The Sun. — London, England, 1829-11-02 00:00:00

House, your Committee can only look on it with a mixture of sorrow and indignation. They would not dishonour the House by their recommendation to accept either branch of it. The Lords of the Treasury themselves may hereafter, on better con sideration see the injustice of their own conduct to wards the weakness of the colonies ; or, possibly, a successful application might be made to Parliament, where, sooner or later, injuries receive redress. If, however, this is hopeless, and the cause of the co , lonies be desperate, your Committee may advise a submission to necessity, but it cannot degrade itself by a recommendation to the House to forge fetters for themselves." The resolutions, with the proposal of which this singular document concludes, import that the Lords of the Treasury, having by their ap propriation of the duties on foreign merchandise levied in the colonies, taxed the inhabitants with out consent of the Assembly, anti having, in so doing, attempted to abrogate their charter and to subvert their constitution, to secede to the pro- positions now made them would be a base dere fiction of the rights of the colonial inhabitants. It is curious that the absurdity of this language should not strike the legislators of a slave colony, who could not maintain themselves for - an hour amidst their black " inhabitants" without the protecting arm of that country which they seem to defy,—that they should talk in such mock heroic strains of political rights in the face of a large population whom they hold in bondage, — and that the advantageous conversion of a larger fee for a smaller salary should have occasioned all this show of resistance, merely because the pro position did not originate with themselves.— Times. The prejudices which were so ine.ustriousl] fomented against the New System of Police, a i:s original formation, have at length exhibited a tendency to subside, and the results of the ex periment are considered so encouraging, that without more delay than the nature of the sub ject demands, it is intended to enlarge the circle of its operation ; but there are still some obsta cles to be got over, as well in the extension of the improved municipal regulations, as in the reformation of that portion of the old which has been permitted to remain untouched. Under the first head we would class the obstructions which will be thrown in the way of their intro duction into the City--that strong hold and ci tadel of the enemies of innovation. Under the last we would particularly dwell upon the mode that has long prevailed in administering those preliininary proceedings which are entrusted to the Magistrates who preside in the various divi sional offices which superintend this branch of our municipal code. It may be new to our readers, as it certainly was to us, to learn that much of the opposition to the New Police was got lip, and the expences of it defrayed, by the joint contributions of the watchmen about to be discar ded ; that the manifestoes which " stood rubric on the wall," and the embellishments emblazoned in the perfection of lithographic deformity, owed their existence to the stock purse formed for the laudable purpose of perpetuating the absurdity of entrusting the care of life and property to men notoriously corrupt, and in many instances phy sically incapable of that activity and vigilance which their duties required—but in England, and more particularly in London, Money is never wanting for this or any similar purpose. We are firmly persuaded that if the honourable fraternity of Mendicants had any important ob ject to carry, the command of funds would not be Ritual in the catalogue of deficient requisites. We have, perhaps, dwelt too long upon a point of opposition which, we believe, is gradually eva porating, and would soon disappear if it did not rather unaccountably receive encouragement in quarters where it was least of all to be expected. Our readers will, probably, anticipate our ex planation—that the allusion applies to an esca pade attributed in a recent Police Report, to one of the sitting Magistrates of Bow-street. The dif ficulty of bringing the proposed system to the re quisite perfection in that part ()fit which is borrowed from the old, is, in itself, more formidable, and less easily susceptible of remedy than the branch of which we have already treated ; one of the questions least capable of an easy solution is the very obvious one—where are we to look for men tapable of performing the duties of Committing :Magistrates ? It is an admitted fact, that the individuals to whom that trust is at present de legated are not, in general estimation (we dis claim any invidious personality in the ols-erva lion), competent to a satisfactory discharge of it; and we know that this very point has been the subject of anxious and hitherto unsuccessful so licitude to the Member of the Administration to whose department this branch of domestic policy more especially belongs. On this much can vassed and very comprehensive subject much re mains to be said. It is but justice to the parties to whom our observations apply to admit that, with all the patching introduced by Mr. Peel into our system of procedure previous to trial, or Instruction as it is termed on the Continent, it is still confused and anomalous; and that till the course be chalked out with something like precision, every fresh case must exhibit a scene of indecent wrangling calculated to lower the magistracy in general estimation. We shall re vert to this subject.