The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1843-02-28 00:00:00

--T---

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS..--SATURDAY

(London Sittings at Nisi Pri
Specins, before or
Ld Chief Justice
TINDAL i
ns, b Juries.)

MOORE, CLERK, v. DRUMMOND, CLERK.
This was an action of slander.
Mr. Sergeant Talfourd and another learned gentleman
conducted the piaintiff's case ; Sir T. Wilde and Mr. Creesy
appeared for the defendant.
The circumstance which gave rise to this action made, at
the time they occurred. considerable noise in the world, and
were fully published in all the public journals. They were
as follows:—
The plaintiff is the Rev. William Carter Moore. 8.A., the
curate of St. Peter's and St. Mary's, at Boston, in Lincoln-
shire ; and the defendant is also a clergyman, and the in.
cumbent of the Chapel Royal, Prince's-Place, Brighton. On
Saturday, July 30, in last year, the plaintiff, accompanied by
his son, a member of St. John's, College, Cambridge, went
to Brighton for the recovery of his health ; and on Sunday
morning, the 31st, the plaintiff and his son, being then en-
tire strangers to the defendant, entered the Chapel Royal, in
Prince's-place, just as the Litany was concluded, they having
been detained until that time at the baths. At the close of
the sermon the defendant said—" My dear friends, I know it
is not usual to address you after the sermon, but Ibeg to
inform you that there are two notorious pickpockets b
in the
congregation, and therefore be careful." That announce-
ment turned the eyes of the congregation to the strangers,
who had before attracted some attention by coming late into
church ; considerable confusion ensued, and the plaintiff and
his son were followed from the chapel by a crowd of persons.
Upon inquiring the cause of the assemblage, they were in-
formed that they were the persons against whom the defend-
ant had cautioned his congregatiop.
Sir Thomas Wilde addressed the jury for the defendant,
and contended that this action ought not to have been
brought—inasmuch as the defendant, as soon as be disco-
vered he had made a mistake in respect of the persons whom
he considered the plaintiff and his son to be, wrote a letter to
the plaintiff, expressing in the strongest terms his regret that
the circumstance had occurred, and stating the manner in
which it had happened—viz., that shortly before the plaintiff
adnrdivheins
fsronnmenctehrreisdttchehcuhreuhrc,
they church,
einy havingformation had been received
by the defendant that two notorious pickpockets had been
come there in a fly,
and that they had afterwards gone to several other chapels in
Brighton. That the close arrival of the plaintiff and his son
led him to believe they were the parties, and to make the
address to his audience, which had given rise to these pro-
ceedings.
The Lord Chief Justice having summed up, the jury re-
tired, and, after having been absent for some time, found a
verdict for the plaintiff—damages, 405.

REFUSAL OF PROTECTION TO AN INSOLVENT.—OnThu
gr rs-
day last, Joseph Schofield Shaw, formerly a ocer, drugg
aP-
ist,
and porter dealer, at Ashton, but now living at Oldham.
plied for protection under the new insolvent debtors' act.
It appeared that he had taken the benefit of the insolvent
act in July, 1842, when his debts amounted to £5,000 and
upwards; having previously compounded with his creditors,
when he owed about £1,200; and his present debts amoun-
ted to £267. It was also discovered that he had secreted
some property, and his schedule was very artfully drawn up,
with the view of concealing the real state of his affairs.—
Mr. Commissioner Jemmett severely reprimanded the in-
solvent, declared him' not to be entitled to the benefit of the
act, and refused to grant the final order for protection.—We
understan that thi is the rst case at this court, where the
final order d has been refused.fi
—Manchester Guardian.
---........---.----""