him. That is the sort of character that Mr. Oxley
now sets up, but that is not all as to Mr. Oxley's character,
as I will shew you before I have done. Mr. Oxley says that
character is to him of the deepest importance—that he ex-
pects employment from his character alone—and that his
respectability of character is valuable to him in his own im-
mediate neighbourhood, in Liverpool, where he practises;
and yet Mr. Oxley has chosen, at some expense, to bring
all his witnesses from the town of Liverpool, where he is
known, for the purpose of trying his professional character
before gentlemen in a county adjoining, and perhaps some
coming many miles distant from that place ; thereby viola-
ting that salutary old rule, that jurors should come from the
neighbourhood where the inquiry was to take place, that
they might know something of the respectability of the wit-
nesses who were called—take Mr. Edwards, for instance—
that they might know something of that precious jewel upon
which Mr. Oxley alone relies, namely, the staple commodity
of his good character. You are selected from a distance—
many of you farmers and agriculturists—in preference to the
inhabitants of the town and immediate neighbourhood where
this respectable attorney practises, because, forsooth, you
must be far better qualified, knowing nothing about him or
his witnesses, to estimate the extreme respectability of his
character in his own immediate neighbourhood! But he is
an attorney ; he can, therefore, bring his action at slight
cost ; if he loses he has nothing to pay, I fear, as he manages
his own cause at a cheap rate. He kills his own mutton, as
the common term is; and why, in God's name, won't he
sell it in his own market ? He flies from Liverpool, where
he is known, to court inquiry amongst strangers. My
learned friend says, that if poison is circulated, the antidote
should be applied at the same place. People must be in-
clined to suspect what sort of a character the plaintiff has,
when he challenges a public investigation at a place so re-
mote, and asks compensation for his injured character. He
has sought it, and he shall have it. You shall hear some-
thing of his character before I have done. Gentlemen,
1 have the honour here to represent the Liverpool Guar-
dian Society, the number and respectability of which I am
not ashamed to own, comprehending 900 members, consist-
ing of the first merchants of Liverpool; and the reason my
friend assigns for coming here to try this question is, that
they cannot trust any people in that great commercial town
to try it, because there are 900 members in this society, with
the mayor at their head. Now, certainly, if a society so
constituted keeps within the ordinary line of its duty, if, with-
out comment or observation, it states simply facts, not wrest-
Mg them from the naked truth, for the purpose of putting
the unwary upon their guard; if they do that—if they state
but the truth—l am quite sure you will be of opinion they
fairly discharge their duty. It is the bounden duty of every
man, in their relative positions one to the other, not to permit
a man to obtain credit, station, and employment, under a
false character : and he who seeks to screen his real conduct
from the world, is an impostor. As to the Guardian Society,
every man states that which he knows to be true, and he
states it in writing, where there can be no mistake about it ;
and you will find that this statement was made in a letter
professing to be private, and circulated only among members.
It was obtained, nobody knows how, from Mr. Pearson
(whether stolen or not I cannot say) for the purpose of
founding this action. You will find that the circular con-
tains only a naked statement of facts, without exaggeration,
and it is now attempted to be met in this way. My learned
friend says, you say there was a check presented to Mr.
Docker, signed by Mr. Oxley. Now I will show you my
client had a check from John Abbott Kay that evening, be-
tween four and five o'clock, the consideration of that check
having been a breach of his duty. I will show you that is
the check which was presented, and I will call a witness, a
Mr. Edwards, who will swear that was the check that he
presented. Now the fact of having got a cheek from John
Abbott Kay proves nothing, unless it be impossible to suppose
