~, 14 LAU' NTE,LiIGENCE! COURT OF KINGS BENCH. WEDSESDtY, Sittings at Guildhall before the Lord Chief Justice. LEWIS V. WALT! I. This was an action brought by the plaintiff, nn attorney, Against the pi oprietors of The Times nen spuper, to ierover a compensation in daolvet s for the poolication of a libel, reflectiug on the character of the plitiotitT, aad injurious to bun as an attorney. The Solicitor General stated the case. The plaintiff was a solicitor residing iu I ~,,, don, and coroner for the 1./uctly of Lancaster. The libel of which he complained arose out of the following IrtillsaCtitai. It happt ued that Mr. Leo is was c...icerned professionally for a gentleman named Bingham, is lune property the Skye id' hail se;zed. The parties na lilt. gatimi atierwortts tl.otiOil proper to t Mr. Bingham, Tile. Lewis, and another, for couspiracy, and the hula:uncut was tiled at the Kingston Assizes. After the pruceeditiss had been opened, saute irregulnrity in point of law wits dis t ll*erf d, tool the learned Judge instwitly directed the Jury In acquit the defendants. The case was stated by Mr. Ser. grunt Onslow, who made same :illusions to Mr. Lewis which Shoal(' it base been repeated, because they were ex-parth end v. holly posit pplit il by evidence. It the statements made by coons. lat the °petting. of a Cause w ere not made out, but, on the contr ary, the cause ended without calling w it nerscs it was the duty of a reporter to abstain f publish ing passages detrimental to ills character. In this instance the writer of the libel had not only given the strong obstr. vat•ons made by M r. Sergeant t)oslow, hut made comment upon the proceeding. After the acquittal lie thought pro ver to -fate that the Jury were ((mint lied to acquit the de fendants to the great regret of a crowded court, to whom the statement, and evidence, as far as it went, had made a cons toderahle impression. The libel, o Melt nits iujlltiottS to the Ilillitatr and professional chaitt. ter of the plaintiff, was published in the l'invs of the 12tli of April, IS:2I. He stiottlil prove the 110)14 atom, and the Jury would no doubt ronsidt r it to case in which some damages *night to be given as as vindication of charm ter.--fic understood the defendant intruded to prove the libel w :I, copied Irian a COIIIIIII paper. It was true it did not appear origioially in the Times ; but in case the Times luttl not copied it, the slander might hare beau seen by few readers. The publication in the Times made it getter Ally known. Several evening papers also copied it from the limes, and gave the article publtcity. Mr. Altilition, from 'lie stamp-office, produced the Times of the IV' of April, 1519. The plaintiti 'a solicitor proved the admission of Mr. Lewis,l24l3, as an attorney.—On his cross-examination, lie was not able to say the plaintiff had been a regular prac titioner since 1516. The libel 41 Us then rend. Mr. Scarlett adverted to the counts in the declaration, and called the attention of the Lord Chief Justice to the fourth and first, which set forth that the defend:outs had pub lished a libel to injure the plaintiff in his profession at an attorney. lle submitted that there was no proof that Mr. Lewis wits regularly prartisiug Ws au attorney at the time of the publication. This being an alleged [Obi lon the plaintiff a , tin attorney, and injuo Moo to hit practice and profession, it who at cessary to spew he ‘k a, an attorney. After a few word, 111 answer to the objection, from the Sola 'dor General, The Lord Chief Jo•tire held, that the proof of the plain tiff having practised as an attorney womb' be sufficient. me. Srarlett then contended, tivit time was no proof the plaint•lT had acted as an attorney. The Lord Chief ui-rice was a opinion, the last oilier lion takom by Mr. Scarlet' was fatal, and the plaiiitilf was numuiteds SOAVES V. irore.oN. Title was nn action to recover 6801. the amount of loss sustained by the wile of a qoantity of whale oil, which the defendants had refused to take according to contract. It appeared that the plaintiirs broker cmcred into a eon tract with the defendants to sell them at a slated price, a portion of She oil in the ship NI - nide, Southern o The defendants refused to take the oil. A sale the(' took place. and Messrs. Hodson tad Co. were called upon in this Matinee to make good their loss. The Solicitor General contended that the plaintiff's could not recover, because the contract was not in writing. '1 he learned,' like was of opinion, under all the circuits. stances. that the plaintiffs might give a subsequent assent to the contract made by the broker, and if the Jury were of opinion they did give a suhsequetit assent, tory U11;111 to And a verdict for the pli.intitll , . The Jury found a verdict for 6811. damages. THURSDAY, JAN. tit. This (lay the Lord Chief Justice and the Judges sat in Banco, at the Sessions Mouse, Westminster, for the 'im pose of hearing Special Arguments. The order in which the Cum t propose to take the Canscs is this :- 1-irst.