Mr. Edmund Lechmere Charlton, a gentleman of ancient family and
some fortune, residing near Ludlow, brought an action, which was tried at the late Shrewsbury Assizes, against the proprietor of the Shrews- bury Chronicle, for a libel, contained in a report of the proceedings before the Corporation Commissioners at Ludlow. In this report, some of the inhabitants of Ludlow were made to accuse Mr. Charlton
of gross partiality and violent behaviour, as Low Bailiff of Ludlow, at the last election, in favour of the Clives, against the Reform candi- dates,. Messrs. Homily and Davis ; of being the associate of prize- fighters and men of bad character ; of having let some of his land in the neighbourhood of Ludlow for a prize-fight ; of having illegally im- prisoned several inhabitants ; of taking down the ancient house of Correction, on the pleat that it was his own property, and leaving the town without one. The defendant proved that the report in his paper
was a correct report of what took place before the Commissioners, by
the evidence of the Town-clerk, who was summoned by the plaintiff, and who was the mouth, as be said, of the Corporation over which Mr. Charlton presided. The report was read over to this witness, para- graph by paragraph ; and at the close of each he was asked whether it was correct? lie replied in the eflirmative, to every question but one, and that an immaterial one ; and upon this point he was unable to con- tradict the report—he merely did not hear certain expressiues therein put down. On the other side, four witnesses said that the report was overcharged. One of these witnesses, however, was the reporter of• a
rival newspaper, of strong Tory politics ; and another was II tenant of Mr. Charlton. After an eloquent speech in defence from Mr. Jervis,
Judge Patteson charged the Jury. The report in the Shrewsbroy Chronicle varies in sonic respects from that publish( d in the Times, especially as relates to the Judge's opinion of time legality of the Com- mission. The following is from the Times.
" In regard to the present complaint, whatever might be the law wall refe- rence to the publication of proceedings at public trials, it w:as clear that the ptoceedings at Coroners' Inquests, or at such inquiries as that before the Com- missioners, could not be published, if any thing were comer reel therein which was injurious to the character of any individual. As to the inee!, of the Com- missioners in general, since the commission issued under Itoyal ontaority, they were jostitiml in hearing any persons who came voluntatily forward to assist them in th. it inquiry ; and whatever such persons in furtherance of the objects of the inquiry honestly and bonci fide said before them, tnsild be privi- leged. At the same time, if those communicatimis were juju: ions to other persons, they could not be legally published, neither could those inquiries be made the medium of calumny and slander. Ile told the Jury to read the para- graphs in question, to consider them together with all the accompanying cir- enmstances, and say whether they thought they were libellons—that is to say, calculated to injure the plaintiff; and he expressed his own opiniuri$ that several of the allegations were so. If that were their opinion, the plaintiff was entitled to a verdict. As to the amount of the damages, they were to consider whether the report was substantially correct or tot; and he pointed out the Mari:or:16es stated by the witnesses. if they thought it to be so, they would take that into their consideration in the estimation of the damages; if otherwise, they would not allow it to influence their judgment."
The Jury consulted for a considerable time, and then returned a verdict for time plaintiff, with a shilling damages. The damages were. Laid at 3000/. Mr. Charlton withdrew another action for 8th;0(. damages, against a bookseller at Ludlow for selling a copy of the paper, and paid his own costs. There is still another action brought by this person against the proprietor of the Hereford Journal, for publishing the same libel.
Alfred Rae, described in the newspapers as a respectable youth aged fifteen, was tried before Judge Bosanquet, at Launceston, on Tuesday, for an assault of a most atrocious character, on Grave Ilreene, a widow with two children ; into whose house he gained admission on the night of the Ilth of March, partly by threats, and paitly lie pretending that he had lost his way, and was very hungry and tired. As soon as he entered the house, he locked the door in- the inside, ad took the key : he then ordered the woman to give him tea, and afterwards made her bring him down a bed to sleep upon : she was terrified, and entreated him to go, but he refused. The woman went up to her OWTI room to her children, but did not undress: soon afterwards, the prisoner followed her, and made the attempt for which he was tried. The woman resisted with great courage, and got out of the room ; but as the house-door was locked, could not escape. The young ruffian followed her, and beat and cut her head and face shockingly, with the fire- shovel. Finding she was too strong for him, he made her swear on her knees not to divulge what had passed; declaring that lie was connected with a gang of murderers, who would kill her if she gave evidence against him. He forced her to wipe the blood off her face and clothes. As soon as he was gone, the poor woman ran to a neighbour's, and told what had happened ; and the prisoner was secured. When brought before the prosecutrix, lie fell on his knees and begged for mercy. He was found guilty, but recommended to mercy by the Jury, on account of his youth. The judge sentenced him to two years' imprisonment and hard labour; saying that he owed his life only to the courageous resistance of the woman.
At the Anglesca Assizes, before Mr. Baron Bolland, there was not, to the credit of the county, a single prisoner for trial ; so that the Judge became entitled to the ancient compliment of white gloves from the Sheriff. His Lordship, in briefly addressing the Grand Jury, said, this was the first occasion in his life on which he had sat as Judge at an as- size where there was no criminal business to be disposed of.
Joseph Ratcliffe, an overlooker in Mr. Walker's hemp manufactory in Leeds, was tried at York on 1Vednesday, on a charge of the man- slaughter of a boy in the factory. The particulars of this charge have already appeared in the Spectator. It was proved that the mart had re- peatedly beaten this poor lad in a most barbarous manner; and on one occasion fastened a rope round his neck, threw the end of it over a steam-pipe, and hung him up till his face was black ; be then let him down, and beat him with the rope. The boy went to his work ; but next day complained that his neck was stiff; was taken to the Leeds lufirmary; and, after lingering for eight weeks, died of a disease in the spine. It was proved for the prisoner that the boy's father was of a scrofulous habit, which encourages spinal complaints. Mr. Walker, his employer, and several other persons, gave the prisoner a good cha- racter. He was found guilty, and sentenced to twelve months' impri- sonment.
Previous page