that this respectable Mr. Oxley could not have drawn it in his
own name. It depends entirely upon the evidence of Edwards,
the companion of Oxley, and whom we shall show is not
to be believed upon his oath. I will call witnesses before
you for the purpose. 1 defy my learned friend to enter into
the particulars ; he may do so, if he pleases, but I cannot ac-
cording_ to the rules of law. Edwards, according to his own
account, has been once a bankrupt, once an insolvent, and,
while in Mr. Hardisty's service for a short time, it happened
unfortunately that Mr. Hardisty was robbed three times,
and Edwards admits that the woman who was accused of
stealing on his evidence was acquitted. Upon his demeanour
in the witness box alone, 1 ask you to say if you can believe
him ? Either he was acting in a manner most disgraceful or
he was insulting the solemn dignity of the court before which
he appeared, by coming to depose on oath when he was in a
state of beastly intoxication. Now, if he is not to be believed
on his oath, and if Mr. Oxley be a man of the character that
I shall prove him, I ask if it is at all unlikely that a check
was drawn by Oxley upon Moss and Co., though he had no
account with them at all. It is not unlikely that he might
have the other check, to enable him to account for his own.
by mystification. Ido not see any other reason, but I will
prove beyond the possibility of doubt, coupling the evidence
of Edwards with that which I shall call, that the check of-
fered to Docker was not a check drawn by John Abbott Kaye.
That check by John Abbott Kaye was cashed between five
and six on the Saturday, as Mr. Brooks has sworn ; and I
will call two witnesses before you who will prove, that, when
the check upon which the allegation is made was presented
at Docker's shop it was past seven o'clock. Two witnesses,
Docker and Parkinson, will swear to that fact ; one of whom,
Mr. Docker, is a man of the greatest experience in such mat-
ters, and Mr. Parkinson will tell you that, having his atten-
tion drawn constantly to bills, he looked most attentively at
the signature to the check. Both of them will swear most
positively that it was signed by George Oxley. You may
say, is it likely that a man, an attorney, even though lie had
sold his own client, could have been a party to such a
fraud as this ? Now, I shall he obliged to show you
who and what Mr. Oxley is. Mr. Oxley was a soldier,
who served in New South Wales. He returned to this
country, and became an attorney. I will call numbers of
witnesses before you, who will prove that in his professional
capacity he has not acted in a manner very consistent with
propriety.
I will call witness after witness, who will prove
to you that Mr. Edwards is not a man of character, and
ought not to bo so thought. My friend says character is
a staple commodity, and seeks for damages, because Mr.
Oxley's character has been injured. I will prove to you that
he is a man of no character, and let my friend if he dare
ask the particulars, and although that only would go in re-
duction of damages, if your verdict should be against the
society, yet it is of the deepest importance to see when this
inquiry is before you, whether any man in the position of an
attorney, would condescend to commit this most atrocious
fraud. I shall show you it must have been committed—
I shall call before you, as I have stated, both Mr. Docker,
and Mr. Parkinson, to prove the presentation of the check
and the signature, and I shall also call witnesses who will
prove that Oxley is not to be believed on his oath. My
witnesses will support each other, that he is a man of general
bad character, and 1 again invite my friend if he dare to in-
vestigate the particulars of Mr. Oxley's character, if he
thinks a public exposition will raise him in the estimation of
the public.
Mr. TOWNSHEND then called
THOMAS PARKINSON,—I assist Mr. Docker in his shop
in Liverpool. He is a grocer. On Saturday the 28th of
Dec., I recollect a person coming to the shop, with a check
for X 5., for which he wanted change, in payment for some
groceries. His name was Edwards, and it was past ;o'clock
when he came ;—the check was signed George Oxley. (The
J.
notAtii
e Kayetohnee
checkahn
ed Cb
roo.
uwg whichhats
wEh eadis-we
oahrfadansdl
bgdrhott
uobg theute.
check signed by
wl
ietxnaemssildmiti,sanisd
colour.

