The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1835-02-17 00:00:00

,LONDON LAW REPORT.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH.--SATuaDAT, Flu+. 11.

EVANS V."ROCKLIFFE AND ANOTHER.
LIBEL.--Sir John Campbell, Mr. Thesiger, and Mr. Wil-
liams conducted the plaintiff's case, and the Attorney-General
and Mr. Wightman appeared for the defendants.
Sir John Campbell said that his client was the most unfor-
tunate and persecuted of men; his sufferings had been severe
and long-continued. His father had been an attorney at Car-
narvon, and always treated his son with great kindness until he
formed an illicit connexion with a woman who was living in his
house, when he turned his child out of doors, and this had been
the origin of ail the misfortunes that subsequently betel his
client—he was thrown upon the world, and no doubt on account of
• the ill-usage he htd received be did at times exhibit a great degree
of irritability sand eccentricity, which made some persons suppose
• he was insane. On many occasions he had been in conhne-
meat on this account. In May, 1831, he was at liberty, and re-
'sided at Liverpool ; and from that time till September, 1833, he
was living with his wife and family, and conducted himself in a
very quiet manner. It happened, on the 23d of November,
1833, there was to be a great agricultural dinner at Liverpool,
at which the Duke of Richmond and Mr. Stanley were to be
present. The plaintiff wished to present Mr. Stanley with a
letter, and inquired where he could find him, and he went to the
betel for that purpose. At the door be stated his wish, when a
man of the name of Derbyshire laid hold of him, carried him
into a yard, and there assaulted him violently, upon which the
plaintiff took from his pocket a pistol, which he carried to fire
in a shooting-gallery. lie did not discharge it, but he was
instantly taken into custody; he was taken before a magistrate
and ordered to keep the peace; and, being unable to procure
hail, he was committed to prison. The defendants were the
proprietors of the Liverpool Journal, and if they had merely
.giveo a correct account of the transaction, or bad fallen into au
unintentional error, which all persons were subject to, blame
would not have been imputed to them, and this action would
not have been brought; but they had thought this a capital op-
portunity to excite public interest and make an impression on
the public mind. For this purpose they posted up placards all
over Liverpool, couched in these terms :—" Our next will con-
tain an account of the attempt to assassinate the Duke of Rich-
mond and the lion. E. G. Stanley, at the agricultural dinner,"
and it was then signed with their names, " Rockliffe and Duck-
worth, printers, Liverpool." Here the plaintiff would be re-
presented us much worse than the man who attempted to stab
the Earl of Oxford, upon which an act of Parliameut was
passed, which made it high treason to kill.a privy councillor.
lhere must have been a great desire all over Liverpool to have
All account of this monstrous crime, attempted to be committed
by the plaintiff. What could' be the abject of this? Some-
times such things were done for the purpose of increasing
the sale of the paper; and here it was admitted. On the
28th of September was the next day of the publication of
the newspaper; and he imagined there must be a little dis-
appointment in the public mind. The paragraph was this :---
Presumed attempt to assassinate two oT the cabiuet ministers.
On Monday, shortly after the company had sat down to dinner,
a person. named J. G. Evans presented himself for admission at
- the door, which was then open, nearly opposite where the Duke
and Mr. Stanley were sitting. Derbyshire stood at the door,
and Evans inquired of him which were the Duke and Mr.,
Stanley, as he wanted\ to see. them? Derbyshire opposed his
admission ; some confusion took place. Evans was seiztel,,when
he took out a loaded pistol, which was taken troni him; he then
pulled oat two knives, rudely formed of superannuated razors;.
these were taken from hies, and lie was conveyed to Bridewell;
when there, a drunken sailor took the pistol, which he discharged,
and frightened the gaoler's wife. It appeared, on inquire, that
Evans had repeatedly called at the Golden Lion, inquiring for