—Morning Chronicle. The Bishop of Ferns tells Lord Mountcashel that so long as Europe remains revolutionary, the abuses of the Protestant Church must not be touched. Touch the Church, indeed, at such a time ! But good and evil are all wonderfully mingled in sublunary affairs. The Gazette de France of Friday tells us, that so long as Eu rope remains revolutionary, the Sovereigns of Europe will abandon all ideas of aggrandize ment and rivalry. " All the Powers of Europe," says our Parisian Contemporary, " arc now united in the great interest of preservation of social order against the anarchical faction which menaces it in all Europe. The peace has taken place, and the English mad French fleets have not enteied the Dardanelles, and the Emperor of Russia has not chosen to enter Constantinople. Europe, for forty years, has been in a situation of which history furnishes no example. It is agitated by an universal cause of disorder, which acts in the same manner on every society ; hence every State has an internal enemy which de mands its whole attention, and which can only be vanquished by the union of all the powers of order ; in England, the Radicals ; in Italy, the Carbonari ; in France, the Jaco bins ; in Germany, the Sandiats ; in Russia, the Military Conspirators ; in Belgium, in Poland, in the provinces of the Rhine, in the Milanese, the Independents. All these men, agitated by the same spirit, march towards a common ob ject. So long as these revolutionary ferments shall exist, all Kings will be united b) a com mon interest, and that interest will. impose silence on queistiOrA . ptrivalry, on ideas of aggrandize menttaraalf. that_ ordinarily : troubles the liar eMPiies.'' - The lovers of peace, th en , listg.p.thisthepr ; y, : ought to wish, if not see At Iftstiong ids to the eause of Ja- rnon . lua , „ - ) cobinism, Radicalism, &c. Physicians say that two distinct diseases cannot exist in the system at the same time, and hence some of - them de fine medicine to be the science of creating one disease to destroy another. Radicalism, in po. litical medicine, is the disease which is created to cure the disease of ambition to make con- quests. But then again Radicals and Jacobins can only exist where there arc glaring political abuses ; so that we must have glaring political abuses to have Radicals and Jacobins, and Ra dials and Jacobins to prevent Kings from knock ing their heads against each other. Thus every thing, as we shall be told, works for the best in this best of all possible worlds.—lbid. The dirferent Quarter Sessions throughout the country seem desirous of showing people how little advantage there can be in the old maxim of appealing " from Philip drunk to Philip sober," By Mr. Estcourt's famous Licensing Act, a great promise of improvement was held out by giving persons a power of appealing to the Ses sions against the refusal of a license by Magis trates at their Division Meetings. The experi ment has been tried, and what has been the re sult ? In Essex the Sessions have gravely de termined that unless " corrupt motives" can be traced home to, and proved upon, the Magis trates, their decision ought not to be disturbed ; which, in fact, is to put on appellants the onus of proving, in most cases, an impossibility. In Middlesex it has been adjudged that unless per sonal notice has been served upon every one of the Magistrates attending the Licensing Meeting (though neither the name nor person of any one of them may be known to the applicant) the appeal cannot be so much as entertained. In Sussex the refusal by only two persons to license a large hotel at a watering-place is held to be right, merely because those two persons had thought so. In Hampshire, though acting within the malaria of a rotten borough, the judg ments of the licensing Magistrates is held to be most wholesome and unassailable ; whilst in Devonshire alone, after a very close-run divi sion, one of these appeals has succeeded.— The monstrous folly and injustice of infusing into these, or any other judicial proceedings, a feeling of esprit dii corps, are too palpable, we should imagine, to require any illustration ; but, if any were wanting, it would be at once sup plied by comparing the conduct of the Magistrates in this respect with that of the Judges of the Courts in Westminster Hall, great part of whose time is occupied in hearing motions for new trials, and in correcting misdirections to Juries and erroneous decisions, alleged to be given by members of their own body. But did any one ever dream of a motion for a new trial, or an argument on a writ of error, being refused to be entered into out of courtesy to the Judge who had tried the cause ? The idea is too absurd to be so much as thought of. On the contrary, the highest Judga of the land treat each other s opinions with the greatest freedom, and in a manner becoming great and liberal minds, bent only on discovering truth and administering jus tice. Nothing, indeed, can display a narrow mind more glaringly than a disposition to adhere to mere authority, stripped of the attributes for which alone authority is venerable ; and in most of the cases before us we have that illustrated up to the highest mark of pompous imbecility. — Must not the Legislature see, then, that its ef. forts in this respect have proved wholly unavail ii.g ? And is it not high time that a power, which is so exercised originally, and against the abuse of which the remedy by appeal is rendered almost nugatory in practice, should be abolished altogether, or transferred to hands capable of exercising it with sound and impartial discre tion ?