R v Goodwin, 1838

The Attorney General opened the case, which he stated was for a libel published in the Cornwall Chronicle of 6th January last. In this case he had the honor of conducting the prosecution on the part of the Queen. The information in the usual manner charged Mr. William Lushington Goodwin, the printer and publisher of the Chronicle, with having maliciously printed and published an article reflecting upon the character of Lieut. Friend, as Justice of the Peace, Resident Magistrate at George Town, and Port Officer, and charging him with corruption in the said offices. The defendant had pleaded Not Guilty. The libel complained of was as follows:--

“We have for some time been sick of complaints from George Town, and had determined on forgetting that such a township was on the banks of the Tamar. The receipt of a letter, however, during the past week from a new correspondent, who is well known to us as a respectable man, and one who would not complain without reason, urges us once more to call the attention of the Authorities to the situation of its inhabitants. To avoid the necessity offering remarks on the subject treated on by our correspondent, we shall give a portion of his communication and for the present leave the matter:--

Nor is this the only outrage that has been committed here lately, each day brings with it some fresh specimen of insubordination on the part of the very few prisoners stationed in the town, which already threatens the interests of the free population with destruction, and if permitted to continue, must drive every respectable inhabitant from the township. One other fact I will name. About six or seven weeks back, one of the Port Officer’s signal men was charged before the Port Officer, he being the resident magistrate, with the commission of an unnatural crime. The evidence adduced against this fellow was so satisfactory to the magistrate, that he sentenced him to a chain-gang for a certain period. This wretch has not, since his trial and conviction, been subjected to the slightest restraint -- he has not been put into confinement -- but has been at large, an idle man, walking about the streets at his pleasure since, until a few days ago, when he was reinstated in his original birth as signal man, in which capacity he is now acting, at the house of the resident magistrate and Port Officer. But, Sir! this is not all the privilege granted to the fellow alluded to. In company with several of his felon associates, he was permitted to serenade the inhabitants of the township, during several nights of the Christmas season, with a fiddle, and other instrumental music. Astonished as many, and I may say, all the respectable townspeople were at such a privilege being given to men in the chain-gang, and particular to this wretch under sentence to a chain-gang for the worst crime human nature can perpetrate no one dare say one word under the present system. * * * * We abstain from commenting upon the above singular statement. Our informant does not write to us anonymously; he gives us permission to use his name, and pledge himself really to prove all he has written, which is very much more than we think proper to publish.”

The Attorney-General continued -- The facts of this case lie in a narrow compass. The jury will have to examine calmly and dispassionately if the impressions produced on the public mind by the publication complained of, are not such as the information charges; and whether therefore it is not a libel as so charged, and within the meaning of the information.

The printing and publication was admitted by the defendant’s counsel; and the following witnesses were called:--

M. C. Friend. -- I am resident magistrate at George Town and Port Officer of the Port of Launceston; I am one of the justices of the peace of this island; I have read the article headed “George Town” in the Cornwall Chronicle now produced; I have read it before to-day; I think the article intended to convey imputations on my character; I think it would point out that I was ignorant of my duty as a magistrate, in trying a man on a charge I was not competent to try him for; I could only have committed him for trial on such a charge; and secondly, that, at least, I must be a man indifferent to a crime at which every one else shudders.