Mr. JERNIS.--On which bank was the check drawn
Mr. CorriNGßAm.-1 object to the question because if
the story be true which my learned friend has told, he ought
to have given notice for the check to be produced. -
The JUDGE. Was the paper which Edwards produced
taken away by him.
Witness.—lt was, my lord.
The JUDGE decided that notice ought to have been given
for the production of the paper.
Cross-examined by Mr. CorrixoHnm.-1 am not a mem-
ber of the Guardian society, but my employer, Mr. Docker,
is. I did not know anything of the report made to the society
before it was sent. I swear I did not join in the concocting
of the report. I knew that Mr. Docker had made the report
on the Tuesday, but I did not see it, nor did 1 say anything
to him concerning it.
Mr. Henry Docker, grocer, of Liverpool, examined by
Mr. TOWNSEND.---I pay my subscription to the Guardian
Society.
Mr. COTTINGHAM.—Are you a party in defending this
action.

Witness.—No.
Mr. COTTINGII AM.—Are not the funds of the Guardian
Society expended to defend this action
VNitness
on
.—I
myam ownnotoknntohweledge. committee, and do not know it
to be a fact
By Mr. TowNsEND.—I am sure that it was between seven
and eight o'clock when Parkinson called me out to look at
the check, because I was going home at the time, and that is
the usual hour at which I leave the shop, excepting on the
Saturday. I have been in a mercantile office before I was in
business for mybelf, and have had many bill transactions go
through my hands, and I swear positively that the check
produced was not the one tendered by Edwards. The one
he tendered was of a light blue, or slate colour. (A blank
check of Messrs. Moss of the colour mentioned by the wit-
ness was here handed to him, the check signed by Messrs.
Kaye and Co. being of a pink colour.) This I now hold in
my hand I should think to be a fac simile of the plate from
which the check brought by Edwards was printed. Mr.
Parkinson had supplied Mr. Oxley with groceries on the
previous Saturday. After the check was tendered, I made
inquiries at Messrs. Mosses' Bank, as to whether Mr. Oxley
had any funds in the bank, and the answer was that he had
not, and I then made the report to the Guardian Society. Mr.
check
ksbday morning,
Edwards.
a
In Oxley had promised to come to my shop on the Monday follow-
ing the presentation of the check, to pay the IBs 104 for groce-
ries
rinnd :
eshtoebludfit him
instance, b
trasshaedoludt the presentation plres
said went
enthttaaotti I
himofwas
onsthe
the c
rry
that I could not
change the check at the time, but asked him if he had got it

with him then. I believe I mentioned to him that the check
brought by Edwards purported to be of the value of .-E5.
Mr. Oxley, on my mentioning the subject of the check,
seemed rather fluttered, and said "say nothing about it,
here is the money for the groceries," and he threw down the
sovereign and I gave him the change..l know the firm of J.
A. Kaye and Co., and know them to be highly respectable.
If I had seen their names upon the check produced by Ed-
wards to me, I should have cashed it at the time, as I had
plenty of money in the house to have done so: I merely
said thatlhad notbecause I would not cash.a check for Oxley
without making enquiry.
Cross-examined by Mr. COTTINGHAM.—I informed the
secretary of the Guardian Society on the Tuesday following
the tendering of the cheek verbally and the report complained
of was published a week or two afterwards. I will swear-it
was more than a week after I informed the secretary, that the
report was published. lam not threatened with an action
for libel by the plaintiff. I know that Messrs. lteay and
Evans wereapplied to give up to the author of the report, but
1 do not know that that was for the purpose of bringing an
action against the author. I examined the check by gas
light. _

-By Mr. JELVIS.—The circular containing the report was
dated the 30th of January.
Mr. George Hardisty called and examined by Mr. TowN-
SEND.—I lately carried on the business of a wine and spirit
merchant in Liverpool. The witness Edwards was in my
service in 1833. I have heard him asked about the matter
of the bill.

Mr. TOWNSHEND was then about to ask the witness as to
the nature of the transaction of the bill before alluded to,
when

The JUDGE said,—l do not think you can ask that ques-
tion about the bill. You can ask him whether he would
believe the witness on his oath.

Mr. TOWNSHEND.—You have said that you have known
the witness from being in your service. Would you believe
anything that he said?
Mr. Hardisty.—l say, from my own knowledge of his
character, that I would not believe him on his oath, unless
he were corroborated.

Cross-examined by Mr. WELSBY .—lt is about seven years
since Edwards was in my employ. I heard him examined
at the Sessions-house, in Liverpool, against a female, who
was acquitted. I can almost give you the words of Mr.
Clarke, the recorder, on the occasion.
Mr. WELSBY.—WeII, what were they ?
Mr. Hardisty.—Mr. Clarke, the recorder, looked at the
jury, and said, " Gentlemen, you may see as clear• as I do
into this case." The jury then turned round, and immedi-
ately acquitted the prisoner.
Mr. CorrINGLIAm.—A very excellent summing up, I
think. (Laughter.)
Mr. Weaver•, a boot and shoemaker, in Hill-street, Tox-
teth-park, was then called.
Mr. TOWNSHEND.— Do • you 'num the plaintiff in this.
action ?
Witness.—l do.

Mr. TOWNSHEND.—What is his character? Is it good
or bad ?

Mr. COTTINGHAM said that he objected to that question
being put. The plaintiff had been libelled, and had denied
that he had been guilty of that laid to his charge, and, that
as he could not put in evidence of his good character, it was
not legal that general evidence of bad character should be
received.

Mr. JEavis contended that the evidence could legally be
received, and quoted several cases from Roscoe's Reports,
among- which were those of " Moore v. Oastler," tried at
York, " Hardy v. Alexander," tried at Liverpool, and the
more recent case of Holden v, Richards, against the Guar-
dian Society, in all of which general evidence against the
plaintiff's character was admitted. An argument on this
point ensued between the plaintiff's and defendant's counsel.
The JUDGE, after referring to the cases quoted, said he
would admit the evidence, although he did not like the prin-
ciple of it.
Mr. COTTINGHAM hoped the Judge would take a note of
the objection.
His LORDSHIP said he would do so.

