The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1842-04-12 00:00:00

If the justification set up *were proved by Credible witnesses

his diet

'This, however, was the issue the jury would
have to try. That the words spoken were spoken in the sense
that he (the learned counsel) imputed to them, no man could
doubt ; nay, the defendant himself had admitted that, by
putting his justification upon the record. Upon the verdict
of the jury, therefore", hung all that Mr. Paley cared for in
this world. If they were constrained by the force of truth to
, that the justification was made out, he knew they would
nave done their duty by their conscience and their oath ; but
he knew, too, if that were not made out beyond the question
of the shadow of a doubt, why then he would ask them to do
their duty by their countryman who appealed to them on be-
half of his character, and give him that sort of compensation
which might not only stop the mouth of Mr. Farrimond, but
redeem, as far as a verdict at their hands could redeem it,
Mr. Paley's character, and restore him to that place among his
friends, among his family, and his sacred calling, which he
held before, and give him peace of mind and respectability
among bis people.
Mr. John Stephens, one of the churchwarder
plaintiff's church, at. Pemberton, 'was the first witness.
narrated the words uttered by the defendant at the public
meeting ; and he described the improved morals of the popu-
lation of the district, in consequence of Mr. Paley's exer-
tions. In his cross-examination he admitted, that in conse-
quence of certain rumours affecting his character, he had
forbidden Mr. Paley to enter his house ; but that he after-
wards satisfied himself, by private inquiry, that these rumours

who they were

of the
5. He

were false.
James Marsden described the expressions used by the de-
fendant at the Dog and Partridge, in Wigan.
The Rev. Henry Gunning, rector of Wigan, spoke to the
gentlemanly conduct of the plaintiff, whom he described as
a man of uncommon assiduity in his sacred calling.
A number of other witnesses were then called, some of
whom had been pupils in the plaintiff's schools, and all of
whom stated, that he moved in the most respectable circles,
and that they had never seen him behave otherwise than in
the most becoming manner.
Mr. WORTLEY then addressed the jury for the defendant,
telling them that if they should not be able to believe the
testimony which he adduced, they would have the agreeable
duty of returning a verdict for the plaintiff, but in any event
that this was not a case that called for heavy damages..
A great number of witnesses.and among them two females,
were then examined, but their evidence is totally unfit for
publication. Their general testimony went to the effect that
the defendant had taken most gross liberties with them.
The dates of the alleged crimes ranged between four and six
years. One witness, named Bagster. it appeared, had been
at Mr. Stevenson's office, where he signed a paper, apologi-
sing to the plaintiff for having, in Mr. Leigh's office, charged
him with this offence.
Two witnesses were called by Mr. Dundas to contradict

this witness, in consequence of which
Mr. WORTLEY obtained the right to reply on the evidence.
In doing so he protested energetically against the tampering
which had taken place with the witnesses by the pi
friends, friends, and said, if this instance were permitted to pass by
without reprehension, it would furnish a precedent root
dangerous to the administration of justice.
Mr. DUNDAS rose to reply, which he did at great length
and with uncommon animation. Ile had read and felt, upon
many an occasion, that the darkest hour was next to the
dawn ; and he had been looking forward, as those witnesses of
darkness assailed his client, for that hour which now he
thanked God, had arrived, when again, for his client, he
might address his countrymen the jury. If this case had
been taken on the other side of the court, no jury-in the
world could convict the plaintiff on the testimony brought
forward to-day. It was impossible to believe, that several
offences had been committed, seeing that some were stated
to have taken place five, six, seven, and eight years ago.
The charges, too, were made by parties who were unknown,
against one who was perfectly well known, and who had
borne an irreproachable character as a minister of the Gos-
pel ; and there was a manifest want of corroboration to all of
them.
The learned JUDGE summed up.He confessed it appeared
most exraordinary to him, that this felonious offence should
have gone on for four, five, six, or even seven years, as a
system, without a single witness being called on whom it had
been perpetrated without his knocking the offender down.
The only question for the jury, however, was, whether the
defendant bad established bis plea of justification to their
satisfaction

The jury retired at a quarter to eight o'clock to consider
their verdict. They returned a few minutes before nine,
and found for the plaintiff. Damages, £5O.
The court adjourned at nine o'clock.

YESTERDAY.
CLAIM AGAINST THE TRUSTEES OF A COAL. MINING
COMPANY.