Cross-examined. -- There was a man employed as a signalman prior to the publication of this article, named John Dubbins; he was a transported offender; he was charged before me with an offence before the publication of that article; the charge was made on the 13th of December; it was, that Dubbins had harboured a boy in his hut, who was out of the Penitentiary after hours; the record-book of the Police Office which I now produce contains the evidence on which the sentence under that charge was awarded; the sentence of Dubbins was two months to a road-gang and hard labor; the boy was sentenced to seven days in the cells the charge was not for an unnatural offence; had it been so I could not have finally decided upon the case, it must have gone to a jury; the charge and evidence as contained in the record produced were public proceedings at the Police Office at George Town; Dubbins was sent to a road party immediately after his sentence; he was sent to the George Town road party, where I always send men under sentence to the roads until the Governor has appointed a particular party in which they are to be employed; after he had been sent to the George Town road party, and before his Excellency had named the party in which he was to undergo his sentence, I was obliged to re-call him to the signal station to teach another man the signals; he was not reinstated in office -- on the contrary; he was not permitted to sleep even in his hut, as formerly, he attended to the duty by day, and was locked in the cells at night; his sentence was never remitted; he was in George Town during the Christmas season; I have been told that he went round the town with the singers on the Christmas eve; it never occurred but that one night; I do not speak in answer to the two last questions of my own knowledge; I have made enquiries, and I believe the singing only occurred the one night; the road-gang at George Town is not a chain-gang; it would not in fact be termed a road-gang officially; it is a gang of disposable men who are thus made use of for public benefit; the signal station is about 100 feet from my house; I do not remember any information being made officially by Mr. Tregurtha of the insubordination of the prisoners during the Christmas season; nor, officially, upon the subject of this man serenading upon the Christmas eve; there certainly was not any insubordination to my knowledge about that time, amongst the prisoners at George Town.

Re-examined. -- Dubbins was sent immediately from the Police Office to the George Town road party, remained there a short time, and was then brought back to the signal station, where he remained about a fortnight or three weeks, instructing a man I intended for the station; I then received information of the gang to which the Governor had directed the prisoner should be sent, and I sent him off on the first eligible opportunity; I believe this to have been the case, from its being my usual practice in similar cases; it is generally a fortnight after the sentence has been transmitted to the Governor, before I receive instructions as to the destiny of sentenced men; it may then be a week or two before I can remove them, waiting an escort; during this time I employ them as before stated in the road gang at George Town.

Henry Reed, Esq. -- I have looked at the Cornwall Chronicle produced; I have read the article headed “George Town;” I believe the article is intended to convey an imputation against Capt. Friend; to my mind it would convey that Mr. Friend considered, by the evidence in the case referred to, that the man was guilty of the crime, but, from some improper motives, instead of taking the steps which the law directed, he merely sentenced the offender to a road-gang; and that even this sentence was after remitted.

Cross-examined. -- I do not find any comment upon the leniency of the sentence in the publication, it is therein stated that the magistrate was satisfied with the evidence produced -- notwithstanding he only sentenced the man to a road party; if so convinced he could not have known his duty to have thus acted; or, knowing it, he must have been actuated by improper motives in acting as is charged in this article.

H. E. Lawrence, Esq. -- I have read the article referred to; I have seen it before; I should say, in general terms, that the article is calculated to throw odium and reproach on the character of Capt. Friend, as a magistrate, and as a gentleman. The imputation appears to me complex; first, he is charged with trying an offence to which his powers as a magistrate did not extend; secondly, with relieving the offender from the effects of that sentence, -- the crime being one in which the exercise of lenity is peculiarly offensive in the world.

Major Ryan, 50th regt. -- I have read the article referred to; the article conveys to my mind an imputation injurious to the character of Capt. Friend; it seems to attribute to him a connivance with the man so charged, -- most discreditable to his character as a gentleman and a magistrate; the words “at the house” in this paragraph are not in the same print as the rest of the article -- they are in italics. This closed the case for the prosecution.

MR. STEPHEN for the defence, commenced by expressing regret that the mode of prosecution resorted to, had been an ex-officio information; -- since he presumed, that the article complained of being one reflecting on individual character, the setting right of that character was the point aimed at -- an end, which was not nevertheless fully to be attained by a criminal prosecution, the object of which was, chiefly, punishment. He begged the jury to bear in mind the peculiar position of a newspaper editor, liable occasionally to fall into inaccuracy of statement, even with the best intentions; to consider his duties, for every editor had duties to discharge, though he assumed them voluntarily; and to make proper allowance for unintentional errors in their performance, for the sake of the great public interests which the press was confessedly so well calculated to promote.