—Morning Herald. We have received a great number of letters on a subject, the discussion of which we have, for various reasons, been anxious to avoid, we mean the late refusal of music licences to a great num ber of most respectably conducted taverns and hotels : indeed, we may add to almost every one in favour of which, however numerously or re• spectably the petition may have been signed, an application was made. Such conduct, as the have been called upon to express our opinion, we have no hesitation in setting down as exhi biting a disregard to the enjoyments of the middling and lower classes of society, which is neither very honourable to the understanding, or very creditable to the hearts of those who have it in their power to show different feelings. What injury can arise to society from a public dinner being accompanied with music, or a con cert performed in a tavern or hotel, we are at as much loss to divine, as why the Duke of Wellington, or any other Nobleman, should be allowed to have both in his own domicile with. out licence, and without risk of fine ; while those who do not move in the same sphere, and have not the same means of gratifying their tastes, should be forbidden to indulge them in an inferior mode. If in consequence of grant ing a music licence, either the neighbourhood of a tavern became subject to annoyance, or the tavern itself a scene of riot and confusion, and an incentive to immorality; the Magistrates have it amply in their power to punish the guilty, not only by withholding a licence for the performance of music in future, taut even by refusing a common licence for the house and person on a subsequent application ; and is not this risk enough to induce any reasonable man neither to abuse his licence, or permit dis orderly conduct therein ? But the truth is that there has, for some years past, been a growing disposition to abridge the amuse ments of the people, and in abridging them to vilify one of the most respectable bodies in the metropolis ; and the decisions to which we have alluded have their origin, we fear, much more in these feelings than m that extraordinary profession of anxiety for the public morals which is thrust upon us from the Bench with such earnestness, and with such magisterial gravity. — The parties themselves, however, as those who are in the secret well know, have no objection, when they meet to enjoy themselves, after the toils of a licensing day, to having their dinner seasoned by the sweet sounds of music, and their wines flavoured by the performance of what, in any other place, would subject the landlord to a penalty of 1001.—Morning Advertiser. We were ye,terday called before the Court o King's Bench, to answer a charge of libel brough against us by a man named Wilks, a printer in Chancery-lane, for publishing a police case in the News of January 11th last, which was said to have held the said Wilks up to ridicule for hav ing a wooden leg, and otherwise hurt his feelings, and injured his character and reputation. The case is reported in a preceding part of our pre sent number. Wilks laid his damages at 5001. and the Jury gave him forty shillings. There are one or two circumstances connected with this affair, which, as they were not laid before th e Jury, we think the public should be acquainted with ; if only to show the nature of our law o f libel. In the first place, the alleged libel, we call it "alleged," for with all due deference to the lynx eyes of lawyers, we can see no malice, or ought else, but a harmless joke in the article in question, was verbatim copied into The News of January 11, from a Morning Paper of 1 11 January 6, preceding. We should not wish to shelter ourselves under this plea, were the libel of an outrageous nature ; but so little do Wilks's feelings seem to have been affected by it, that he allowed a whole term—the then ensuing Hi lary—to pass over, and it was not until the latter end of May, that we ever heard of his intention of commencing an action against us. We have already said that the libel was a verbatim copy from a Morning Paper—it was so ; but though we have reason to believe that IVilks has also commenced an action against the same Mo►ntng Paper, for the same libel, yet he preferred to bring the case of the mere copyist on first, in stead of making the original culprit take pre cedence. In the next place the alleged libel was not the mere coinage of the brain of a news paper reporter, but a true and faithful statement of what actually cccurred at the office at Bow street, at the time alluded to. Wilks did intrude himself in the manner there stated, and we had four witnesses to prove that the words put into the mouths of Sir R. Birnie and of Wilks were the substance, fairly and honestly reported, of what they each uttered.* With respect to the boyish ridicule about Wilks's wooden leg, we can only say, that, if' a man of upwards of fifty years of age, and who has availed himself of that admirable substitute, for more than twenty years—(longer for aught we know) — cannot bear a silly joke on it, the world must have treated him with great indulgence, or his feelings must be of a more sensitive nature than fall to the lot of most men.—. News. It would appear from our report of the trial that these witnesses were not examined, because Mr. Brougham had promised the Attorney-General that no witnesses should be produced in the defence. If this were the fact, we can only say that Mr. Brougham gave sach promise unknown to his client, or his solicitor. The witnesses had been attending the Court :for two days, and one of them was called, and all but sworn --(Ed. News.) LAW INTELLIGENCE. COURT OF KING'S BENCH, OCT. 31. LIBEL.—WILKS V. PIIIPPS. This was an action brought by the plaintiff, who is a bookseller and printer residing in Chancery-lane, against the defendant, who is the sole proprietor, editor, and publisher of The News, for a libel. The article which formed the subject matter of this ac tion was accidentally copied from the Morning Journal daily newspaper into The News of the 11th of January last, and was as follows: " BO W-ST REET. On Monday, Wilks, the well-known bookseller in Chancery-lane, came to this office, and seated himself upon one of the benches till Sir Richard's attention was undivided. The Chief Magistrate, _ _ however, having caught a glimpse of the timber leg belonging to the redoubted man of books, uttered come pithy exclamation, and turned his attention towards making his escape. The gentleman with the wooden member, however, perceived Sir Richard, and made such expeditious use of his time and limbs that he was enabled to present himself to his notice before he had made his way out of the office. Sir RICHARD---What do you want, man ? Wilks—l have a morning paper in my hand, which states that you, in a private conference with a man named Ferstandeg and a reporter, stated that I was a man of bad character or something like it. S;l' RICHARD—What of that ? Wilks—Did that occur here ? Sir RICHARD—Not in this office. Wilks—Did you say so? Sir RICHARD—Yes ; what of that ?