The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1835-03-31 00:00:00

LIBEL.

`ERX v. BURRELL.—ThiS was an indictment for libel on the
prosecution of John Taylor, Esq., of Moreiiirr, near NValley, in
this county, for a libel alien him contained' in the Blackburn
Gazetie Of ednesday, the 2lst of January last, of Which paper
the daen darit, Mr. John Burrell, is publisher and proprietor.
The AiroaNs;r:.Gkeeas.t., With whom were Messrs. STAR.'
ME and Wafstisi, stated the coise for the- prosecution. The
plaintiff, Mr.,John Taylor, Waitigentleinan of eonsiderable pro-
perty, residing in the. neighbourhood of Blackburn, and a ina-
gritrate of the County; the defendant, Mr. John Burrell, was
printer, publisher, and proprietor of the-Blackburn Gazette, and
the present indictment was for a libel published in that paper,
lefiecting on the prosecutor's character as a man and his con-
•duCt as ajustice of the peace. He need hardly remind the jury
that there had recently been a general election, or inform them
that at the borough of Clithero, which was situated in the
neighbourhood of Blackburn, there had been; as at other places,
a somewhat violent contest of party and political feeling. The
libel complained of appeared in the leading articles of the defen-
dant's paper, published on the 21st January,' 1835, shortly after
the electiou at Clithero; Which ended in the return of Mr. Fort,
as representative of that borough in parliament. The defendant
began by alluding to a contest which had taken place between
Mr. Fort and Mr. Assheten fwo years before, and to an inteii-
/ion suppoied to. have existed on the part of Mr. Taylor to offer
himself as a candidate for the suffrages of the electors of
(Munro at the last election. Speaking of Mr. Taylor, the de-
fendant said—" He has been prevented by the sober judgment
of Mr. Green from making an egregious fool of himself, cud the
electors ofClithero have been deprived of a rich treat,'for such
indeed it would have been to have seen him at, the histings as a
candidate. We fancy We, see some old Downham reformer eye-
ing him with a look of Wonder
,and preparing to ax him a few'
questions. BOt we forbear putung them, as our present pur-
pose with Mr. Taylor is net to exhibit hiin on the hustings at
Clithero, but to bring him to the bar of public opinion, and there
to arraign him, as we now do, fin conduct unbecoming the cha-
racter of a man and a magistrate." This he (the Attorney-
General) contended was language far exceeding the proper
license of public discussiou, with. which he would be the last to
interfere—language calculated to bring the prosecutor and the
administration of public justi4 into contempt, and it would be
for the jury to say whether it *as libellous or not. The article
then proceeded thus:—". Shortly after the first election under
the reform bill, when party feeling still ran high in the neigh-
bourhood, Mr. Fort, the member elect, had occasion to dismiss
his butler for various acts or misconduct and under strong
suspicions of the grossest immorality, which were subseilnently
confirmed. Mr. Fort, as any other gentleman under such eir-
cduistances would have done, dismissed the man without notice,
and resisted a demand for an extra mouth's wages. Soon after
he received a letter from the Hey. Robert Noble, the vicar of
Whalley, and a magistrate, informing him that a complaint had
been lodged against him by a servant Whose wages he had de-
tained, and giving it as his opinion that Mr. Fort ought to pay
the demand. This interference in his, ivate
,affairs Mr. Fort
justly considered both impertinent and illegal, and took no
notice of the rev. gentleman's application, which was immedi-
ately renewed in another form, by a summons to appear before
the magistrates, which was served by the constable of Whalley
on Mr. Fort, at Read-hall, who, having, as we think, indiscreet-
ly obeyed it, found himself in the presence of the Rev. Robert
Noble and. John Taylor, Esq., two of his maj,sty's justices of
the peace, and at that time, as ever since, his bitter and impla-
cable enemies. With a total loss of gentlemanly feeling and
genii taste they heard the case, and, with equal ignorance of the
law, decided it, ordering Mr. Fort to pay the demand, and, on
his refusal and appeal, called upon him to' enter into sureties for
his appearance at the sessions.(!!!) which he indignantly refused.
Sabseeuentiv learning that the whole affair was illegal, and that
they had no jurisdiction in the case at all, this wnrsbipful pair
quashed the paltry proceedings, after having inflicted upon the
hon. member fur Clithero all the mortification in their power,
and on themselves the guilt of vulgar insolence and malice. AL
tune di.sce wanes. Such are the men who are charged with the
administration of justice, at Whailey.',"tlais was the matter
charged as libellous, and the learned counsel commented upon
it as tending not only to injure the character of the prosecutor,
but also to bring the administration of justice into hatred and
contempt, and therefore highly proper to form the subject of a
criminal indictment.
;The, publication and proprietorship having beet) proved,
James Makiuson was sworn and examined by Mr. STARKIE.
—He stated that he was an attorney and resided at Blackburn.
Knew a person named Avery, (Mr. Fort's servant alluded to in
