The Atherstone, Nuneaton, and Warwickshire Times. — 1884-11-22 (Atherstone, Warwickshire, England)

LEE. who acted as butler to deceased has been arrested, but at present the evidence against him is of the slightest and most circumstantial character. If robbery was not the motive for the crime it  is difficult to conceive what is. The I murdered lady is said to have lived a harm- I less and benevolent life, and, so far as is known, she had no enemies and had given no reason for anyone to desire her death. If robbery were the motive, it is almost inconceivable that no loss can be traced and that valuables of every description should have been left untouched. The man LEE had been in the service of the deceased since a boy, and a short time since coffimitted some crime for which he was imprisoned. When he left gaol the deceased, vainst the advice of her friends, reinstated him in his former position in her service, and, if he be guilty of this crime, it is a hideous repayment to the poor lady for her mistaken kindness. But he can have had but the one motive of plunder, if he be guilty, and .it is impossible to discover any evidence of that. No doubt the murderer's object was to conceal his crime by setting the house on fire in the hope that the body :would be so burnt as to lead to the impression that she was suffocated in the flames. And the plan might have succeeded, for one foot and leg were badly burned, but for the fact that one of the female servants smelt fire and raised an alarm. The whote matter is at present shrowded in mystery, but it is to be hoped that the vigilance of the police will result in the perpetrator or perpetrators of i most fiendish and horrible crime being eventually brought to justice.  THE LEAMINGTON LIBEL CASE,  Remarking upon this case, the Deily Nem said : " Some remarks fell from Lord COLERIDGE at the Warwick Assizes on Saturday which deserve more than a pa.ssing notice. The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE was trying a case of libel at the Crown side of the Court. A placard describing the prosecutor as a thief and a forger had been posted to him by the defendant, and criminal proceedings were commenced. The learned Judge held that this sending of a libel direct to the libelled person could not amount to such a "publication" as was necessary to support the charge, and so directed a verdict of acquittal. This ruling will take no lawyer by surprise. Lord COLERIDGE then proceeded to comment on the sudden growth of criminal prosecutions for libel. The normal remedy for a plaintiff whose good fame has been injured by malicious and untruthful accusations is still to be found in the action for damages. Juries are not slow to exercise their compensating powers, and publicity is also secured for the refutation of unfounded changes. But within the last few years the fashion of proceeding criminally against the libeller has become the rule where it ought to be the exception. There are, no doubt, certain cases where imprisonment rather than a mulct is the proper penalty of the libeller, but they can only be cases of very flagrant and scandalous outrage. The machinery of a Court of Justice is to some extent abused when what is, really a cause of action is converted into what is technically a crime. A century ago such criminal proceedings would have been arrested at an initial stage, andthe questioti would not have been allowed even to come before the Grand Jury; but usage has now set in, and it is hard to deflect it. Much of course rests with the known feeling of the Judges, and if Lord (IG,,,,LERIDGE is only supported by his brethren on the bench, a bad custom may receive a timely check."