GIBSON r. FRITH AND ANOTHER.
This case was tried before a special jury. The action was brought
to recover compensation in damages for the non fulfilment of an
agreement entered into between the plaintiff and the defendants.
The declaration contained five counts, varying the allegations.
Mr. Duienws, Mr. ligowLes, and Mr. Fenn' appeared for the
plaintiff; and Mr. WoRTLev, and Mr. WATSON, for the defendants.
Mr. Faosx having opened the case, Mr. DUN DAS stated the par-
ticulars. The plaintiff, Mr. Thomas Cummings Gibson, was for-
merly a merchant and shipping broker in Newcastle. and in a large
way of business. which he relinquished on entering to an agree-
ment with the defendants ; and he brought the action for a breach
of that agreement. which appointed him as " fitter" to the Northern
Coal Mining Company, of which the defendants, George 'Frith
and Hunter Gordon, of London, were trustees. The office of
'• fitter" was one of great trust and considerable emolument, and
the plaintiff, was engaged by the defendants to undertake it in
1838 for a term of 14 years; he receiving certain commissions for
his services. He was, however, discharged unjustifiably (as it was
. .

alledged) about the end of the third year, and the damages sough
were for compensation for his being so discharged before the ex
piry of the agreement. As fitter he had to take all the coals pro
duced from the mines of the company, to find ships to cony,
and to keep up several offices, with clerks, &c. for the

y them,
posal of

them, in consideration of which he was to receive so much per
chaldron. During the time he was in the service of the company
the transactions oetween them and himself amounted to from
.ezio,orio to 8300,600. His commissions, in some instances, were
to be 2:i per cent, and on coals that were shipped for abroad 5 per
cent, or Is per chaldron. The defendants in reply put in the several
pleas that the plaintiff was never duly appointed ; that he had been
paid ; that they had not discharged him ; that he had mismanaged•
the company's affairs; and that he acted wrongly in giving bills
which be had no right to do.
several admissions were made on both sides of documentry
evidence, and a copy of the deed or agreement appointing Mr.
Gibson was also admitted an,: read. _

Evidence was then given of the natnre of the plaintiffs duties,
arid the extent of business transacted by the company.
Mr. WonTLEv said in behalf of the defendants, that the plaint
was a holder of 400 shares in the company, and the action w
:herefore brought by one portion against the co-partners.
Mr. DUNDAS contended on the contrary, that the plaintiff
he defendants in their individual character as trustee

nd that

the funds taken oat of their pockets, would not be divided from any
partnership fund, and would go clearly into the pocket of the
plaintiff. He quoted aas e decided by Chief Justice Tindal:, which
he considered analogous.

Some further arguments were on this point, and the'plaintiffs
counsel admitted that he was a shareholder.
The learned .1 tine E stated that if that were admitted, he thought
the action could not be maintained; and advised a settlement out
of court.

Finally the plaintiff was declared, with usual form, to be nonsuited

There are three or four other cases yet to be tried, which it
expected will be disposed of by 12 o'clock this day.

THE THEATRE - ROYAL 'AGAINST THE

" ROYAL" LIVER THEATRE,

KIRKDALE PETTY SESSIONS-APRIL BTH

(Before Sir THos. BRANCKER, and W. RATHBONE, PETER
BOURNE, TURNER, J. B. YATES, and T. RODICK,
Esqrs.)

THE QUEEN versus RAYMOND.
This case, which has excited considerable attention in the
theatrical world, was heard on Friday at Kirkdale Sessions-
house. There were many gentlemen connected with the
dramatic profession present. Amongst them we noticed
Messrs. Clarke, Hammond, Baker, Aldridge, sen., Ray-
mond, Lloyds, Lee, Aldridge, jun., Egerton, Barton, Pelham,
Slaiter, Eaton, Jonas, Benwell, &c.
Dr. BROWN and Mr. JAMES appeared in support of the
information ; attorney, Mr. Lloyd, of the firm of Foster and
Lloyd. Mr. HENDEasorr and Mr. WARREN for Mr. Ray-
mond ; attorney, Mr. James Norris.
Mr. MYERS read the information, which, after the formal
part, proceeded as follows :—" That, within six calendar
months now last past, (that is to say) on the fourteenth day
of March, in the year of our Lord one thousand'eight hun-
dred and forty-two, at the parish of Liverpool aforesaid, the
defendant, in a certain place there, to wit a certain place in
the parish and county aforesaid, then and still called and
known by the name of the Liver Theatre, otherwise the
Royal Liver Theatre, without lawful authority by virtue of
letters patent from her present Majesty, or any of her Ma-
jesty's predecessors, and without license from the present or
any other Lord Chamberlain of her Majesty's Household,
and without any license from the Justices of the Peace in
General Quarter Sessions assembled. and havinc, jurisdiction
in, or over, or at the said place called and known by the
name of the Liver Theatre, otherwise the Royal Liver Thea-
tre, did cause to be acted, represented, and performed for
gain and reward, a certain part of, and in a certain entertain-
ment of the stage called the " Maid of Croissey," contrary to
the statute in such case made and provided, whereby and by
force of the statute in such case made and provided the said
defendant has forfeited for his said offence the sum of Fifty
Pounds of lawful money of Great Britain, to be distributed
as the law directs."