the alleged. libei,) who applied to him for professional assistance
ahout two years ago 'last January. It was about a dispute re- •
specting.wages with Mr. Iftpt. The.inatter was heard before
two magistrates, Mr. Noble and Mr. Taylor, in a room at the,
Swan Inn, Whalley. Th,e.ciaim made b.y Avery against Mr.'
Fort was £3ls. for a month's swages, in consequence of his hav-
ing been dismissed without notice. The magistrates -made an
order on Mr. Fort to pay the demand, but Mr. Fort refused to
do so, and said he would appeal. He (witness) delivered the
order to the clerk of the magistrates.
Cross-examined by Mr. BRA Nllf.—Knew that Avery had
obtained a summons before lie (witness) was employed. The
usual day fur holding the sessions was every Friday fortnig,ht.
This was held on Wednesday, and was not a regular session.
'the magistrate's clerk was not there. Did not knoW that Mr.
Fort had to Meet his friends at a Public dinner that 'day, but had
.heard se. Did not knuW, that Mr. Taylor intended to be a can-
-' ditlate at. the last election, but had lierd some talk of it.
The Rev. Richard Noble stated that he was the other magic-
-trate referred to in this publication.
.Cress-examined by Mr. BRANDT.—Parties ran pretty high
et Clithero. He had formerly interfered at elections, but for
the last three years had not taken any active part. Took an
active Part against Mr. Fort at a former election. Mr. Fort
Was the reform candidate. Would not say that Mr. Fort was
an anti-reform candidate. Knew that Avery was a servant of
Mr. Furt. Avery came to him after his discharge to procure a
summons against his master. Did not invite him to come, bite'
was told by the servants that he was at the hack door and wanted
to speak to hirn. Had nut beard that Mr. Taylor was likely to
be a candidate till after the libel-had been published. Ras been
a magistrate since 1813. * On 'the day the summons was heard
- before him and Mr. Taylor at the extra session, had met with.
Mr. Taylor casually in the street. The magistrate's clerk was
not present.
'Re-examined by the A.Trottsrev-GeNzaat..—At first refneed.
to grant-a-summons, w
summons, but afterwards issued one because Avery
inslitattaipon' having it, -alleging 'that Mr. Fort 'was about to
leave home for. London to attend to his parliamentary duties.,
At first he (witness) wrote a. civil notecto Mr.' Fort, but receiv-
ing do answer:he granted the summons. The extraordinary
session at Whalley was held in January, 1833, two years before
the publication of the libel.
Mr- BRANDT, who with Mr. DUNDAS appeared for the de-
fendant, contended at some length and will much ability that
-this was not a matter for. criminal indictment; and that there
-.being no evidence to show that the alleged libel was either false,
- scandalous, or rnalicions,,as described iu the indictment, and as
• the defendant was not permitted to give any as to its truth, it was
"fur the jury to take all the facts into consideration, and give their.
verrlict, according to, their own opinion, and not to consider
• themselves bound by ans legal dictum or "fiction ; that the stile
fact was that of publication and imputed libel.
Mr. Baron Aingesuis defined a libel as heingihe publication
ofsotnething tending to bring a man into hatted slid contempt,
and stated that his province, as fudge' Was to delne the law,
and that of the jury to determine whether the matter imputed
as libelous came, within that definition:
Th: jury retired abogt 'half an.hour, and then acqUitted the
defeadaut.
CROWN. COURT.—THuRsDAy.
ELyteTti,N hIOTS ST PRESTON,
ROA /014 jun., James 'Towsaley, Thomas Aries, Jr:giant
:Detritarat, Thomas Berry, and Wm. Middleton, were indicted's6r
a riot, assault, and destruction of property at the Cleck4ae;.
ptiblieebouse, Pole-street, Preston, on the -Bth of January
_last: .
It appeal ed that on the day in question the defendants, who 'he-''
longed to the bhie and orange, or. Stanley party, went to the.
prosecutor's house, at which one of Captain thntnpsen'sdistriet
co:mtuittees was held, and committed various acts *of violence
bath the persons and prupertv of the ininates„ the' house
havingbeee eompletelY gutted. Ail the defendants, with the
tception of Dewhu.rst, Were fully identified as having taken
part in 'the riot, and were -found Guilty. Dewhurst was cc-
. luitted.
Tlie counsel for the prosecution were Messrs. HENDERSON
and Ildsisrols ; for the defendants, Di. BROWN and Mr.
Dttsoss
John Middleton, Daniel Crestlettalte, Henry Stnith,..Win. Mi 4 •
4letint.: Hebert- Kitchen, Dirniel ViClears, 'John Vickars, fumes
ROMteel4';jan., Henry Vickars Thomas liarrison, and' Thomas Jonas, who also belonged to the Startler and Fleetwood party,
riere indicted for a similar riot and: series-of assaults at the
Albion Hetel, on the night of the Bth e riTanuary last. The
two Middleton', D. Cresthwaite, D. Vi"kars, J. BrOsvell, and
'I% Harrison were found Guilty. The rest acquitted.
There were three indictments for assault arising out of the
-same transactions, but the first having failed in
esequenceetir
gross prevarications en the part of the principal witnesses, and
cr
the others. resting principally on the same testimony, they were
not proceeded with. l hese indictments were preferred by the
Stanley party, against the radicals.