He lamented that it had not been thought a better course in this instance, to try the nature of Mr. Friend’s injuries, and the extent of Mr. Goodwin’s delinquency, in a civil action; where the truth of the supposed charges would be directly in issue, and the excuse which the defendant meant to offer, that he originally had reason to believe them, would better, and more satisfactorily to the public, be decided. He stood not there to defend or e extenuate any private libel. Mr. Goodwin had not assaulted private character; had not referred to any private matters; had not intruded into the friendly circle, or invaded the domestic hearth. He was guilty, -- if of any thing, -- of calling public attention, and the attention of Government, to what he rightly deemed a matter of very great public importance; to the negligence, or the indiscretion, the remissances, or the erroneous judgment, of a public officer, -- in relation to a public question; in which the Government and the public were deeply interested, and on which the conduct of Mr. Friend was fairly, and indeed necessarily open to public remark and scrutiny. Mr. Goodwin, the editor of a public journal, receives information from more than one credible and respectable source, that a man employed in the Port Officer’s department, had been charged with a scandalous offence; and sentenced for it, by that officer as resident magistrate, to a chain gang. It now turns out, that the charge and sentence were not for that offence, but for harbouring; and the sentence was, not to a chain gain, but to a road party. Grievous errors! But, they are not errors affecting the charge, as complained of in this prosecution. Even if they were so, however, he (Mr. Stephen) would contend, that in effect the charge really was, and he would prove that at George Town it was universally understood to be what Mr. Goodwin’s informant told him it was. Let the jury consider the facts, as proved in evidence against the man; and they would see that such an understanding was not altogether without foundation. But, be this decided as it may, the material point in debate is the same. The article was not complained of, as imputing to Mr. Friend any impropriety, or error, in the entertaining of that charge, or the passing of that sentence; but, as imputing to Mr. Friend impropriety, or error in not causing that sentence to be immediately carried into effect. And, on this point, (the only material one for present consideration) it is already in proof that Mr. Goodwin’s information was substantially correct. The man was not removed to a road party; he was not subjected to that restraint which might have been expected to follow such a sentence, he walked the streets openly by day; he resorted as usual to his old berth, the signal station; and, nearly a fortnight after his conviction, he was allowed to perambulate the township serenading its inhabitants at midnight. These things were communicated to Mr. Goodwin; he received them from more than one quarter; he was informed, that they were matters of notoriety, and topics of general complaint; and he published them accordingly. He (Mr. Stephen) would contend, that such topics were peculiarly proper for public notice; and such as the press, if its usefulness were not wholly disclaimed, and its liberty treated as but a mere name, was entitled to deem within its cognizance. He did not know what there was in the liberty of the press, if it included not the right of publishing, on a fitting occasion, circumstances proper for public comment. And where shall we find an instance of such an occasion, or of circumstances of such a character, if they exist not here? Public and general rumour; public and common discontent; public and notorious observation; directed to the mistaken lenity, or injudicious delay, of a convicting magistrate, in carrying into effect the punishment justly awarded to crime; -- this is the occasion, which has produced, and which justifies, the present publication. He would maintain that, if the law forbad such a publication, under such circumstances as these, and if that law were to be rigorously enforced as here, by an ex-officio information, newspapers had better at once cease; their editors could not exist in safety a week; the press would be destroyed. He would however for the purpose of the present defence, be content even to pass by these all important topics. He begged the jury to bear in mind, what the present charge was. It was not, that Mr. Goodwin imputed to Mr. Friend remissness, neglect, supineness, want of knowledge, defect of judgement, culpable error. That the article in question imputed these, or some of these, -- that it charged Mr. Friend with impropriety of some kind, -- he did not think it worth while to dispute. But the information alleged that the defendant imputed to Mr. Friend for grosser impropriety; a degree, and a species of impropriety, or imputing, which to Mr. Friend, he, (Mr. Stephen) had his client’s solemn assurance that he never entertained the idea, for one moment. The information states, that Mr. Goodwin’s article imputed to Mr. Friend, that, in the discharge of his offices, he had been guilty of corruption. The article, Mr. Stephen submitted with confidence, imputed nothing of the sort. He contended that no portion of the article, justified such a construction. What insinuation was there, in any part of the article, that Mr. Friend had done, -- or rather omitted to do, -- that which it was insisted it was his duty to have done, from the base motive of personal gain, or benefit to himself of any kind? -- or, of any private and selfish consideration, having been the moving cause? But unless such an insinuation were really conveyed in the article, how could it be fairly said to impute to Mr. Friend corruption? What is it not possible for a magistrate to misunderstand or neglect his duty -- aye, and grossly too, -- without being guilty of corruption? He begged them, on this point, on which his client had already solemnly disclaimed any such intention, to judge of the article for themselves; to discriminate carefully between the meaning, by considering well the import and value of words; and not, by returning a verdict of guilty which, -- setting aside all other considerations favoring an acquittal, -- would force unnaturally on Mr. Goodwin’s language, or that of the correspondent, a meaning which he found venture to say, never entered the imagination of either. The learned gentleman then called.