• (Signed,) ROBERT SANBFORD ROBINSON.
The informations against Mr. Strickland, Mr. Webster,
and Madame Celeste were similar. _ _ _

Dr. 13ROWI said he had the honour to appear, with his
learned friend Mr. James, on behalf of the lessees of the
Theatre-royal, in support of the information against Mr.
Raymond. Mr. Anderson and Mr. Hammond were those
lesses ; and he appeared for them in support of a right given
to them by law,—a right valuable to them for the protection
of their own property in a theatre for which they paid a
very large rent, under the authority of certain acts of parlia-
ment which the legislature had thought proper to pass with
reference to the direction and management of theatrical
exhibitions. With the policy of those acts neither he nor the
court had anything whatever to do ; and he apprehended that
his learned friends would not attempt to raise a question of
that kind. The learned counsel then proceeded to state that the
information was founded on the 10th George 11, ch. 28, sec.
2, which provided that no person should perform or cause to
be performed theatrical exhibitions without the license of the
lora chamberlain or the license of the justices of the peace
in quarter sessions; and that every such person so performing
or causing to be performed in such unlicensed theatre should
for every such offence forfeit and pay the sum of £5O. This
had been supported by subsequent decisions, which he
quoted. Messrs. Anderson and Hammond had refrained
from asserting their sights till they were in danger of losing
them altogether unless they did so; and they now only took
these proceedings to vindicate them. The learned counsel
concluded by some general remarks on the case, after which
he proceeded to call the first witness, who was
JouN FRANCIS ROGERSON, who said he was an actor
and prompter, and had been in Mr. Raymond's employ. He
was not now, but was so employed on the 19th of March.
Was an actor as well as prompter. Knows the place called
the Liver—was prompter there. Went there on the 26th
December. Was engaged by Mr. Raymond. Remained in Mr.
Raymond's employ till 19th March. Mr. Raymond engaged
with witness's wife. It was a doubleengagement. Mr. Raymond
paid him. Believes Mr. Raymond is the manager of the
theatre. Has always received his directions from Mr. Ray-
mond himself. Has always received his money from Mr.
Raymond. Does not know who pays the other performers.
Has generally received his orders from Mr. Raymond. Has
sometimes received directions from the stage-manager.
Mr. HENDERSON objected to a question put by Mr.
James, to show Mr. Raymond's general mangement of the
theatre. The objection was that the questions should have
reference to the act committed on the specific day laid in the
information. _ _

After some argument, the court overruled the objection.
and the evidence proceeded :—I-le had received general direc-
tions from Mr. Raymond, and had heard him give directions
to the stage manager. Witness used some times to give a
book out to the performers, by directions of Mr. Raymond,
from which they themselves wrote their respective parts.
Mr. Raymond generally corrected the bills of the per-
formances : in one or two instances witness had done so
himself by Mr. Raymond's directions. Mr. Raymond was
in the habit of correcting the bill from the 26th December
to the 19th March. Witness always received his salary for
acting as prompter from Mr. Raymond. Witness was pre-
sent at a rehearsal of the " Maid of Croissey," previously and
preparatory to its performance ; this was on the 12th March,
Saturday. Does not recollect whether Mr. Raymond was
present at that rehearsal. None of the London performers,
Mr. Webster, Mr. Strickland, or Madame Celeste, were