--(Laughter.) —What do you want here ? Get along with you. Wilks—l can— Sir Richard had, however, obtained an egress from the office before the little man could proceed farther, but he determined to say another word, and therefore ran out of the office as fast as his wooden and his natural leg would carry him, and again caught the chief Magistrate of Westminster as he was going into his private door. Wilks—l will bring a respectable engraver to prove that I am of a good character. Sir R. BIRNIE—WeII, bring them here and I will hear them. Sir Richard here shut his door, and finished a colloquy w hich for singularity had never been equalled or produced so much laughter and merri ment to the spectators, among't whom Mr. Halls and Mr. Robinson were ready to burst with exer cising their risible faculties." The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said, that the plaintiff, Mr. Wllks, was a bookseller and printer residing in Chancery-lane, who had the misfortune to lose a leg, and to hare its place supplied by a wooden sup porter; in consequence of which, lie had been cruelly held up to ridicule in the most wanton, un necessary, and unjustifiable manner, by the report which formed the foundation of this action. There were very few men who liked to see themselves held up to ridicule and published in a newspaper as objects of reproach, on account of any natural or personal defect which they might have the tnisfor tune to labour under. The libel in question was an attack upon the honour and character of a respec table individual, and when the credence which was given to newspaper reports was considered, there could be no doubt but it was calculated seri ously to prejudice his client in the estimation, not only of his friends and acquaintances, but of the public at large. He (the Attorney-General) would not say every body, as he knew that neither him self nor his Learned Friends around him were in fluenced by such matters, but still it could not be controverted that the great mass of the people were in the habit of forming their opinions from that which appeared in the newspapers, believing, of course, that all they read in a public journal was de serving implicit credence. The Learned Counsel then proceeded to read the libel and comment on it as he proceeded, after which, he observed, that it was evident it was the object of the reporter to excite the laughter of the public at the expense of the plain tiff. It was clear that the whole design and object of this witty report, was to hold the plaintiff up to the public as a person of bad character, and that purpose was fully accomplished, as no doubt those of the readers of the amusing story who laughed at the singularity of it, placed the fullest confidence in its truth. lie hoped that the Reporter would be called to prove the correctness of his report, and then it would be seen whether the observations of the plaintiff and of the Magistrates were fairly given. As to the amount of damages he would say nothing, but assured that the Jury would give the plaintiff a full and ample compensation for the injury which his feelings and character had sustained by the ridi cule and scorn which had been cast upon them. The publication, &c. being proved, Mr. BROUGHAM proceeded to address the Court in mitigation of damages. It was, he said, very far from his intention, as Counsel for the defendant, Mr. Philip, to endeavour by any means to excuse any attempt which might be supposed to have been made, to hold tip to ridicule or scorn any person la bouring under either a natural deformity or accidental defect. Such an endeavour he (Mr. Brougham) divlaimed, as it formed no part of the instructions he had received from Mr. Phipps; who had autho rised him to say, that such attempt would neither be just nor praiseworthy ; and that in publishing the report which gave rise to the present proceed ing, he hail no such object in view. This was a case very different indeed from that in which a party had been brought before a Magistrate by necessity. The plaintiff had thought fit to go to the police office to hold a conversation with the sitting magis trate. This conversation was actually given, and all that took place faithfully and• accurately described; wherefore in his (Mr. B.'s) view of the matter, the plaintiff had no cause whatever of complaint; as he had brought the consequences, whatever they might have been, upon himself, by the course which he had taken to remove from his character the asper sion which Sir R. Birnie bad cast upon it in his in terview with the poor foreigner, (Ferstandeg). His (Mr. Brougham's) learned friend, the Attorney- Gesei al, had expressed considerable doubt as to the legality of reporting the proceedings at a Police Office which possibly might or might not be well founded, but whether that was so or not, was not very mate rial as the point at issue between the parties in the present case was wide of that question, and left it wholly undisturbed. He (Mr. Brougham) however, agreed with his Learned Friend the Attorney .Gene ral, respecting the turtling of parties into ridicule in police reports. He cons►dered that the turning into ridicule of those who appeared at a police office, for the purpose of prosecuting a criminal, or who were brought there in the character of defendants, was not only highly improper, but well calculated to de feat the ends of justice. Where, however, parties entered the presence of a Magistrate, under other circumstances, and with other views, the case