—The Country CMIRCS moved previous to Michael nias Tern', I S'?l. Secondly,—The Middlesex and London Causes. Thirdly,—T lie remainder of the London Grilses. GAME LAWS—HAYWOOD V. HORNER. This was a penal ;lesion, on the sth of Anne, against the defendant, who resides iu Essex, for keeping dogs to kill game, lie being unqualified. The calm was tried before Mr. Justice llurreugh, at the Assizes for Essex. It was proved in evidence that the det;•udant kept two young dogs, half-bred setter:: but these was no proof the dogs had ever been used for kang game. The Learned Judge was of opinion, that the action being against an unqualified person for keeping dogs to I.;11 game, it was sufficient to prove the keeping of dogs, without evidence that the dogs were used for killing game. Ile considered setter dogs of a description which brought the defendant within the Act. The Jury reluct antly, upon that exposition of the law, found a verdict for the plaintiff. Sir. Gurney some time ago moved to set aside the ver dict, and enter a nonsuit. On that occasion he obtained a conditional rule, and this day Mrs Marryat chewed cause against it. The Lord Chief Justice asked how the declaration was ex pre ? Mr. Gurney said, it charged the defendant with keep ing togs to kill and destroy game, Mr. Justice Bayley.—lf a man keeps a greyhound for the purpose of killing game, yea would have nu difficulty its skewing he kept ailing dto tiratiey game. On the other Land, if a new keeps a veyhonnd of fierce nature chained up i 3 hi, yard, and his hum loose at Hight, a Jury would env he iA as kept for the pi oteetion of his house. ,s, Lord Chief Justice.—lt is suilitient to allege in • -410 , , *117" MIDDLESEX SESSIONS. On Monday last these Sessions commenced before N. Court, Esq. who presided as Chairman, and a numerous Bench of i‘lagistrates. ASSAULT AND FALSE IMPRISONMENT OP BOW. STREET OFFICERS. After the Juries were swill', and sonic cases of petty assault disposed of, Charles Mott. William Butler, and John James Dutich, three respectable inhabitants of Whitechapel, were put on their trial for a mithemeatior, in assaulting and falesely imprisoning Thomas Gooding and --- Ashelhy, both Bow-street patrole. Mr. Alley stated the case for the prosecution, in which he enforced with great earnestness the necessity of pro tecting officers in the discharge of their ditty. to whom eves) , honest man was indebted, fur the protection of his person and property. Gooding deposed, that he was in company with Ashelby on ding, as Bow4treet patrol, ott the Coto mercial-road, about a quarter before twelve o'clock at night on the night of the 7th of November. Aslieltiy, who was a short distance before littn,saw a woman with a bundle under her cloak, which he asked her to shoe, saying he was a peace officer, but she refused. Mr. Butler, one of the defendants, was standing at his door at the time, and came up to them and said, g* Officers, you have exceeded your duty." 'l' he woman said she would go to the toll-house, which was near. and would there show her bundle. She did so; it contained two bed ticks, which she told where she had bought, and also where she lived ; after which, Ashelby and witn ess said they were satis fi ed, an d s he mi g ht g o away. The three defendants had come with diem to the toll-house , and Dutch asked witness Isis name, which he refused to tell. Mott then took witness by the collar, and all the ' defendants said the woman must give charge of hint.-- A mob collected, and the woman gave charge of witness and Ashelby to a watchman, who took them to a watch house, where the woman at first refused to . s i g n the charge, but being pressed by th e defendants, did ago They were both detained an hour, till the officer of the Met came. the witnesses was cross4xamined by Mr. Adolph" who was Counsel for the defendant Mott, and by Mr. Chaes hillip, who ws Counsel for the other at. The wit P nesses s adulated a that the defattlaut4 Woe at. ~-_- te, - s • . . TIP?. NATIONAL iikGisTrit the declaration that a man kept it greyhound for the de struction of game, anti then the que•tion is, how do you prove the destructiou cannot allow that the mere keeping a dog is proof of the killing of game, or that it moist he presumed such was the object of the party, — Proof of the killing is required. If it were not so, a man %shit keeps a setter or [archer, to defend Isis house, or fol low his carriage, or for the amusement of his children, would be liable to the penalty—ts Inch it never could be the intention of the Legi.ritme to impose in such a Case. Mr. Justice Bayley.