Edward PrimroseTregurtha. -- I have read the paragraph referred to in the Cornwall Chronicle of January 6; I recollect reading that journal a few days after its publication; before its publication I knew a man of the name of John Dubbings, or “Gentleman John;” previous to the publication I had a conversation with the defendant, Mr. Goodwin at his office, relative to this man; at the time of that conversation general rumours had existed in George Town relative to Dubbings; rumours which created a very strong feeling in the place at that time; the rumours so far as relates to the offence charged against Dubbins, were that he had been brought up to the Police Office, for an unnatural crime; it was a general report; I do not recollect any general rumour as to what he was really sentenced to a road party for; as near as I remember, I told Mr. Goodwin, in the conversation alluded to, that George Town was all in an uproar in consequence of this man, Dubbins, after the general rumours that he had committed such a crime, being permitted to be at large, and singing, with others, about the streets, at midnight; I further stated to Mr. Goodwin that a few days after this occurred I asked the chief-constable by whose permission he was allowed to be at large, and he said by Capt. Friend’s permission; I further told Mr. Goodwin that I had myself seen the man about the town, after his conviction, quite at large. I believe I asked Capt. Friend, a short time afterward if it was by his permission that Dubbins was serenading the town on Christmas, waking people at midnight; he did not answer me, but said, in a sneering kind of way, “I think we ought to feel much obliged to them for being awoke at such an hour, with such delightful music; I told Mr. Goodwin that I had seen him at large and idling about the town with a book, after being sentenced; I found Dubbins absent when I returned to George Town from Launceston.

Cross-examined. -- It was about two days before the publication that I conversed with Mr. Goodwin on the subject referred to; I returned to George Town on the 7th; the paragraph was published on the 6th; I did not see Dubbins on my return home; I have not seen him since; I do not know that he had been sent away then.