The Witness then stated that he knew the plaintiff, and
from his own knowledge, and from reports, he could say that
his character was not good.
Mr. JERVIS said that Mr. Cottingham could enter into
particulars with the witness if he thought proper.
Mr. COTTINGHAM declined to do so.

Mr. John M`Quistian, a landing-waiter, of Liverpool, was
then called by
Mr. TOWNSHEND.—I know the plaintiff, and have done for
two or three years, and 1 can swear that he has a bad cha-
racter.

Cross-examined by :Mr. COTTINGHAM.—I employed the
plaintiff as an attorney, and he sent in a bill of sale of my
goods.

Mr. JERvis.—What do you mean by a bill of sale of your
goods. _ _

Witness.—l employedhim to settle with a person to whom
I owed money, and he received the money from me, and
did not hand it over to the creditor, and I am now paying it
over again.

MR: John Askew, the harbour master of Liverpool, was
called, and said, that he had sold Oxley some goods, and had
never received payment for them. He had only one trans-
action with him. On cross-examination, the witness said,
that he had no great opinion of the plaintiff, nor of attorneys
in general, for he had sold property to one of that pro-
fession to the amount of £23,000, and had not got paid for it.
Mr. J. Williams examined.—l am a charcoal-burner in
Liverpool. I have known the plaintiff and his family for
many years. He had been a soldier, and I know that his
character and reputation is bad. When he first came to
Liverpool, I recommended him to some friends to get in
money for them, and he received the money but never
handed it over to his employers. The parties to whom I re-
commended him, said I ought to make up his deficiencies;
they claimed from me inconsequence of my recommendation.
I do not hesitate to say, that I would not believe him upon
his oath.

Cross-examined by Mr. CorTINGnAm.—I have been a
bankrupt and an insolvent, but my misfortunes were brought
on by the attorneys. The plaintiff never supported my fa-
mily at Rotherham. He used to come to a fruit shop kept
by me in that town, with his comrades, to purchase goods;
but that is all he ever did for me. I never heard of any kind-
nesses done by the plaintiff to my family. I was connected
with some alum works at Rotherham, and left of my own
accord, and was not discharged for concealing myself on the
premises, to obtain possession of a secret.
Be Mr. JERVIS.—I am an operative chemist. The plain-
tiff came to me, and said that he had been abroad among the
bush rangers, and after some conversation. I said that I
could get him plenty of business if he would be honest. He
never gave up the money I recommended him to collect.
By Mr. Corrowilam.—l never knew the plaintiff was
an ensign in a regiment. I understood he was a private
soldier.

Mr. Ackroyd, a tailor and draper, of Liverpool, was then
examined.—l saw the prisoner on the 20th of September
last, and he swindled me out of a suit of clothes.

Mr. COTTINGHAM.—I suppose you made a suit of clothes
for him and he did not pay you. That is it, is it not?
Witness.—He got them by false pretences. He said he
would try them on to see if they would fit, and then he would
pay me ; but when he had got them on, he would not part
with them again, and said that there was no law in England
which could take them from him. I never give credit, and
the plaintiff could read on a large board in my shop, as if it
was over this court, "No credit given." I did not proceed
against the plaintiff, because I thought he was nothing bet-
ter than a common swindler, and that I should get nothing
by it.
By Mr. JERVIS.—The plaintiff first sent his servant for
the clothes, but I would not part with them without the
money, and he then came himself and said that he wanted no
credit, but to try the clothes on at home, as he did not like
to try them on in the shop. I sent them to his house, and
he promised to send the money back, but I was miserably
disappointed. (Loud laughter.)
Mr. Blacker.—An auctioneer in Liverpool, on his ex-
amination by Mr. TOWNSREND.—Said that he had had
dealings with the plaintiff, who was formerly a friend of his,
but he was truly sorry to say that his character was very
bad. He had reason to say so from having employed him,
and also from his general reputation.
By Mr. CorririnfiAm.—l sold the plaintiff's household
furniture when he was in difficulties, and I have accounted to
him for every farthing of the proceeds of the sale. I am
not a member of the Guardian Society.
Mr. JERVIS said that he could call a number more wit-
nesses to give similar evidence, with regard to the plaintiff's
character, but he thought he had shewn sufficient, and here
concluded the defendant's case.