Mr. Stanley and 'the Duke of Richmond. On Tuesday he was
brought before the magistrates and remanded till next day, and
he then stated his object was to present a letter to Mr. Stanley
respecting seine accounts of £lOO,OOO, which he said was due
to his late father: he attempted to explain his carrying pistols
with him by saying he was ;in the habit of shooting in
the gallery. He was ordered to find sureties, which he could not
obtain, and he was committed to prison. He is a Welchman,
well known by the length of his beard and his eccentric habits.
His father was a legal officer abroad, and at his death left all
his property to a woman with whom he lived, and it is said that
since that period he has been deranged." This was the paper
that was to give an account of the attempted assassination of
the Duke of Richmond and Mr. Stanley. The action had not
been brought till repeated applications had been made for an
apology, and every explanation bad been refused. On the 12th
of October there was another article in the paper, which was
headed—" Mr. J. G. Evans. The following is a corrected
account respecting this person, who is now in the Borough Gaol
for want of bail: we understand that he has been insane
upwards of ten years, and that he has been in confinement
several times; since that period lie has carried deadly,weapons
with the avowed purpose of doing injury to several profes-
sional persons in the town, who signed certificates ainst
him. His father left his widow £lOO a-year, and £7O or £BO per
annum to him, provided he did not marry a female who was
obnoxious to him. He left the rest of his property to a nephew
who had been long his faithful clerk. We regret that a fort-
night ago we were induced to state that which has wounded the
feelings of a respectable female." On the 26th of October there
was another paragiaph. " Mr. J. G. Evans, the person who
was apprehended un suspicion of a design to assassinate the
Duke of Richmond or Mr. Stanley at the late agricultural
dinner, has been sent to a lunatic asylum, there being no doubt
of his insanity." The plaintiff had sent to know who was the
author, but could get no explanation whatever. The defendants
now said this was all true; but let them prove that his unfortunate
client ever had any intention to injure either of the individuals
referred to; let them prove this by any means by which the
intention of the human mind might be discovered, that he ever
testified the slightest intention to do any one injury. The jury
would have to determine upon the evidence whether he had
been taken up on suspicion of au attempt to assassinate. There
was no pretence for saying that he was. He was taken up for
the supposed assault on Derbyshire, and was committed for
want of sureties. It had never entered into the head of any human
being that he had any such intention as that which was imputed
to him till this placard appeared. Under these circumstances
it seemed to him (the learned counsel) that he should be entitled
io a verdict, and it would be for them to say whether ample
damages ought not to be awarded.
To prove the sanity of the plaintiff the following witnesses
were called :
Mr. John S. Hallows, surgeon, Liverpool, considered the
plaintiff perfectly sane and harmless; thought the papers found
on the plaintiff when taken into custody might have proceeded
from a sane man.
Mr. Andrew Gillen, a surgeon at Liverpool, saw the plaintiff,
in company of the last witness; considered him perfectly sane,
but should. not think the plaintiff was sane when he wrote the
paper in question.
Dr. L. Whalley, physician to the Lancashire Lunatic Asy-
lum, to whose house the plaintiff was taken on the 22d October,
said he never observed any symptom of insanity from that time
until the 3d December, and therefore he was discharged.
Cross-examined.-1 think I paid more attention to his case
thau usual; I visit the asylum twice a weak; I have heard this
paper read, addressed to the Mayor, and should say the mind of
the man who wrote it was hardly sound; looking at the other
paper, called a record, I should say the man was under a delu-
sion; I think he must have been insane; the name of the resi-
dent surgeon is Davidson; we concurred in opinion that he
ought to be released.

