Summer Assizes.
The Times, 1824-08-17T00:00:00

_V "va _ ... K . V IA.tEY aiea a special Jimry. U ARlDY V. DE:WSXAI'. Mr. F. Jomrus opened the pleadings. Mr. SCAL ETT, iristating the 'case t the jary, infonmed ther that the plAintift in the prcsent action watan attorney at Sheffmeld, and had been for some timc one of thewioronem ftor the county of York. He lad been elected to that offiedAy thc suffreAs of a consi- d erable number of freeholders, and was therefore at th evtirne of hl2 election a mnan of tespectablccharacter in their esdmati&n. During the time that he had discharged thc duties of that office, he had done nothing to f6rteit the good opinion of thnse who had elected him. On the contrary, he had conducted himself in a rnanner which gave great satisfaction to every person with whom he had been obliged to have intetcourse. The present acton was brought In conscqisenee of a wanton, deliberate, and malicious attack which the defendant had made upon the character of thb gentleman * and as it trasa casethat deserved the serious attention oF the jnry, he would slhortly describe the circumstances which had given rise to it The defencdant, Mlr. Dewgnap. was a collector or as he chose tostyie himself an auditor of accounts. Unfortunately for himelt; he w not en with being a mere ad(iitor; he was even animated with the ambition of being a great talker upon some occasions. As an auditor, he had been em- ployed by the plaintiffto collect certain debts due to u deceased bro- ther, of which he had refused to give any account, after he had ad- mitted that he had received their full amount. The plaintiff having made various applications to him for the money so collected, and having met with various excuses ahd refusals, at last brought an ac- tion to recover its ameunt. Whilst he was smarting untder that inflic- tion, the defendant utered the words which had given rise to thepre- tent action,in a socictv consisting ofsomeofthemos;respectable mer. chants nnd manufacturers in the town of Sheffield. Speaking of the plaintiff, he had thougot proper to call him a scoundrel, and a petti- fotging attorney. A gentleman of the name of lleaton, who hap. pened to be presenf, and to known sometlhing of the transactions whiich had tak$n place between the parties, advised him not to use such language. ,. he.defendant replied, that lie had a right to iuse it, and that he did tiot care if the plaintiff Hardy knew of it for," said he, alluding to an action which had been brought against him boy an attorney called Bromehead, who liael only recovered a slilling damages, " no lawyer's character is worth more than a- shillina and as to Hiardy, his charac- ter is not wordi siipence::" he likewise added, " As a lawyer and a coronriP4 he is a villain and a scoundrel." After he had re- peated these words several times, Mir. Heaton asked him if lie really wlshed Milr. Hardy to know what he had said of him. The defen- dantanswered that he did. Mr. Heaton then asked whether lie would permit him to write the words dowvn, in otder that he might report nothing that was not actually said. The defendant replied in the af- firmative, and said that he wished it to be done. The words were accordingly written down in pencil, read over to the defendant, si2ned y him, antl then handed over to the plaintiff' bv his friend Mr. fkeaton. That paper would be prodaeed in evidence in the course of the cause,and would therefore be submitted fo their consideration and inspection. Hewas aware that slander talked in a public-house over a flowing bowls ignified little; but when it was not only mentioned in conversation,but actuallyreducetto writing, in order to be shown to the partyslandered, it constituted one of the greatest insults a mran could receive. if one man called another a villain and a scoundrel, the law gave no remedy; the person insulted must either put up with the insult or knock the party insulting him down, in which case hie was himFelf liable to an action or an indictment. With all his habitual reverence for the law, he could not but regret that defi- ciency. If, however, the words scouindrel and villain were used of an individual, in regard to his profession as an attorney, or hia office as a coroner, then an action at law would lie. lie called upon them to consider whether, under such circumstances as he had describedl, a man oughtto send a challenge, or commence an action against hiis slan- derer;- wlether, in courts of justice, which ought to be frienidly to peace, judges and juries should hold out inducements to indi viduals to commit acts ofviolence, or to appeal to the protection of thelaw. In the present instatice, the plaintiff had preferred the quiet remnedy of the law to tbe more sanguinary rentedy of the duel; and as he liad one so, e trusted that the jury would give him adequate damages for the injury which his feelings and character had sustained. He expected to Hear from his. leared friend, that the words complainel of were merepublic-house conversation; that thev were used after dinner, when the sense was out and the liquor in - and that they would never have reaehed the ears of the plaintiff but for some kind good-natured, and officous friend. If they looked at the conduct of the defendant, they woald see that it took away ever' ground for this species ofdlefence. It was not theobject of his client to ron- vert the slander or malice of thie lefendant into a source of emolu. ment to himself; but he hoped that the jury, when they recollected that the defendant had pleaded the general issue, without putting a justification on the record, would not considtr it a trifling case that deserved light and inconsiderable damages, but sacase which deserved to be visited witl the severost indignation. Win. BrowTIall, secretary to the Sheffield Fire-office, said-4_ know the plaintiff. He is an attomney and a coroner for the county. 