was different; as in that case they sought thet>i►selves the publicity which they obtained. It not unfrequently happened that parties who felt themselves aggrieved, after making an unsuccessful appeal to a solicitor or counsel, who informed them that they were en titled to no redress, proceeded to the next po lice office, and besought the sitting Magistrate for advice, and after telling their own story, of course to their own advantage, were dismi•sed with" Oh, my poor man, I'm satisfied you are greatly wronged." He (Mr. Brougham) often felt astonished to see magistrates giving a certain degree of countenance to such applications, which they must know were made for some private object. This wa: the case in the present instance. The plaintiff, no doubt, went forward in order to make an ex-parte state ment in his own favour against the poor foreigner, who was not present to defend himself. The Learned Counsel then proceeded to read the libel and demonstrate that it was not of the invidious character ascribed to it—after which, he observed that if any one had cause to complain, that person . _ was Sir Richard Made. With regard to the re port, it appeared to have been written with great impartiality and fairness; and even more of what had fallen from the plaintiff was given in it than of what the magistrate had said—as the report not only contained all that took place in the pub lic office, but that which occurred in the pas sage up to the Magistrate's shutting his door to put an end to the conversation. This being the case, he, Mr. Brougham, submitted that the damages which the Jury would assess ought to be merely nominal. In measuring the amount of damages to which the plaintiff was entitled, the jury would have to take into their con sideration the character of the publication in which the libel appeared. It was not a principle of The News to hold persons up to public ridicule or wil fully to attack private character, and the tone which distinguished its politics gave it a place in the esti mation of all wine and good men. Having said thus much, he ( Mr. Brougham) would commit his client's case to the discretion of the Jury, with a full con viction that the verdict would be that which the jus tice of it required at their hands. Mr. PLATT (who was with Mr. Brougham) was proceeding to call a witness, when Lord TENTERDEN observed, that he understood no witnesses were to be examined. Mr. BROUGHAM said, he had stated as much in the outset to his Learned Friend, the Attorney-Geaeral, and therefore would not depart from his word. Lord TENTERDEN then summed up the evidence, and the Jury without much deliberation returned a verdict for the plaintiff—Damages, 40s. COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, OCT. 31. GODEFROY V. DALTON, GENT. This was a case involving a very important ques. don, as regards the liabilities of attornies to their clients for the consequences of any mistake made in the conduct of a cause. The circumstances out of which the action arose were these :—The plaintiff, Mr. Godefroy, had been out riding one day in his gig with a friend. The latter drove. A little boy, named Dubois, who was amusing himself with a ball, ran across the road just as the gig was coming by; and before the gentleman who was driving could pull up the horse, the boy was between its legs, and received some injury. An action was brought in the boy's name against Mr. Godefroy, as owner of the gig, to recover compensation for the injury. The process, however, was served on Mr. Godefroy's son, and not on himself. He applied to Mr. Jay, an attorney, then of the firm of Messrs. Jay and Bytes, and stated the circumstances to him. Mr. Jay informed him that the process might be set aside for irregularity in the service of it, and also expressed his opinion that Mr. Godefroy, who was not the person who hail been driving when the acci dent occurred, had a good defence to the action.— Mr..Godefroy then directed Mr. Jay to move the Court to set aside the proceedings for irregularity, which Mr. Jay promised to do. The application, however, was not made in due time, and the de fendant not having put in his plea, the plaintiff sign ed judgment by default. Mr. Jay subsequently, upon the plaintiff complaining that the action had not been defended, told him he would attend the execution of the writ of inquiry, and mention the fact of the irregularity in the service of the process. No person, however, did attend on the part of Mr. Godefroy, and the jury awarded him to pay 151. damages. lie then commenced an action against Messrs. Jay and Byles for negligence in not making the application to set aside the proceedings, and also for not defending the action. Upon this occasion he employed Mr. Dalton, the present defendant, as his attorney. The cause having come on for trial before Mr. Justice Burrough, at Guildhall, the plain tiff's counsel tendered the prothonotary's book which contained the entry of the signing of the in terlocutory judgment as evidence of that fact. The defendant's counsel oljected to the evidence, and the Learned Judge held that it was necessary to produce an examined copy of the judgment. The plaintiff's attorney was not provided with this ; and the other evidence being rejected, the plaintiff was nonsuitcd, and had therefore to pay both his own and his adversary's costs in the cause. The omis sion by Mr. Dalton to provide himself with this piece of evidence, whereby the plaintiff had lost his suit, constituted the ground on which the present action was brought, which was, like that against his former attornies, Messrs. Jay and Byles, to recover damages for the injuries sustained through the alleged negligence of the defendant in this respect. The defence rested on three grounds. Ist. It was contended that no damage was sustained by the plaintiff in consequence of the nonsuit, because he could not have recovered against Messrs. Jay and Ryles even if he had had the proper evidence. 