The Attorney-General in reply spoke to the following effect. -- It seems then, -- may it please your Honor and Gentlemen of the Jury, -- that this evidence of Mr. Tregurtha, about the most extraordinary I ever heard offered in a court of justice, is intended to have the effect of inducing you to believe that the insertion of this libellous article in the Cornwall Chronicle proceeded from the most laudable motives on the part of the defendant; or, if that gentleman’s testimony falls in that respect, then it is addressed to the consideration of the Court in mitigation of the defendant’s punishment. Viewing it, gentlemen, in either of those tendencies, I must say it does appear to me “passing strange,” that so discriminating a mind as that of my learned friend should, even in the extremities of this case, have caught at an argument so utterly destitute of value in the sense in which he has urged it on your consideration; and not only valueless, but most mischievous, in the sense in which he has submitted it to his Honor’s consideration, as affecting the future punishment of the defendant. Mr. Tregurtha, who on the occasion of which he speaks, appears to have been selected as the depositary of the sufferings of George Town, -- and I must do that constituency the justice to say that they could not by possibility have found a better face to represent a grievance, -- Mr. Tregurtha, I say, on the fourth of January -- three days before the publication of the newspaper containing the libel of which by this information I complain, -- proceeds immediately on his landing at Launceston to the office of the Cornwall Chronicle, and unbosoms his sorrows to the sympathies of the defendant. “What now from George Town?” was the unnecessary question of Mr. Goodwin, the defendant, since it was for the laudable purpose of imparting the sorrows of George Town to the Editor of the Cornwall Chronicle that Mr. Tregurtha repaired to the scene in which he communicated the discontents of his townsmen. “News, I replied,” was Mr. Tregurtha’s answer, “news -- why the whole settlement is in an uproar;” and then he informs Mr. Goodwin, that all this had originated in the circumstance of the treatment of the person called the “Gentlemen John;” who having been convicted of a most abominable offence was, notwithstanding, his conviction, said continued in the situation he held before; and that he had actually complained to the magistrate himself of having been disturbed at night, on Christmas eve I think, by the singing of Christmas carols; and that the only redress he obtained was a sneering observation from Mr. Friend that he ought to be quiet delighted at being disturbed by such beautiful music. And now that you are in full possession of Mr. Friend’s evidence, and that the books of the office are produced here in court at the defendant’s own desire, and although you see that for the heavy imputations hurled against Mr. Friend’s head, there exists not the shadow of a foundation, you are gravely called on by the defendant’s counsel to say that he is not guilty; because, in fact, he made his paper the mere receptacle of the slanders of another. This is the argument of the learned counsel for the liberty of the Press. God forbid that on such base grounds its defence rested, for then indeed must its enemies -- who are the facts of truth and justice and the friends of darkness and error -- then must their triumph be complete; and that mighty power which has stood for ages and contended against, occasionally the arrogance of power, and, not seldom, the artifices of law, and always contended victoriously, then must this majestic engine fall, not from its own deficiencies, but through the mistaken zeal of its indiscreet advocates . Compare this publication, I entreat of you gentlemen of the jury, with Mr. Stephen’s own definition of the Liberty of the Press. “[???],” be observed, for I too down his words -- “the liberty of the Press be a mere [???] it consists in the publication of such circumstances as are fit for public notice on a reasonable occasion.” Try the case before you by that test, and can you gentlemen, say that the circumstances contained in this paragraph, headed George Town, are “fit for public notice,” and that they have been “published on a reasonable occasion.” Observe the foundation on which they rest and the imputations they contain. On the first point I have already addressed you; and to those remarks I would only add, that professing to come from unquestionable authority -- from one who is accurately acquainted with all that he writes -- aye, and with much more than the characteristic forbearance of the defendant will furnish to the readers of his newspaper -- yet the only evidence he has adduced to day is not from the man of accuracy, the writer of the letter, but from Mr. Tregurtha, who seems to fill the enviable office of collector of rumours at George Town. But there is another topic upon which, Gentlemen, I should not discharge my duty did I not address you. Does or not this article contain imputations on Mr. Friend, as a Magistrate and a Gentleman? Does it or not impute to him corruption in his official capacity? I have called Mr. Friend before you -- I have put into the box, Mr. Reed, Mr. Lawrence and Major Ryan. I do not mean to say that you are bound by their opinions. You have a right to judge for yourselves. But these gentlemen have unhesitatingly -- some more analytically than others -- given their opinions as to the imputations meant to be conveyed on the character of Mr. Friend. Mr. Lawrence, in particular, observed that the imputation, in his opinion, was complex; it in the first instance imputed to Mr. Friend that he had passed a most inadequate sentence on the man to whose case allusion was made; and that he had subsequently and almost immediately, reinstated him in his situation; thus exhibiting indifference towards an offence to which leniency was peculiarly reprehensible. Mr. Reed, again considered the matter as affecting Mr. Friend’s character both as a magistrate and a gentleman; and Major Ryan thought that it clearly attributed to him a connivance at that very guilt, with which Mr. Friend, in his magisterial character, had become satisfactorily acquainted. But let me ask, gentlemen, at what order conclusion can you arrive? When you see the words “at his house” printed in italics, can you, in the exercise of the utmost charity, arrive at a different conclusion from the witnesses? True you have the disclaimed of the defendant’s counsel that he never so intended to apply those terms; but language must be judged of by its ordinary and natural meaning, and it is not the disclaimer made at the eleventh hour that can change the character, or alter the tendency, of this libel. But the disclaimer is accompanied by an argument the object of which is to convince you that this article is no libel, in the sense in which it is charged in this information; because it does not impute corruption to Mr. Friend. What! then connivance in a magistrate at escape from punishment due to a most heinous and revolting offence is no longer to be deemed corruption? Is this the doctrine of my learned friend? This the conclusion at which he would persuade you to arrive? Corruption -- he exclaims -- where is it imputed? The article might and probably did, according to my learned friend’s construction of it, attribute to Mr. Friend undesirable conduct, -- or injudicious or improper conduct, -- but no man in his senses, according to Mr. Stephen, could say that there was any charge of corruption made against him; and if any such construction were forced upon the words, he, on the part of his client, solemnly disclaims ever having entertained any such intention. Gentlemen, on this subject, I say hear the evidence -- read the article -- and if you can attach to the language used any other meaning than that which this information ascribes to it, then let the defendant have the benefit of your opinion. Not however on account of his disclaimer -- but because you believe conscientiously that there is not in the matter set forth as libellous a charge of corruption preferred against Mr. Friend, in his magisterial capacity.