wrriNcus.
The defendants who had been convicted on this and the
.- ,
pre-
ceding day_were then put 'into the Jock to receive sentence.
They all appeared and answered'to their names, with the excep-
tion of Hutchinson, whose recognizances were ordered to be
estreated. The following were the sentences "'
Twelve months imprisonment in Lancaster Castle and hard
labour—James Rothwell and Wm. Middleton.
Ten months ditto—Thomas Harrison.
Nine months, ditto—John Middleton, Daniel Crosthwaite,
-and Daniel Vickers.
Seven months -aitto—James Townley, Thomas Jones, and
Thomas Berry.
Six months ditto—James Crook, Peter Coupe, Wm. Dickin-
'son, and James Glover.
Pour months ditto—Wm. Waring, Win. Proctor, John,Hut-
chinson. and Wm. Dickenson.
Mr. Baron PARKS informed the defendants that at the-expi-
.
ration of their various term 4 of-
imprisonment they would each
be required to enter into recognizances to the ,imount Pf.Cl/4.),-to
give one security in u similar sure, to keep the peace and he of
_good behaviour for three, years; dud that they might mutually
become sureties fot -each other.

CAUTION ,TO TRADES' LIsIIONS.

Edward Conway, Thomas Peters, Joseph Dollop, John Shaw
Wm. Mee, and John Hudgins, members of a trades' union at
Warrington, who pleaded,- guilty to an indictment preferred
against them at the last a,scizes, fos conspiring together against
master shoemaker, n.iined Mather, wbii-efus,:d,.l4.,§ubtnit to
their regul,itidn's, foetlielturpose of intimulatinythe'mrtln
-employ so as to tire v out their working for him, wet() then brought
,up to receive sentence.

Mr. Baron Pani a. lU44tsstng sentence, observed that though
,atalau might refuse to work himself, unless Certain conditions
-were complied with, provided he were not bound by contract,
,yet he had no eight to prevent others from working, tiv.to-loter
into a conspiracy, as in the present. instance, to ruin a master
tradestnau who iefused to comply With certain regulations made
by the men. It appeared to hint that trades' unions were very
.much in the habit of exCeeding. the privileges which the law
then. and that such institutions, as they had been lately
.conducted, were
.preindicial not only to masters but-to the men
themselves, and to the public. !generally. The defendants in
this case had had the. insolence to diclate to the masters what
wagt..ls they should give to the men whom they employed, in order
to compel thein; to give more for labour than it was actually
worth. • Such a proceeding on their part was decidedly illegal,
especially when acted upon as it' had been by the prisoners; and
he [aped- that when the term of their imprrsonment Was expired
they woad cease to belong to a union which could. never do
them .inygnittl. His lofclihip then sentenced Conway to twelve
Months imprisMiment in Lancaster Castle; and the rest to six
inokihs, all of them to be kept to hard labour.
This terminated the business Of the assizes, and the court
broke, up at about half-past seven o'clock in the evening. At
ap early hour on Friday morning Mr. Baron Park left Lancaster
for Yutic.