Mr. COTTINGHAM then addressed the jury in reply, stat-
ing that the evidence against the plaintiff's character had
nothing to do with the question for the jury, which was whe-
ther or not the publication in the Guardian Society's circular
was a libel on the plaintiff's character or not. He believed
that attorne‘s generally were not popular with the public,
which might account for the evidence
.given. However
respectable an attorney conducted his business, people could
be found to say something against him.
The Learned JUDGE then summed up the evidence, leaving
it to the jury to say what the amount of damages should be.
With respect to the publication, he had no doubt of its being
libellous.

The Jury, with but little hesitation, returned a verdict for
the plaintiff.—Damages one farthing.
Mr. JERVIS.—I hope your lordship will certify in this
case ?
The JUDGE.—I will take time to consider of it.

FELTED CLOTII.—In reference to the recent patent for
manufacturing felted cloth, a correspondent has directed our
attention to the following passage in Dr. Rees' Cyclopwdia,
at the conclusion of an article on the " woollen manufacture,"
in vol. 38 :—" Among the attempts to improve the woollen
manufactures we must not omit to notice the invention of
Mr. Joseph Booth, for fabricating woollen cloth without
spinning or weaving. This was effected by felting wool into
a web by the aid of machinery, which operated mechanically
upon a tissue of carded wool, to entangle and interlace the
fabrics together. The inventor took a patent for this in 1793
or 1794, but before the time for the enrolment of the specifi-
cation of his process, he obtained an act of parliament, the
preamble of which states, that on account of the great
importance of the art, and the danger of its being carried
abroad to the injury of the staple manufacture of the king-
dom, parliament had determined to keep the specification
sealed ; hence we are not able to give the details of this ma-
chinery. 'We find these expectations have not been realised ;
for, although the process has been repeatedly tried on a large
scale and in the most complete manner, it has been aban-
doned. Three large mills were established at Taunton and
near Salisbury, by experienced woollen-manufacturers of the
west of England ; another mill was converted to the purpose
at Lewisham, in Kent ; and the last mill was erected at
Merton, in Surrey, the property of James Perry, Esq. We
learn from this gentleman, that he was able to manufacture
cloth of a fine surface, and of a very even and regular sub-
stance, but it was rather deficient in strength, for want of
the threads which form the substance of common cloth ;
and in respect to wear it was less durable than common
cloth, as it did not withstand brushing; otherwise the ex-
pense of the process, which was not one-fourth of the com-
mon process, would have brought it into general wear."
,ueHemrdlsdira,goej
inLel
naslEytteNeys
soon
hooEpoaf
sonr
H.M.rna
beenfel E R
graciously MAJESTY
pleasedANn toPßlNCEsignify ALBERT.
her i
n-
joteofnytpiitoloronr to provide for the widow and children of Lieutenant
after
rA llisbeteehratamdt
o-tyhtaheci steam-yacht
honournFllinr et Firebrand,
bringndn whoe
aorvl
eyrdliiiel
fides
g
—Her
who was then a pilot, had the good fortune to
prevent her Majesty from being injured, perhaps killed, by
warding off from her the spar or gaff-boom of a sailing.yaCht,
near which she was sitting with her illustrious mother, en-
todact:
m m aquaticand oef xac r sicii.
government For a thistea ma_cyta
steam-yacht.
w. a s
oenr
ho
emaor
itne
the quarter-deck, ratnenr -ddeercsk,
a,
death, her
hnr m ultimatelyaj theetsoty is
sl,alidutaoblhpalaen and lu-
crative
much affected, and lost no communicatingtimseoetihrneanlaeftt
gra-
cious intention to hisr duhirsgecnoannhsdoislGate widow. The othelerrii
°Firebrand,. Mr. Hicks, the master of the
hkaoes n
aof follows otnwx
ets
h:
Coburg
royal yacht William and Mary, having been temporarily
placed in command, his serene highness made several kind
returnde n inci-
dent
ius
inquiries after Lieutenant Shambler, the officer who had on
a former occasion brought him over, and learning that he
Highnesshi sco untthrey
country,
Reign-
lugelhcels
had accepted the command of a West Indian packet, and
fallen a victim to the climate, his serene highness, in the kind.
est manner, warmly expressed his tympathy for the orphans
and widow, who were left totally destitute, and immediately
wrote a letter, which he requested Mr. Hicks to take charge
of, and personally deliver to LieutenantF. Seymour, one of
the equerries to his Royal Highness Pime Albert, which
humane mission the gallant officer faithfully performed,
in
and
the result is, that Mrs. Shambler has received a royal ti-
by a pension to the widow.—Morning Herald.
mation that the long services of her husband will be rewarded