But, as I observed at the commencement of this address, the evidence of Mr. Tregurtha is not only presented to you for the purpose of obtaining your verdict, it is addressed also to his Honor in the event of your verdict passing against the defendant; and I have, in this latter point of view, pronounced it of a most mischievous tendency. I now most confidently submit to his Honor, that the attempt made here to-day to defend the present, by ruining the reputation of the absent, is one of the most unfair and unconstitutional proceedings ever tolerated in a Court of Justice, and that this Court will, in due season by an example which it will be then be in its competency to make, discourage the repetition of attempts such as these, which would convert the proceedings of Courts of Justice into an arena where, to gratify malice or to escape punishment justly due to crime, the character of the absent is to be immolated without remorse; and, as far as the victim is concerned, without redress. On this subject I utter not one word more -- I appeal to His Honor, to you, gentlemen, and to every Englishman who hears me, whether or not the course adopted by my learned friend on this occasion -- with reference exclusively, let me be understood, to this part of his case -- was not directly calculated to cast a foul stain on the administration of justice.

Gentlemen, there is but one topic more; and as it is one in which I am personally concerned, I shall occupy but a very few moments of your attention in discussing it. It has been asked -- why has Mr. Friend not brought a civil action for his libel? My answer is, because I deemed it imperative on me to prosecute this case by ex officio information. I think so still. I am not here accountable for the motives by which I was actuated in this determination; though I have no doubt they will be justly and fairly appreciated by men of all parties; but this I will say, that amongst some novel doctrine, and dangerous argument, this case has at all events so terminated as to exhibit Mr. Friend’s character to the Government he serves, as well as to his fellow citizens, unhurt in the least degree by the fiery ordeal to which it has been subjected.

His Honor briefly charged the jury. The questions, for their consideration, his Honor stated were two. First -- Did the letter charged as libellous reflect upon Capt. Friend in the three offices referred to. Secondly -- if it did, did it or did it not charge the said Captain Friend with corruption in those offices.