OXFO-RD CiliCUlT.—StutEwsauftY, MARCH 24.

CRIM• CON.-WILTON V. WEBSTER, U. I),

Mr. Whateley opened-the pleadings, and stated that this was
an action to recover damages from the defendant for having se-
duced the plaintiff's wife. '
Mr. Sergeant Talfourd addressed the jury. This, he stated,
,was a case of no common occurrence, and involved more than
ordinary guilt on the part of the defendant. Here the grave
had closed over the unhappy victim of his seduction. That cir-
cuinstance he Mentioned at the outset, because to some it might
appear that there was-not a sufficient cause for bringing the
present action. But the plaintiff has in truth thine his duty to
himself and to his character, in thus proceeding. against a 'per-
son who has availed himself of the confideutial relation in
which he stood to debauch the plaintiff's wife. The plaintiff be-
longs to a class of society, though in lank inferior to that of the
jury, vet possessing as much Virtue as theirs, and as capable of
enjoying the happiness arising from the affections of married
life. He is a respectable mercer and draper, carrying on busi-
ness in the town of Shrewsbury. Having formed an attach-
ment to Miss Eliza Hughes, then about twenty years of age,
he was married to her in 1815, being then twenty-nine. She
was a young lady of personal attractions and some accomplish-
ments. They had three children, two of whom are now dead.
For several years the plaintiff and his wife lived very happily
together, until they became acquainted with the defendant.
•He ism physician residing in this town. He belongs to a most
honourable. profession, his father had filled the office of high
.sheriff of the Isle of Anglesey, and for the last nine years he
has been practising in Shrewsbury. Jai 1833 he was called in to
attend one of the plaintiff's children, and a short time after
Mrs. Wilton became his patient. He advised the plaintiff to
remove her into the country for the benefit of her health. and
according accordingly a cotta,ge was taken by him in the rreigh,
bOurhood. There. the defendant continued to visit here The
plaintiff himself became unwell,, and was recommended by the
defendant to go on a tour to the Highlands of Scotland. Up to
that time there was no reason to believe that Mrs. Wilton's af-
fectioni had been alienated from her husband, and the learned
sergeant read two letters from her to him, during his absence
on that tour, which contained expressions of love and affection.
But whether the defendant bed suggested the tour for the pur-
pose of effecting some preconceived design upon her, he could
not say, but certainly it.appeared that during that absence he
did succeed in corrupting her mind and obtaining possession of
her person. He then detailed certain facts afterwards proved
in the evidence, and continued. The hush and returned; and
was received with the same degree of affection as before, and
the defendant, desirous probably of linking himself more closely
with his victim, proposed to take lodgings at the plaintiff's
house. Some reports, however, had been spread abroad rela-
tive to his conduct with Mrs. Wilton, and, to disarm all sus-
picious, he himself went to the plaintiff, communicated them
to him, and denied the truth. The plaintiff was convinced by
this apparent confidence, suffired him to continue his visits,
and to take the apartments in his house which he had engaged,
and to board at his table. Mrs. Wilton fell into a state of con-
firmed illness.. She bad no organic disease, but was in n state
of weakness and debility. Whether the sense of her guilt and
the. wounded spirit within contributed to bring her to her grave
cannot.now he known ; but for a period of fourteen months,
from August, 1833, to last December, she lingered in this state.
Her husband attended her with affection and care. On the 4th
of December her brother came to see her,, and on the morning
of the sth having desired the servant to :leave her bed-room,
she disclosed her guilt to her husband, who had been lying at
her bed-side during the night, and to her brother. The doctor
was by her desire, sent for, and came into her room. A scene
then occurred which was afterwards detailed by the witnesses.
After a few weeks the unhappy lady, who Chad been somewhat
relieved by the disclosure, expired. The plaintiff consulted his
friends as to what course to pursue, and by their advice com-
menced the present action before her death,
The marriage was proved, and evidence was also given that
the parties had lived happily together. Mrs. Wilton was the
daughter of a retired tradesman.
Jane Davis, a servant of Mrs. Wilton, deposed to certain
facts, which left no room to doubt the criminality of the patties,
h. H. Hughes, a medical student, hrother to Mrs. Witton.—
She was about twenty, and the plaintiff was eightor nine years
older. I became one of their family; they lived very affec-
tionately. I went away for some time. In December last I
came back; my sister was very weak. Thu iilairatiff was con-
stantin his attentioas. Dr. Webster then lodged in the house;
Mrs. Wilton requested the servants to leave the room; the
plaintiff was lying by lay sister; he had been there during the
night. After the servants had left the room, some communica-
tion was made to Mr. Wilton by his wife. He was-thunder-
, struck. Dr. Webster was sent for. My sister. told him she
had told her husband that'. he. reports circulated before about
them were true. Her words were, "Dr. Webster, I have told
George that the reports against us were true." The Doctor
said, " Mrs, Wilton, I will make you any sacrifice." He left
the r00mi...-Tweior three hours afterwards he came to feel her
pulse.. she- asked him how he thought she was. He said,
"better." She said, " You are not deceiving me?" He said,
" I never did deceive you." She answered, " Not in respect
of my illness." -I went down to the drawing-room; he was
there. • He remained silent a time, and said, "Bob, you heard
Sirs. Wilton's disclosure ?" I said, " Yes." He inquired what
the plaintiff had .said about it. I answered, "Nothing; but
that it was not to be expected, as he was so reserved." I asked
him what he thought of Mr. Wilton? He said he was a "very
worthy man;" and I added, "And prettily you have used him.'
Mrs. Wilton was better that day than I had seen her before,
and for the next. The plaintiff appeared to be inanimate all
that day. Next inerning I heard a noise in Dr. Webster's
room, about eight o'clock. I went there, and found the plain-
tiff in a state of great anger. The defendant was sitting in bed,
with his hands clasped, entreating him to be quiet. I heard the
-plaintiffsay, " Out, you villain ; no parleying." The plaintiff
took up a boot, and then the defendant leaped out of the bed,
dressed himself, and went out of the house.