,
ti at the Brat rehearsal. rehearsal was ippOinteu
onday, the 14th of March, by
,witness's direction.
ut up " a call" for a rehearsal on that
o'clock, and he was in the theatre at
Ir. Raymond was there between ten and
Does not think that the London per-
forrriers were there at the time, and there was a delay in
bringing on the rehearsal, in conseqaence, as witness be-
lieved, of some notices to the London performers. Remem-
bered the London actors coming into the theatre that morn-
ing. Saw Mr. Raymond, whilst they were there, with
them before the rehearsal took place. Mr. Raymond has a
private room in the theatre, into which he and the three
London actors retired before the rehearsal. They remained
there a quarter of an hour. The rehearsal took place, and
Mr. Raymond was occasionally on the stage during the re-
hearsal. The " Maid of Croissey" was rehearsed. It is
a drama or entertainment of the stage—such as is usually
exhibited at licensed theatres. The " Maid or Croissey"
was performed at night, and the London actors took
part in that performance. Mr. Raymond was on the stage
that night ; and he believed he appeared before the curtain
ager of the theatre, but could not
w a bill, which appeared on the

day, at ter

say positively unless he sa
following morning, Tuesda:

The witness was cross-examined at considerable length by
Mr. HENDERSON, but without his testimony being affected.

Re-examined.—When there was no treasurer, the manager
generally paid the pek formers himself. Witness was engaged
and paid by Mr. Raymond. Mr. Raymond, when he appeared
before the audience, read something from a paper, the whole
or part of which appeared in print the next morning. The
bill was here produced, and the witness said he could now
undertake to say, it was on the night of the 14th of March
Mr. Raynard appeared on the stage. The bill contained a
portion of what Mr. Raynard read. This bill was then put
in and read, but we do not repeat it here, as it has already
appeared in the STANDARD. Mr. Raymond gave directions
to the stage manager.
Peter Godfrey Lloyds, prompter at the Theatre Royal,
proved the performance of the " Maid of Croissey," at the
" Royal Liver Theatre, on the evening of the 14th of March.
Witness went into the gallery, and paid sixpence for his ad-
mission. Mademoiselle Celeste, Mr. Webster and Mr.
Strickland performed in the drama.
Cross-examined.—The " Maid of Croissey" is not a five
act play ; it is a two act drama.
John Connor. a printer at the Mail office, was called, but
objected to by Mr. Henderson. As it appeared that he was
a rate-payer, and that the act of parliament says that no rate-
payer should give evidence in such a case where the penalty
exceeded £2O ; his evidence was rejected.
Mr. Thomas Carter said he was a proprietor in the Liver-
pool Mail Company ; but it appearing that the same objec-
tion applied to him as to the last witness, his testimony was
rejected.
Thomas• Carter, bill deliverer to the Liver Theatre, said he
was employed and paid by Mr. Raymond.
Philip Frederick Garnett, a clerk to. Mr. Lloyd, was next
called, and he proved the performance _ of the " Maid of

Croissey," on the evening of 'the 14th of March. This, wit-
ness proved the service of the notice of the intention to com-
mence these proceedings on Mr. Raymond, if the perform-
ances were continued.
John Fogg, box-keeper at the Liver, was called ; but being
a ratepayer his evidence was rejected on the same ground as
Mr. Connor and Mr. Carter.
John Reynolds and Mrs. Whiteman were rejected on the
like grounds.
Mr. WARREN.—" They come like shadows, so depart."
(Laughter.)
Henry Stewart, an artist, said he was in the pit of the
Liver on the night in question. The " Maid of Croissey"
was performed, and he was very much delighted. Mr. Ray-
mond came forward on the stage, and read a paper to the
auditory.
Dr. BROWN said this was the case. •

Mr. HENDFRSON said he had two objections to take,
which he apprehended would be fatal ; but he would con-
dense them into one. He submitted that, in a case like this,
where the information alleged that this play had been acted

without the authority of letters patent, the onus of proving
that allegation lay not upon the defendant, but upon the
person who preferred the charge. The learned counsel con-
tended at some length that the current of legal authority
was in favour of his objections.
Mr. 1% ARREN followed upon the same sid
several cases

, and quoted

Dr. BROWNE and Mr. JAMES replied, and after a few
minutes' consideration, the bench overruled the objection.
Mr. HENDERSON then addressed the claim on the general
question, and contended the case bad not been established,
and that these proceedings had been instituted for the pur-
pose of crushing a rival establishment.
The magistrates retired to consider their decision ; and
after an absence of ten minutes they returned into court, and
fined Mr. Raymond £5O. The other parties, by agreement
are to pay £25 to the charities.

SECOND EDITION

Standard-office, Three o'clock

LIVERPOOL CORN

,XCHANGE,—This 'DAN

(From Messrs. R. MAKIN & SONS' Circular.)
Still prevented by the continuance of easterly winds, we

have no Grain. Flour, or Oatmeal of the
report, either Coastwise or from Ireland

least moment to

and the only ar-

since this day week is confined to