— NH proceedings under the sth of Anne, which have conic within my experience, have required evidence not only to show that the defendant kept dogs and engines for the destruction of game, but that he actually destroyed game. Mr. Justice I iolroyd stated a case tried at York, namely an action in Traver, against a Magistrate, for seizing a dog, and, as it was mot kept for sporting purposes, the Court held, that the parties had no right to seize it. Mr. Justice Best said, this was an action on a penal sta. tine, and it reqiiired a strict consti uctiou. Persons got their livelihood by training and Winging up dogs, and every one of that class would be liable, if the rigid con struction contended tor was to be allowed. Ile had never known an action in which the were keeping of a dog was sufficient to convict the party. The rule for a nonsuit was made absolute. OLD BAILEY SESSIONS. WRDNESDAY, JAW. g.—The Sessions commenced at Justice-hall, in the 01d Bailey, this morning, before Chief Baron Richarda, Mr. Justice Burrough, Sec. Samuel Home was indicted for stealing two mares, value 601. the property of Mr. David Getting% ; and William Smith Cutts was charged with receiving the same, knowing them to have been stolen. Mr. Gettiogs is a farmer at Godstone, in Surrey, and the mares in question were missed on the lath ult. from a field in which they were at pasture. Mr. G. came im mediately to London, and, with an officer of Union Hall, obtained iniOrmation, which induced him to go to Narrow-walk, Paddington, where Cutts occupied stables, and where Mr. G. saw one of his mares. He inquired to kvlions the stable belonged, and Cutts presented him self as the owner. Mr. Gettings said he wanted to pur chase two horses, and Cutts took him into a stable, but not the one in which he had seen the mares. He said there were none in that stable that would suit hint, and asked Cutts whether he had any cart horses in the other stable. He hesitated, but at length said lie had only two yomig colts, that had never been shoal. Mr. G. pressed to lie shown into that stable, and Cutts opened the dour, and there NI r. Geo logs found his two mares; their shoes had been taken oil before they were turned into the pas ture, but it was impossible that a man experienced in horses could mistake them for colts that had never been shod. Mr. Gettings claimed the mares, and said they were stolen property ; and Cutts accompanied him and the officer to a public horse in the neighbourhood,where he pointed mit Ilome as the man from whom he had re. reived them, and statmal, that he and another man had brought theta to his stable on the previous night, and requested to leave them for the night. The pristniers were taken to Union Ilan, where Home made a confession of his guilt, amid told the name of the man who had accom panied hint when he stole them. When the case was nearly closed, the learned Judge (Ilurrough) expres-ed an opinion, that there was no evi dence beyond the declaration of C.uns (which could not be taken against !tomes, that Heine .ever had possession of the mares in Nliddlesex ; and the venue therefore was wrongly laid. The prisoners were found Not Guilty; but an order was given for their detention, to he tried again in Surrey. THURSDAY, JAN. PR•SECUTIONSo—J• Tye was put to the bar on an indictment charging him with hacang put off, and disposed of, a hive-poand Bank note, purporting to be one of those issued by the Gover nor and Company of the .Bank of England, he well knowing it to he forged and counterfeit. Harriet Cuff, the wife of George Goff, the police officer, deposed to her having been emp lo y ed by Kinsey, the officer of the Town-hall, Southwark, to purchase some bad notes of the prisoner, at the Jacob's Well, Barbican, and other public-houses, the last of which was on the '7th of December, at the White-horse, Brick-lane, where she purchased a 61. note of the prisoner for a sovereign. Witness because acquainted with the prisoner through the means of one Mary Dowling. The notes as ere presed to be forgeries in every respect, by Mr. Glover. the bank inspector. The Chief Baron recapitulated the evidence, and the Jury, alter a short consultation, returned a verdict of Guilty—Death. Aged 42. William ageti 17, was indicted for uttering a forged tot. note. In December last he went to the shop of r. Bowen, in Oxford-street, stationer, and ordered a quantity of