Cross-examined.--All parties were very much distressed. She
had,a,piano, which was put in the defendant's sitting-room,
Mr- I3lox ham, the brother-in-law of the deceased Airs. Wilton.
—On.the sth. Dec. I,st I found Dr. Webster at a neighbour's ;
he was very much agitated. .He said he had left a most dis-
tressed house at Shrewsbury, for Mrs. Wilton had been telling
George about her and himself. I said, " What do you mean ?
Have you had an improper intercourse with her?" you
said he
was sorry to say it was so. I asked him when and where ? He
said. Whets the plaintiff and myself were gone to Scotland, and it
had been continued ever since. He asked me to go to Shrews-
bury. I said, ".Doctor, you must leave my house; I cannot
sneer you to remain iu it. Go to the inn, and I will follow
Lwent to the inn, and he desired me to go to Shrews-
bury, .to endeavour to pacify Mr. Wilton. He was ready to
make any sacrifice. I told him I would go, and that he must
not-go to the house. I went to Shrewsbsiry. The next day 1
received a letter from him, dated from the lufirmary:—
"My dear sir,—l sin waiting for you in a state of agonised
anxiety, bordering on phrenzy ; and still I fear to meet yon."
" Infirmary. J. T
Ile is a physician to the Manny. I went to the defendant
and told him that the plaintiff was very much infuriated against
him; he must leave the. house. He said he would make any
sacrifice, and would leave the town. The plaintiff was, in fact,
in a state of fury against defendant. Mrs. Wilton died about
three weeks after. I went to Scotland with Mr. Wilton. He
had. been ill when he went, and recovered on the journey.
Cross-examined.--Mr. Wilton is a grave and reserved man.
Mr. Clement, a surgeon in the town.—Was called in to at-
tend Mrs. Wilton after the disclosure. She was weak and agi-
tated. The defendant came here about nine years ago. He is
a physician to the Infirmary. He lives still here.
..Mr. &tattle addressed the jut), for the defendant.. He said
considerable blame must attach upon all the parties to this case.
A great misfortune had happened, to which all bad contributed;
but, under the circumstances of this case, the present action
might have been well spared. The plaintiff's conduct had been
incautious to a most culpable degree. He had suffered an in-
tercourse to take place between his wife and the dßfendant of
such, a nature that even his own servant remarked the familiar-
ity. This. he ought to have prevented. It was his duty to, pro-
tect his wife against the consequences of her own passions, and
hadshown great negligence in not interfering.
Mx. lattice Co:erittge summed up the case to the fury.
Thwietry-retired ter a quarter of an hour, and returned a ver-
, dict,for the plaintiff—Damages £5OO.