'Te defendant Dewanap is a collector of retits, and also a farmer. I re- member being at Mrs. Smith's coffee-hous ? in Sheffield, on the 6th of .May, about 8 o'clock in the evening. Fifteen or sitteen respect i able persons were present. Defendant and Heaton were talk- ing together. Defendant complained that lie hail been gone over bv the coroner seventy ttmes. They then talked about Rome disputes which had previously existed between Hardy and Dewsnap. After a great deal of abuse sad passed, Dewsnap said that Hardy was a pettifoggingy scoundrel, and thatall his busi- ness proved it. Heaton said, " If fardy suffers such iomputations. he desprves,to lose every client he has, and l will withdraw my ows business from ltMlfP" Heaton then proposed to Dewsnap to let his words be taken down in writing. Dewsnap said he was quite willing. A paper was then prodaced, and the word.s were taken down in pencil. Heaton read It to Dewanap, who signed it with great ala- critv. The paper was read so loud, that the whole company could hiear it. The words were that a lawyer's character was not worth a sfiilling, but that hardy's was not worth sixpeace; for hc was a villain and a scoundrel." By Al r. BaouGsAsm.-At this titne Dewsrtap was, to a certain degree, under the influetice of liquor ; but not go much as to be in- sensible to what he was saying or doing. Somnebody said at the time, that Dewsnap, if asked, would sign his own death-warrant. In the humour in which he then appeared to be, lie was not very nice. There was a good deal of laughing about this business. It oc- cupied the club about a couple of hours. Thtxe wuis something very surrowful at times. Mr. BRtoUGHAi.-That is, I suppose, when there was a long in- terval between oneglass and another. (At laugh.) The titness continue4.-Thecoronerisaman of verygreat weight. He is under a ton and a half. To be gone 70 times over by such a man would be no laughinet matter. By MIr. SCARLETT._ Dewvsnap had a serious manner about him. 1tVl9at he said was a tissue of abuse. Several of the company ex- pressed their abhorrence at his conduct. Afr. Heaton.-I went about niiie o'clock in the evening of the night in question to our club. Dewsnap and twenty other persors were there. He was quite conscious of what he was doing. He called Hardy a lying scoundrel and a pettifogging rascal, and nffered to bet a wager on the subject. Dewsnap said he had ascer- tained the valite of a lawyer's charactcr in an action with Broom. head, who hadl only recovered one shilling damages I remonstrated with the defendlant for speaking so of Hardy. He desired me to tell Harly what he had said. I again said, if he woild not desist, I would inform Hardy. Dcwsntap said, " I wish you would; for itf Hardr does not proceed against me, it will be because he dares not." I ais that to prevent mistakes I would make a memorandum of the words. Dewnaprepied " o s, Iwill fuugn." (A paper was here 2shown to the witness.) That ithepaper I wrote. I snai to him, h In order that you may nat sign what you have not raed, I will read it over to you." r did read it over to im. He.took it into his hand, glanced Mr. yeardy. andthensigned it. The paper was to be given to By llIr. BouorlssAt.--I have been at the room since * but I do not go there so often as I did. It is more than two months since I was there in the evening. I heard the word " Oliver" mentioned when I waa therelast. rihe paper was then put in and read. IMr. Ebenezer Rhodes confirmed the testimony of Mtr. Heaton, lie had heard Hardy say, that these words had not hurt his feel- ings, and that he should think meanly of himself if lie had allowed thel to do so. WVitness replied "i f your feeling8 are not injured, I should suppose your character is not." By the .uDGE._I called ausorn nr. Hardy in consequence of wnat Dewsnap had sai(i to me. I represented to him tnat Dewsnap had a large family, and that it weald seriously affect their welfare if a prosecuttton w5as instituted against him, I did thi8 at the request of Dewsnap, who was very sorry.for what he had said, nd awou'ld have been very glad to make an apology. Hardn said, he did not choose to trust hiA own feelings; he should p at It into the hands of Air. Wake, and I must communirate With him on the subject. I was obliged to leave Sheffield next morning. I lhad not ani apportonity of seeing 31r. Wake; but I deisired two friends to call upn him. A' writ at that time had been sent for, but had not artived. 