The Warwickshire Herald. — 1885-05-09 (Birmingham, West Midlands, England)

AWKWARD MISTAKE.  MURDER IN AN OLD TOLL HOUSE.  A sawyer named John Wright has been tried at the Worcester Assizes for the wilful murder of his wife Eliza, at Orleton, near Leominster, in January last. The couple did not live very happily together, and the woman took a situation as housekeeper. Her husband wrote to her to come hon.', which she did, their dwelling being an old turnpike house in a retired part of Herefordshire. That evening Wright went to the 1 cal police officer's house and left a message with the officer's wife, to the effect that he had an important ease for her husband. Nett day Wright's wife was found in the turnpike house dead, with her throat cut. On being apprehended Wright said be had had some words with his ssife. that 'lie had threatened him with a knife, and "that he then knocked her down, took the knife from ner, and cut her throat." He added that he slept by the side of the body during the night—what little he did sleep.—The defence was that what Wright did was in self-defenc,---The jury found him I:uilty of manslaugh er.--11is lordship, in sentencing him to 10 years' peal a. rvitude, remarked on tile fact that in the prisoner's p. ssessio:i were found papers vintaming records t be hanging of many notorious culprits,and other d..cuineots of a min. stive character.  Mr. Justice Denman, with a special jury, had before him on Wednesday the case of Blyth v. Mudford and others. The plaintiff was an engineer, formerly canfleeted with a well-known firm at Limehouse, and he sued to recover damages fora libel published in the Evening Standard 'n May, 1854. Mr. Digby Seymour, Q.C., for the plaintiff, said lie some time ago ceased- to be connected with the firm at Limehouse, their premises being required for the purposes of some public works; and, having time on his hands, he became connected with public comanies. He brought an ac:ion in the Lord Mayor's Court to recover from the promoter of the Stroud Waterworks a considerable sum of money, and the verdict was given in his favour; but upon the question whei her the action had been brought too soon he failed. In the course of the trial the defendant was asked whether he had not been the promoter of a number of companies; and there was a suggestion that they were bubble companies that had never paid a farthing. By some accident, ard without malice, what was admitted by the defendant was put into the mouth of the plaintiff, and upon th t. an article was published in the Eveninv Stnndard, which said, One cannot but admire the energy a ith which Mr. Alfred Blyth, who appeared yestei day in the Lord Mayor's Court as plaintiff in an action, has been working under adverse cireuinstances. Mr. Blyth is a promoter of public comp-inies for his sole profit and benefit. 11- has, he stated in cross-examination, , beans, connec•ed with many companies, none of which have li. en successful, nor paid anybody a farthing dividend." Then followed other comments of a similar kiwi. The defendants had Met the case In a spirit that was pr per for a great public journal that was not actuated by malice; and they would practically witlidtaw what had been said, unfortunately, and found' upon a mistake,and would also consent to a vetdic" and judgment for the plaintiff for £5O with costs.—Sir l-tiinge Gill ird, for the defendants, said that the proprietors of the Stamford, and also the repotter, originally knew not'.ing of either party in connectioi with the proceedings in the Lord .Major's Coml. As a matter of fact, the case was reported for the a imes, and the .Standard simply took it out of the Tunes; and if that report had been correct the article that was founded upon it would have been a perfectly legitimate comment upon the report. But.there being a serious mistake in the , report, he could not ask the juiy to justify the ; comment. upon it. As to any retractation, there was no imputation intended; and, having found out the mistake, the only thing the defendants could say was that they were very sorry.—Mr. Justice Denman said that the jury would give a verdict for the plaintiff for £5O; and he thoup,ht that the settlement was highly honourable to both parties. Verdict and judgment for the plaintiff —damages. rid.  M.