ft e.examiued.—lt is such a jumble, I can't say what the de-
lusion is • I am aware of his being supposed to have been armed
at a public meeting, and I heard the reports about him.
Dr. W. Mason, a physician at Carnarvon, said he had known
the plaintiff from boyhood, and never observed any indication
of insanity; the plaintiff's fattier, who was an attorney, died in
1e27; a nephew was in possession of the property. 'I he plain.
tiff, before his father's death, left his house in consequence of
family differences.
Mr. Roberts, a surgeon, gave evidence as to the plaintiff's
sanity.
Mr. J. Williams exatnined.—Remembers passing Lucas's
repository on the day of the agricultural dinner; I saw plaintiff
on his back in the yard; he said he wished they would not
abuse him, for he hail a wife and child; I saw the kniies taken
from him; I attended with my father before the magistrate, on
the second day; my father went for the purpose of being bail
for him; I offtred myself as a witness, but they would Out let
me into the room.

C runs-examined.—He wore a beard of a month or two's growth.
Edward Blackburne, an innkeeper, of Liverpool, with whom
the plaintiff had lodged, said that he always considered the
plaintiff to be perfectly sane.
The Attorney-General then addressed the jury for the de-
fendants. It was perfectly true that the occurrence had taken
place, and it was also clear that the paragraphs had appeared.
Application on the subject was not made to the defendants till
April, 1831. The editors of the paper had thought it right to
publish what were called the libels; but they said on the record
that what they had stated was matter of fact. One question
was whether every one must not have formed the opinion from
what they had that day heard, that it was the plaintiff's inten-
tiou to assassinate? And the other question then arose as to
whether the plaintiff was insane or not? The defendants said
he was, and that he had conducted himself on the occasion of
the agricultural dinner in a manner to create a reasonable sus-
picion that he was shout to assassinate Mr. Stanley or the Duke
of Richmond, or somebody. He was at a loss to consider under
what sound advice this unfortunate individual had been induced
to bring this action, the party well knowing 'what had been his
conduct for some years past, and perfectly well knowing that
on that day he was taken with his pistol in his pocket, that it
was loudea, that it went off accidentally, and that the ball
lodged in the ceiling which might have lodged in the person of
the Duke of Richmond or Mr. Stanley. How a saner-man
could go to that meeting with this pistol in his pocket loaded as
it was he could not think, or how the same individual could
have there two knives which were made from old razors he was
at a loss to understand. The learned counsel then adverted to
the circumstance of the action being tried in London instead of
ut Lancaster, and thus increasing the expense to an enormous.
extent; but he trusted their righteous verdict that day would
relieve them from that wicked intention. He was nut accus-
tomed to pay compliments to the press; but he must say there
were few institutions in this country to which we were more in-
debted than to the press. The learned counsel then remarked
on the evidence that had been brought forward on the part of
the plaintiff, and afterwards stated the evidence which he should
adduce, and then contended that. he should be entitled to their
verdict—if, however, they should be induced to give a verdict
for the plaintiff, he trusted the damage would be the lowest coin
of the realm.

Evidence was then given on the part of the defendants, tend-
ing to show that the plaintiff had been several times confined in
lunatic asylums, and that he was insane, and labouring under
delusions; that he had sent most extraordinary letters to the
Mayor of Liverpool and other persons, that he had threatened
the lives of some, and that on the day in question he had endea-
voured to force himself into the dining-room, and, when opposed,
bad produced a pistol and the knives; and that on a previous
occasion he had been taken up, having a brace of pistols and a
sword-stick in his possession.
Mr. Theviger, in the absence of Sir John Campbell, then re-
plied for the plaintiff.
Lord Denman summed u, stating that he imagined there
would be little doubt of the plaintiffs insanity; but the question
was whether the defendants had fully proved their justification.
The jury considered for some time, and then gave a verdict
for the plaintiff—Damages,.4os.

IMPORTANT CASK.-TRIAL AT RAR.-THE KING P. ANTROBUS.
It will be in the recollection of our readers that a dispute
arose between the sheriffs of the city and county of Chester, as
to which of them should execute the sentence which had been
passed upon Garside and Mosley, the men who were convicted
of the murder of the late Mr. Ashton, and that those functionaries
persisted in their refusal until at last this court, upon the appli-
cation of the late Attorney-General. ordered the convicts to be
brought before the bar, and issued its command to the Marshal
of the King's 13ench to execute the sentence, to be assisted by
the sheriff of the county of Surrey. The present indictment
was preferred upon a criminal information filed by the late
Attorney-General to determine whose drily it should hereafter
be to carry the extreme sentence of the law into execution, and
thereby prevent the recurrence of the inconvenience, confusion,
and expense which arose out of the dispute in question.
Mr. Wightman opened the pleadings.
The Attorney-General stated the case for th crown. He said
the present was a criminal information which had been filed by
his friend the late Attorney-General against the defendant, and