'This was four or five days after the words were spoken. liMr. BROUGHAMC said, that he now underntood the reasons which had induced his leanedl friend to open this case with so solemn and sierious an air. Ile wished to fortify the minds of the jury against any ludicrous incidents that might arise in the course os the evi- dence, and to put thelr powers of gravity upon the utmost stretch. The principal performer ir this comedy was the witness Heaton and to his busy meddling dispositior everyincident init miht be attH- buted. Anythingtroreprecise,priggilsh, and pragmaticalthanhiscon- duct and testimony, he had never seen dunng his expetience as an advocate. At a lubllc-house, the whole atmosphere of which wvas reT olent of rum, where a man could not enter without breathing (he would not say imbibing) that inspiring eftiavium, were these words spoken; ard there did this OlivCr, who ought to have acted the part of a peacemaker, and to have prevenaed rather than to have excited strite between friends, rectuce them into writing, spoken as they were by a drunken man, to a dranken audience, in a drunken place, and on a drunken occasion. He coniended that it was clear rom the evidence that the whole conduct of thedefendant was un- like that of a man in his sober senses, or that was conscious of any thing he either did or said. There was internal evidence even in the paper, which Mr. Heaton with the most unblushing effrontery had confessed himself to have written, that the defendant vwas not in the perfect possession of his faculties. The writing was the writing of'a drunken man; so, too, was thespelling. The h was omitted in thc word Joseph, and the letters of it straggled about and ran away from one another, that no man could swvear that it was the de- fendant's signature who had not seen hi-. write it. In con- clusion, the learned gentleman called upon the Jury to discourage by their verdict a trumpery action, brought from any but creditable motives, and got up without any reason, with all the farce and so- leninity of a speci aj ury. Mlr. Justice BAYLEY said, that this was an action for woids sipoken, and also fora libel. He was bound to tell them that the pper was, in his opinion, a libel, and teat the defendant's sutffering eaton to take it away was a sufficientpublication. He thought that thetr verdict must be for the plaintitff both in respect of, the words spoken and the paper produced. He should, however, advise them to give fatr and temperate damages, as a compensation for the injury which sucb publication was likely to produce. Verdict for the plaintiff-Damages.40s. SATUaiDAY, AUGUST 14. ATXINS V. IREAKE. This was an issue from the Court of Exchletter, to decide whe- they thore had been from time isamemoripl a modus, or custemary payment of 5s. a year in each year, in lieu of all actual payment of the tithe of hay, cat iR the hamlet or viU of Sisariston, in the parihl of Wharmfield. I IHr. WILLIAiSS, for the plaintiff, maintained the affirmative of the istie, and called several witnesses rf veryad ratced-aki toprove that thbre never had been any taking of hay in kind bY'tlfe vicar of Varmnfletd, in the township of SP6rlston within the nmenory df' tnant and that Sis. had aliw 3ya beett paid to tlie vicar in lieu of it by the cnurchwardens1 who levied it by meitng of' n assessment on the vitl. He also put in a sivrtei docunlent, which wats tatedto be a litscharge given by the chiurcitwardens of the township to an Jgirl of Westnorland, in the early part of the last century, fot Is. Oil., be- ing his cointribution to the 5s. paid by thc parishioners in lieu of coit. e Cd RLdt TT, for the defendnnt,who ih the vicar of the paris;li contended that h4t learned trlend had failed to esiablith tilgRsWie of the mcdus. lie had not shown this payment of 5sa. e etither constant, uniform, or immemorial. He would, however, show frotim documentary evidence, that there had never been a:ny modus for hay in the township of Sharlston. The learned counsel then gut In evi- dcnce, the endownient of 1he vicarage of Wharmfield with the tithe of hay in the township of SharlMtoni by thc prior and convent of St. Oswald in York, in the early part of the 1Sth centiry. In this document there was no mention ot any mod?. He next put In an inquisition made in the reign of Heary ViI I., on the dissolution of the monasteries by the Court of Commlsioners for the auigmetntation of the King's revenues; wherein the tithe of hay was vattied at three shillings, but no mention was made of a rhodus. He afterwars put In a survey of all thic livings in the county made by a Parliamen- tary Comrmiss8hn in the tdme of the Comnmonwebatb which was equally silent on the subject of a inodus. lie then protiuced scveral terriers to prove the same fact, and stated that It w35 ndt until the year 1727 that any mention of a modus was to be found in them. In that terrier, inention was made ofa composition of "Ss. for all the hay in the croflt , and nothing to be paid for the other hay, except the herbage. '. It was with a view oR obtaining their construction of these wt rds that the present isasu had been sent down to a jury. The House of Lords had been ocaupied durine four days in hearing a debate as to the meaning of theWword "croft." IHe thought that no man, or at least that no north countryman, ought to have doubt- ed as to thel meaning of that word; but somehow or otlher, the Lord Chaacellor had doubted, and ?erhaps it was no wonder, after he had been puzzled by a four days debate upon it andt had called upon them for their assistancc in interpreting It. i1e left it to them to decide whether the silence of tie early documenta as to the mnodas was not as decitive evidence against its existence, as the fact of Its being first mentioned in so recent a documeft as the terrier of 172 ? Mr. WItLLIABSs replied upon the evidenle, and contended that hiscase had not been at all shaken by the otikerrations of his learu ed friend. He likewise comtsliined irs ha kfeamed friend had with- leld evidence which lie ought to have prodased, from a knowledge, that if produced. it must ruin his own case. Mtr. Justicc BAYLEY summed vp the evidence, and the iury re- turned a verdict for the plain tiff, establishing the modua, and there- by defeating the parson's claim. This was thelatsscage of any importance tried at these asslzes. SU.lfAfR_4SsZEgS. - - YORm, AU1JUST 12.