2dly, It was not proved that the plaintiff had retained Messrs. Jay and Byles to defend the action, or to do more than make that application to the Court, which it appeared would, if made, have been wholly un availing; and 3dly, which was the main ground of defence, Mr. Dalton had not trusted to his own judgment on the subject, but had advised with an able and experienced Counsel, not only upon the particular point in question, but upon the whole of the evidence necessary to support the action; and that Learned Gentleman, who was in extensive prac tice, and had been for thirty years at the Bar, ad vised him, that as the negligence was the gist of the action, and the signing of the interlocutory judgment only alleged as a consequence of that negligence, the entry in the prothonotary's book would be sufficient to support that allegation. The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE said the question was one of great importance, and he would therefore re• serve it for the consideration of the Court above. His Lordship, however, took the opinion of the Jury upon the fact, as to whether the plaintiff had • • retained Messrs. Jay and Byles merely to make the motion to set aside the r--; _ling., or generally to defend the action; and they having found that he had retained them to defend the action, a verdict was taken by consent fur 771. 10s., subject to the opinion of the Court above upon the main question. In reply to an observation from the defendant's Counsel, the LORD CHIEF JUSTICE expressed his opinion that no blame whatever attached to Mr. Dalton. The whole case resolved itself into a mere point of law. PALACE COURT, OCT. 30. CLEMENTS V. HOMAN. This was an action brought by the plaintiff, who keeps an academy called Prospect-house, Stoke Newington, to recover from the defendant the sum of 29/. 65., being for two quarters board and educa tion of his two sons, Isaac and John. As the de- fendant acknowledged that he owed the plaintiff for one quarter, and had tendered the amount, that was not the subject of dispute ; and as he had given notice of a set-off to the amount - of 9/. odd for goods sold and delivered to the plaintiff, he had paid into Court the difference which was .5/. 2s. There was a written agreement between the parties, which was to the following purport—" That the plaintiff was to hoard and educate the defend ant's two sons according to the terms of a pro- spectus circulated by plaintiff; that they were to have washing, books, stationery, a seat in the church, and haberdashery, but not to be taught] music, dancing, or drawing, for 501. a year, and that in case either party was dissatisfied, one quar ter's notice should be given. It appeared that at the end of the first year, or January, 1829, the de fendant again took his sons to the plaintiff's school, and left them with him, and that shortly after, or about the beginning of February, one of the defend ant's sons (Isaac) was, for some alleged miscon duct, together with another boy of the name of Arthur Owen, flogged with a cane in the public school by the plaintiff, in consequence of which they both, together with Owen's brother, ran home to their parents' house. The defendant findin g his son strongly marked by the weapon of infliction, kept him at home for some days, and then sent for his son John, who brought home with him a pieceof pud ding to show his parents what kind of food they had at school. A few days afterwards it appeared that the de fendant returned with his two sons to the plaintiff's school, and there, in the presence of a witness, gave positive directions that his boys shouid not receive cor poral punishment either for what they had done or what they might do, that he objected to it entirely, but to increased lessons, or confinement, &c. he would by no means object, and in consequence of some information communicated to him, on his leav- ing the school he gave to one of his sons a note for the plaintiff, in case he attempted to resume the cor poral punishment against which he had protested.— When the defendant retired, however, the plaintiff, the boy's coming into the Fchool, ordered him to stand on the form, and was about to inflict corporal punishment, when the boy produced the fa•Ler's note to the plaintiff, with directions not to do so. This was read aloud ; when the plaintiff said that as defendant desired him not tl beat him with a cane, he would comply with that, but that he would birch him. One of the scholars was then desired to bring a birch and some brine, which last was brought in a dish, and the birch lay steeped in the brine for an hcur. Both the defendant's son and Arthur Owen had then their clothes stripped off, and they were flogged with the birch steeped in the brine upon their bare backs. The defendant hearing of this went to the school and there learned that his other son, John, had about five minutes before his a -tival been flogged with a cane by the plaintiff in the pub lic school, for some other alleged misconduct, upon which the defendant took both his boys away, from the school; and it was for the board and education of this quarter, as the defendant had not given a quarter's notice, that the plaintiff now brought his action. Mr. FLANAGAN (for the defendant) proceeded to detail the facts and"circumstances as they had been generally stated on the outline of the case, and then observed to the Jury that they would perceive that this was a demand, not for board and education ac- tually furnished by the plaintiff to the defendant's sons, —not for any actual value which he had given, —not for any real loss which he had suffered,—but for a supposed breach of a certain agreement, and a mere suppositious loss of pupils, whom in his decla ration he says he might have had if he had received timely notice of the boys being to be removed from his school. Whether the plaintiff had, by his con duct to the defendant's children, entitled