by the jury. O n being asked if he had anything to say why sentence of death should not be passed on him, the unfortunate m a n replied that "he wished to get out of the country;" and whilst the Judge was passing sentence, the prisoner exclaimed with fervour, " O h ! thank G o d !" whereat the Judge sharply told him " that he had more reason to pray to God!" T h e prisoner then declared that " Francis had struck him and set the dogs upon him, and a m a n might as yvell be dead as torn by dogs." The Judge sentenced him to be hanged, but the punishment yvas afteryvards modified to transportation for life.
The First Civil Libel Case.—30th January, 1843.
Leadbetter v. Cavanagh.
The plaintiff was a Law Clerk, defendant the registered Proprietor of the Herald, and it yvas sought to recover damages for the publication of a very defamatory libel. Leadbetter owed Cavanagh money, and yvas rather long-yvinded in his payment. Leadbetter cleared out one day for Sydney, yvith the score unsatisfied, for which he was denounced in a Herald paragraph of a most abusive nature. By it the gentleman who had made himself scarce was held up to public scorn as " a bolter from the colony ;" and ticketed "as a most notorious scamp w h o hadfledto Sydney in the 'Earl of Durham.' " It was further declared "that a greater scamp never disgraced the Province;" and as a kind of "hue and cry " for the benefit of the Sydney people, the runaway was printed down as " of c o m m o n stature, peering eyes, a curl on the upper lip, ruddy complexion, and an extremely obtrusive manner." W h e n Leadbetter read the terrible tirade on himself, he returned to Melbourne and sought legal redress. Mr. Barry appeared for the plaintiff, Mr. Cunninghame for the defendant, and the jury awarded damages £ 2 0 .
False Imprisonment.—12th May, 1843.
Kerr v. St. John.
An action for false imprisonment, damages £1,000. Counsel for plaintiff, Mr. Williams; for defendant, Messrs. Croke and Barry. Plea—the general issue. There yvere no tyvo betterknoyvn m e n in their time than the litigants in this case. T h e plaintiff yvas Mr. William Kerr, the Editor of the Patriot, and an Alderman of Melbourne; the defendant Major F. B. St. John, the Police Magistrate. It has often occurred to m e that " the Major " used to copy the yveaknesses and eccentricities of the Superior Judge, though on the yvhole he was more good-natured, independent, and_fair-minded than Willis. O n the 8th August, 1842, there appeared in the Patriot a mosquito paragraph, reflecting upon a decision of the Major's, which stung him to such a pitch that he forthyvith issued a summons requiring Kerr to appear at the Police Court, and answer any questions that might be put to him. Kerr yvas in no wise loth to appear, and the moment the Major had him before him, he became bounceable, and Kerr waxed impudent. T h e consequence was that the Major committed the Editor-Alderman to prison for twenty-four hours for contempt, and to gaol he yvent in high good humour. The warrant of commitment was made out on a printed form in general use in the Court, and the yvords " with hard labour" were, by an inadvertence of the clerk, not erased; so that the detainer yvas bad, inasmuch as it imposed an addition to the durance, which was ultra vires in a punishment for contempt of Court. A n application was therefore made to the Supreme Court next morning to set aside the warrant, because of its faultiness, and the Judge quashed it accordingly. Kerr yvas thereupon enlarged, but not before he had put in the whole tyventy-four hours less twenty minutes. Kerr, yvho kneyv more law than the Major, seemed aware oftheflaw,for, whilst he was confined, he begged of the gaoler to put him to hard labour of any kind—he was not over-particular as to the quality of the yvork, provided he was kept doing something ; and yvas ready and willing to clean boots, brush a coat, or scrub a cell; in fact, he yvas ready to lend a hand to do anything. But the gaoler, possibly out of regard for Kerr's public position, yvas unwilling even to oblige him so far. T h e jury found for the plaintiff, damages £ 5 0 ; and on the announcement of the verdict, Judge Willis rubbed his hands gleefully, and exclaimed, " It yvas just the very sum I thought they would give."