Mr. Goodwin being called up for judgment; Mr. Stephen moved an arrest of judgment. In doing so, he shortly adverted to his previous arguments, that corruption had not been imputed. He admitted however, that (but for the objections he meant now to urge against the conviction, in point of law,) the verdict of the jury on that head would be conclusive. He adverted also to the decision of his Honor, not to receive any affidavits, or affidavit in mitigation of punishment, -- Mr. Stephen then took the following objections:

First, That there was no averment in the information, that Mr. Friend was acting as resident magistrate and port officer at the time when the man is said to have been released or reinstated; and secondly, that there was no averment or inuendo that the reinstating of the man, or the impunity extended to him, was the act of Mr. Friend. Consequently Mr. Stephen contended, there was nothing in the libel itself which, in terms -- or explained by [???] -- whence the Court had a right to infer the imputation of corruption upon Mr. Friend.

His Honor deferred the decision of the Court upon Mr. Stephen’s motion until the first day of next term, Mr. Goodwin entering into recognizances to appear.

Comment on the Ex-Officio proceedings against the proprietor of this paper, as they appear by report in this number, are superfluous. The verdict was, no doubt, according to law, that is, the defendant was pronounced GUILTY for having in substance, as it was clearly and fully established by evidence, written the truth, and nothing but the truth, which according to the law of Ex-Officio, is guilty of the greatest magnitude. It being “immaterial with respect to the essence of a libel, whether the matter of it be true or false;” the old adage, “the greater the truth the greater the libel,” is plainly verified in the late proceedings. No one can entertain a doubt as to the verdict that would have been returned, had the matter charged as libellous been submitted to the test of a civil action -- for, according to Blackstone, we find, that “in a civil action, a libel must appear to be false as well as scandalous, for if the charge be true, the plaintiff has received no private injury, and has no ground to demand a compensation for himself, whatever offence it may be against the public peace, and, therefore, upon a civil action, the truth of the accusation may be pleaded in bar of suit.”

We have no occasion, we are assured, to make any observation in explanation of our conduct, a faithful report of the trial (which we have preferred copying from the columns of the ADVERTISER than using our own notes) is before the Public. It explains the FACTS!

One remark it is our duty to make; relative to the forced construction of words put upon the article of Lieutenant Friend. We did not in writing it, neither did the writer of the letter (copied into it) contemplate the charge of CORRUPTION against Lieutenant Friend.

Rather that it should be supposed our report of the above proceedings was prejudiced, we have, for the most part, extracted it from our contemporary, the LAUNSESTON ADVERTISER, who, having omitted (no doubt unintentionally) the substance of the charge against “Gentleman John,” as it was read by Mr. Stephen from the record book of the Police Office at George Town, it becomes our duty to supply the omission:--

“December 13th -- William Smith, a boy, was charged by constable ------- with being found in the hut of John Dubbings on the night previous, undressed, and in his bed. Prisoner in his defence, said, he returned too late from the Heads to get into the Penitentiary. Sentence, 7 days in the cells.

“December 13th – John Dubbings was charged by constable ------- with HARBOURING the boy, William Smith. He stated that he watched the boy enter Dubbings’s hut at 9 o’clock, and that at 12 o’clock he asked if the boy was there; Dubbings denied that he was, but, upon the constable getting admittance to the hut, he found the boy undressed, and in his bed. Dubbings said he had taken him in, because he came from the Heads too late to get into the Penitentiary. Sentence two months to a road party, and hard labor.”

This morning (Tuesday, May 15,) the Court decided that the objections taken by Mr. Stephen in the case of Captain Goodwin, of the CORNWELL CHRONICLE, were well founded, and that gentleman was discharged accordingly.

[1] Friend and Goodwin had carried on a ‘long fued’ dating back to 1832, see P.K. Cowie, ‘Matthew Curling Friend (1792-1871)’, ADB, v. 1, pp. 417-18 and C. Craig, ‘William Lushington Goodwin (1798?-1862), ADB, v. 1, pp. 457-8. The same newspaper briefly reports another trial held on the same day, concerning George Town. Charles Freestone, chief constable of George Town, was acquitted on a charge of assisting a convict to escape. On both these cases, see also Cornwall Chronicle, 14 April 1838.

[2] After its report of this case, the Cornwall Chronicle continued as follows.