him to presume that he has suffered a loss by his supposi tion of an influx of new pupils, which has not taken place, Mr. Flanagan observed that the gentlemen of the jury would that day decide by their verdict ; for undoubtedly, if the subjecting of his pupils to ignominious punishment on the most trivial pre tences,—if the application of the most cruel, brutal, unmanly, and ignominious torture for an offence, or rather an act, which to x man conscious of not hav ing given any just grounds for its commission would rather have excited laughter than revenge,—if such an unnatural, wanton, and peevish exercise of autho rity, can recommend a schoolmaster or the keeper of an academy to the protection and support of the English public,—if fathers and mothers will be in duced to replenish the plaintiff's school, and give him an increased supply of scholars upon those grounds,—then certainly Mr. CleMents, the plaintiff, had a right to make this supposed claim for the probable loss which he says he has encountered. I think, said Mr. Flanagan, that I have the good fortune of addressing some fathers of families, and without making a more forcible appeal to their pa rental feelings than the bare repetit►on of the facts warrant me, what is the exchange ? Let any parent, even of the most blunted feelings, however attached to the old saw " of spare the rod and spoil the child,"—let even such a father fancy himself open ing the plaintiff's school room-door, and see a lad of 12 or 13 years of age, stripped naked, (I may say in a public school-room), where, perhaps, near a hun dred youths are collected, the miserable spectators of this diabolical scene—let him stop but a moment to see the horrible apparatus of a rod just after being steeped in the brine purposely prepared for the occa sion, and this plaintiff-executioner, deaf to the cries and bewailings of the unhappy sufferer, belabouring him with this cruel scourge. I ask, is not this uns seemly spectacle of itself sufficient to arouse the in dignation of any humane mind, were the sufferer not in the slightest degree known to or con nected to you—nay, the child of the greatest enemy you had in the world ? But advance ano ther step, and suddenly discover that your own son is the disgraced victim of the executioner's bruta lity ! The law says, that if you find a man in the act of adultery ssith your wife, and that you draw your sword and plunge it into his body, it is but mere manslaughter ; and Mr. Flanagan emphatically put it to the jury, if any feel ing parent under the circumstances he had descr►bed, was to find his child under such an inhuman monster's hands, and had instantly despatched him with a club or a pistol, whether lie would not have the sympathies of all good men upon his side. Gentlemen, after this, 1 shall not harrow up your feelings by dwelling longer upon this most disgusting and appalling scene. But can you imagine impudence more hardened, effi outcry more unblushing, than for this man to come into a Court of Justice to demand retribution for his acts of cruelty ? "My astonishment is, Mr. Flannagan added, " how it has happened that the defendant has not either indicted him for this cruel assault, or brought his action. Ido believe that there are no damages, however large, which the defendant might demand that would not be promptly and cheerfully given by a jury in such a case." Mr. Flanagan then shortly recapitulated the grounds upon which he trusted he bad maintained, not the propriety, but the indispensable necessity which the defendant felt himself under of immediately removing his children from the plaintiff's school without giving the three months' notice, which, under ordinary circumstances, he was bound to give. The Judge summed up the case with great im- partiality. Ile told the Jury, that although there was in this case r written agreement that thre months' notice should be given previous to remov ing a boy from the school, yer, undoubtedly, cases. might present themselves, in which even that agree ment might be dispensed with. Whether this was one of those cases it was the peculiar province of the Jury to determine. The Jury, after some consultation, Isturned a veto diet for the plaintiff—Damages 14/. HUNTING INTELLIGENCE. APPOINTMENTS FOR TILE PRESENT WEEK. His Majesty's Stag Hounds, on Monday, at Welling -- ton-bridge, Virginia-water ; and Friday, at New Lodger Winktivld—at Half past Ten. Sir John Cope's Hounds, on Monday, at the Bottle, Oakingliam ; Wednesday, at Short Heith, Sulhamitead ;- and Friday, at Compton—it Half-past Ten. Captain Freeman's Harriers, on Monday, at Childrer Froze Tuesday, at Chilton Pond ; Wednesday, at Church Manny Field ; and Saturday, at Clanfield—at Eleven. Sir Richard Sutton's Hounds, on Monday, at Glen-. worth ; Tuesday, at Sudhrook-house and Kenwick Thorn Bar ; Thursday, at Saxilby and Barrell Village ; and Sa turday, at Cl ty Bridges—at Eleven. The Cambridgeshire Hounds, on Monday, at Caxtots Gibbet ; and Friday, at White Wood—at Half-past Tea.. The Puckeridge Hounds, on Monday, at Flask End; Wednesday, at Wadesmill ; and Saturday, at Aston Burg. The Royston Harriers, on Tuesday, at Royston Wind" mill ; and Thnrsday, at Wallington—at Half-past Ten. The Cottesmore Hounds, on Monday, at Clipsharo Wood ; Tuesday, at Tilton Wood ; and Thursday, i t Uffington Wood—at a Quarter before Eleven. Lord Yarborough's Hounds, on Monday, at Stalling` borough Hall ; Wednesday, at Thonock House; Friday, 14 Wootton House ; and Saturday, at Ludhorough—at Eleven- The Brighton Harriers on Monday, at Patcham; Wed' neetlay, at the Race Course ; and Friday, at the llyke-•-at Half-past Tvn. The Brookside Harriers, on Monday, at Newmarket .. Hill ; Wednesday, at Ashcombe, the alternate Wedneadaf at the Kennel ; and Friday, at Telscombs Tye--at 1141- pact.ren lV Mr. icksted's Fox Hounds, on Tuesday, at Dear .9 I Head, Walkerton ; and Friday, at Checkley H 1f- p ast Ten. The Cheshire