Carlisle Patriot, 13 Aug 1825 - Cumberland Summer Assizes (14)

[petra.mi...@doctors.org.uk]

Saturday 13 Aug 1825   (p. 4, col. 1-6)

 

CUMBERLAND SPRING [sic] ASSIZES.

  

LIBEL.

WHEATLEY v. PEILE AND GIBSON.

 

[continued]

 

Mr. ARMSTRONG, of London, solicitor, (brother of Mr. ARMSTRONG the barrister) produced from the Rolls of the Court of King's Bench, proof that Mr. WHEATLEY is a regularly-enrolled attorney of that Court. He also produced a certified copy of an affidavit from the stamp-office, under the act, that Mr. PEILE is the sole proprietor of the Cumberland Pacquet, and Mr. GIBSON the printer and publisher.—He knew, he said, that Mr. WHEATLEY practised at Whitehaven.

 

Cross-examined by Mr. SCARLETT for the defendants:—I have brought his certificates that he is an attorney for the Court of King's Bench for the last three years. He practises in that Court. I came from London, but not as a witness in this cause only. I know Mr. WHEATLEY: I am not his Agent. I have not heard him say exactly that he cared not a halfpenny about this action so that he carried costs, and that a farthing would do that; but he said he only wished to establish his reputation. Every attorney knows that a farthing will carry costs.

 

William WORDSWORTH, Esq.—I am head-distributor of stamps for the district embracing part of Cumberland (including Whitehaven), and the whole of Westmorland. I produce two newspapers filed by the defendants, dated 28th March and 5th April, 1825.

 

Mr. SCARLETT.—My friend Mr. BROUGHAM has read, Mr. WORDSWORTH, what he considers a long line of poetry. When you and I were at Cambridge (jocularly) we used to consider it somewhat differently. You have met with these lines, I take it, Sir?

 

Mr. WORDSWORTH—Yes, I have met with them forty years ago,—I have always considered them, not as one line, but as several.

 

The alleged libel was put in and read by the associate as follows:—

 

Dated March 28, 1825:—"On Thursday last, several persons were convicted at the public-office in this town, of having smuggled whiskey, or rather whiskey over-proof, in their possession, and in their dwelling-houses. Among the offenders were several innkeepers, some of them belonging to Workington. These were subjected to a penalty of £12 10s. each; the private individuals were fined £7 10s., £5, £2, &c. according to circumstances and ability to pay. Mr. WHEATLEY, an attorney whose advice is generally sought by persons involved in difficulties of this sort, appeared on the present occasion, and received a severe reprimand from the Bench for rudeness and officiousness; he moreover subjected himself to a warm rebuff from one of the officers of excise. Mr. WHEATLEY seems to have seen little of the world. He would fain make all men's feelings and interests subservient to his petty purpose of making a noise, no matter on what subject, or at whose expense. He is perhaps a man of vast ability, and would shine, were there but room; yet he should not forget that as in striving to attain his object he shoulders, and bustles, and lays about him without any very special regard to delicacy, he makes every man his opponent with whom he comes in contact; and great as are his talents, wide-spreading as is his knowledge, and powerful as is his strength, he is still mortal, and may perchance fail in entirely breaking down the barriers which guard the dignities and decencies of society."

 

Dated April 5, 1825:—"A paragraph which appeared in our last paper, in which the name of Mr. WHEATLEY was incidentally introduced, seems to have produced a great effect upon that worthy Gentleman. We stated that he had received a smart reprimand from the Bench, and he appears to wince at the expression. We had not the slightest intention of misrepresenting, even in the slightest degree, any thing affecting him. The following, we believe, is a correct statement of what occurred at the public-office on the occasion referred to. On a question by the Rev. Alexander SCOTT, to Miss SMITH, we believe, Mr. WHEATLEY said, 'I consider the question of no importance, and immaterial whether answered or not.' Mr. HEYWOOD, the magistrates' clerk; 'Do you, sir, mean to dictate to the magistrates? Whatever questions they may think proper to ask, they have a right to do so, without being dictated to.' Mr. WHEATLEY apologised. After the business had terminated, Mr. LITTLEDALE, addressing Mr. WHEATLEY, said, The proceedings of this office have on recent similar occasions been published, and names mentioned; this is unpleasant to us, and I beg it may not be done in future. The rebuff Mr. W. received was from Mr. PAISLEY. On a question being put by him, Mr. PAISLEY said, 'I am not aware, Sir, that you have any business to ask me questions, nor will I answer any from you: any questions from the Bench I will answer immediately,' Let the reader judge for himself. If we ought to have said any thing else instead of reprimand, we beg to be understood as withdrawing that term, and giving a carte blanche to our friends and our enemies to fill up the vacancy with what may please them better."

 

Mr. BROUGHAM.—That closes my case.

 

 

[to be continued]