paper, for which he paid a ilk note, and tit treetco the paper to be be:it to Mr. Mum's, in George street, Port th to square, The paper was sent as directed, but it was lound that none had been ordered. On a subsequent day the prisoner offered another lul. note to Mr. Wedgewocal, another stationer in Oxford.street, in paymeut for some paper and pens, which he said he was directed to purchase fur Mr. Scott, of Bedford-row. Mr. Wedgewomel, however, suspecting it to be forged, sent for two officers, arid the prisoner was taken into custody. The prisoner in his defence said he had only one request to make, and that was, that his life might be spared. Mr. Justice Burrongh said, that did nut depend upon him. The Jory then found the prisoner Guilty, but strongly recountienticd him to mercy on occount of his youth. Mr. Wedgewood, the prosecutor,juined in the recom mendation, and was proceeding in au agitated manner to state, that his happittebs in life would he for ever cut oft if the law took its lull course, when Mr. Justice 13/11r041 napped him, and said the Court could only Wen to the reommiendanuti. Curt . Laic; AND StAuutsu.--Juhu Ctook., a man of middle age, was indicted for cutting and maiming Nlary Ann Nelson, with intent to kill and murder her. Thomas' Lce lived in the same house with the prisoner, and he heard a nose above stairs, and went up and saw he prisoner and rosecutroc siruggling togoliet. The former had a knife in his hand, which witness took from him and pushed hint up stairs, desiring him to einem his passion. The woman seemed touch frightened. —.Read, jun. the police officer, produced a knife which he found in the prisoner's room. It was very bloody when he found it. Ile also produced an apron. which was stained widi blood. The learned Judge summed up the evidence, and the Jury, after a short consultation, found the prisoner Not Guilty. Chief Baron Richards said he could not part with the prisoner without repeating the Avice given him by the witness Le..—" Govern your passions." Read, the officer, said, there was another indictment against the prisoner for bigamy, and lie was unit red to be detained. FRIDAY, JAN. I—CHARGE OF MURDBR.—.This morning 1). Mahoney was indicted for the murder of It Needs. Mr. k. Harrison, a pupil at the London-hospital, deposed that he saw the deceased when he was brought to the hospital on the 13th of November. lie bail wound on the front of the head, hut he did not discover that his skull was fractured until three or four days after. The cause of death was an iisflonimation on the lungs. the body was and it was 'timid that the deceased had been subject to pulmonary inflammation, but the fracture of the skull was the cause of the inflammation of which he died. 'l'. Staggs, landlord of the Green Man, Whitechapel, swore, that on the night of the I2th of Noveatitier, about lit o'clock, the prisoner and the deceased came tuts this house together, and after being them some time the mi. toner said " You know you gave me a slip in the f ace once, and 1 did not deserve it."—Deceased said " You do not bear malice, do you r Prisoner replied, " 1 have not forgotten it, and you had better look out for yourself, for L shall look out for you.—They were drinking to gether before and after this conversation and seemed very friendly. J. Mattis, a coster-monger, was at the Green Man.— Prisoner and his two partners went out first, and the de. ceased went out alone shortly after. Witness and Francis went out alone behind him. The prisoner and his friends were walking before the deceased, and all at mice he saw Needs fall, and the prisoner and his friends ran away. When Needs fell he was not above two yards from the prisoner. Witness pursued the fugitives but could not overtake them, and he returned and found the deceased in the care of a watchman. Witness, with the watchman and another, took the deceased home to Catherine.wheel alley. lie was wounded out the side of the head, and bled very much. He seemed very ill.— Witness cut his hair off, and applied a plaister to the wound, and then went away. Other witnesses confirmed the preceding evidence. Several witnesses gave the prisoner a good character. Mr. Justice Parke summed up the evidence, and the Jury found the prisoner—Not Guilty. CHAROF OF Mu aotta.--Thontas Stratford stood in dicted for the wilful murder of Abraham Slade. lie was charged also upon the Coroner's Inquisition with man slaughter. Tne evidence in this case, which was that of Mr. Slade, the butcher, of Tottenham Court-road, did not differ in any point front what we reported as given before ir Coroiter's Jury, and The Jury found the prisoner Guilty of Manslaughter. I`~.