Hounds, Monday, at Sandiway Bead Wednesday, at Ox Hayes Farm ; Friday, at Duchios Meath ; and Saturday, at Highwayside—at Ten. Mr. Meyuell's Hounds, on Monday, at the Floariab; Thursday, at Morley Turnpike; and Saturday, at Mark-- eaton—at Half-past Ten. The Conoek Harriers, on Monday, Beckham Furze; and Friday, at Imber Furze—at Eleven. The Kempstoue Hounds, on Monday, at Mr. Wright I; Raughatn ; Wednesday, at Sporle Mill ; and Friday, I t Norton Hall--at Eleven. Sir Jacob Astley's Hounds, on Monday, at D oker'l Bridge ; and Friday, at Guist Bridge—at Eleven. Mr. H. Villebois's Harriers, on Tuesday, at Finchon Turnpike; Thursday, at Hale Dale; and Saturday , si Fryar's Thorns—at Eleven. The Quorn Hounds, on Monday, at Kirby Gate • To day, at Bardon Hall ; Wednesday, at Kettleby ; day, at Barkby Hall ; and Friday, at Widanerpool at Half-past Ten. Lord Anson's Hounds, on Monday, at Bosworth ; Toes' day, at Kirkby ; Thursday, at Lindley ; and Saturday+ Burbage—at Eleven. Mr. Foljambe's Fon Hounds, on Monday, at Claywert h Tuesday, at Seroohy Inn ; Wednesday, at East Markham' and Friday, at Aston Hall. —at Half-past Ten. The Badsworth Fox Hounds, on Monday, at Hut Green; Tuesday, at Haddlesey Bridge ; Thursday, at Hatte le lon ; and Saturday, at Notton Village—at Ten. The Earl of Harewood's Fox Hounds, on Monday , Collinghain Bar ; Wednesday, at Boot and Shoe ; Friday, at Deighton Bar—at Ten. The Shropshire Fox Hounds, on Monday, at Mon" . ; Wednesday, at Stoke Meath; and Friday , S ' Woodcote—at Half-past Ten. The Montgomeryshire Fox Hounds, on Tuesday' I° Llanfair ; and Friday, at Guilsfield Village —at Ten. Mr. Dansey's Hounds, on Tuesday, at Kentchureh PO" Thursday, at Berrington ; and Friday, at Kyrewoo d ' ? at Ten. Mr. Shave's Hounds, on Tuesday, at Thickbroa ni; and Friday, at Fisher's Mill—at Half-past Ten. The Blackmoor Vale Hounds, on Tuesday, on 13ideornbe Down, Bradley ; and Friday, at Cadbury House. The Cadbury Harriers, on Monday, at Cucklingt oa; and Thursday, at East Hill. The Worcestershire Fox Hounds, on Tuesday, a t Staa°' ton Swan Inn ; and Friday, at Leigh Sinton —at Tea. The East Sussex Fox Hounds, on Monday, at Laughtan' Tuesday, at Clapham House ; Thursday, at Sout heaae; and Saturday, at ilinginer-green—at a Quarter to Eleve n. Mr. Baited's Fox Hounds, on Tuesday, at Hall Plant's' tion ; and Friday, at Roborough House —at Ten. Mr. Osbaldeston's Hounds, on Tuesday, at Kehnaroll l , Thursday, at Misterton ; and Friday, at Pytchley— at Hall' past Tea. Mr. Drake's Hounds, on Tuesday, at Bletchingtoll Thursday, at Waddeedon ; and Saturday, at Crowton---41 Hal t• past Ten. n fi Mr. Berkely's Hounds, en Thursday, at Roxton ; Saturday, at Hai roll Kennel—at Half-past Ten. an d The Glossop Harriers, on Tuesday, at StirraP Thursday, at Pieknase. at The Marquis of Cleveland's Fox Hounds, on Tuesday' , Va'atlass Lime Kilns; Thursday, at Bedale Plantati °la+ ' and Saturday, at Morton Bridge—at Eleven. re h 'the Lambton Fox Hounds, on Monday, at Elea ° h • Tuesd iy, at Panshaw Mill ; Thursday , at Brancepet." and Friday, at Wartenlaw—at Eleven. too The Warwickshire Hounds, on Monday, at Cornto Verney ; Tuesday, at Farnborough ; Thursday, at Wood ; and Saturday, at Village—at Half-past rep, Lord Kintore's Hounds, on Monday, at AslidoivnY' r Wednesday, at Cold Harbour ; Friday, at Kingston 1°I;• The Cravtn Hounds, Monday, at Tottenham 11°1' a; Wednesday, at West Woedley House ; and Friday' Shefford-gate—at Half-past Ten. .; °soe; Mr. Jolliffe's Hounds, on Monday, at the Hooley Ol Wednesday, at Brockham ; and Saturday, at the M P - [the Eleven. NO; Surrey Fox Hounds, on Monday, at Adding sea ti Thursday, at Westerham ; and Saturday, at G rip ' Green—at Half-past Ten. ap The Sanderstead Harriers, on Monday, Wednesday' Saturday, at the Kennel—at Ten. I IIX The Pembrokeshire Fox Hounds, on Monday, at terson ; and Thursday, at Scotland Wood.- - --at Ten; a g e The Hambledon [hounds, on Monday, at Berry l o iag Wednesday, at Wickham Gate; and Friday, at Park—at Half-past Ten. • A 3te l P e A LENGTHY COURTSHIP. - Marrie w 4 co at Leeds, after a courtship of 24 years, Mr. 1101,51%5r, ' Balsall-street, Warwick, wheelwright, to Miss r soN, of Meriden. One thousand two hundre d and rbi eight visits are calculated to have taken place be"v ee a or ▪ losers previously to the knot being tied at Bleashyt Southwell. --- ;410 1 / 11 PAIICTED AND PUBLISHED Igy MIIRDO_ ....so - f , 1 Mt SIM 0rY2014 11k, siitAtiv) ix— _ -- BIRTHS. ( V rj On the 29th tilt. at Bishop's Court, the seat o• Graves, the Hon. Mrs. Charles Heneage , of a ( 41,0 ° r, O On the Ist instant, at his house, Lambeth-ro ad, wife of Mr. R. G. Smith, of a son. Dd i On the 29th tilt. at Chalford, Gloucester shire, Prevost, of a daughter. tre e 4 On the 31st tilt. Mrs. Sowton, of Great Jarnefre Bedford-row, of a daughter. i-1 014' On the 31st ult. at Clapham, the lady of T. - Esq. of a son. MARRIED. . 0 9 On the 31st tilt. at Reading, H. Quin, E s q• of yr,' hall, to Ann Eliza, the eldest daughter of Richard , , e o Esq., of Reading. d Coll i er On the 31st ult. at St. Alarylebone , Richer ~ogh Esq. of Pancras', Surrey, to Charlotte , eldest " A of Samuel Mumford, Esq. Chobham, Surrey. ~ I , If% On the 3lst ult. at Hackney, Mr. Thomas li"e:JJ'' of 01(1 Ford, to Eliza, third daughter of the 13t.' er , t Barton, Esq of Hackney. , re On the 31st. ult.. George Loveless, Esq. of I I oe o smith, to Emily, youngest daughter of the lat e Proctor, Esq. of Cleaver Lodge, Beaks. bil l DIED. dole On the 30th ult. at Hastings, Sarah, youngest aj, of Horatio Clagett, Esq. el' t° On the 28th ult. in Mount-street, Whiteel'eP `t d de Mr. Robert Gibson, aged 67. ~ ad" i' In Upper Fitzroy-street, Fitzroy - square , at e-rt,roPe° age, Captain Charles Jones, late of the n l e on. '-'" r A M ' Marine Service. ;o O° P. On the 29th ult. at Hampstead, Chritt'o- t,, daughter of John Richardson, Esq. Fludyer -dtf rninster. _ 4. Al