The Sun. — London, England, 1832-06-01 00:00:00

y rt,--,Ce...."'-7‘yr C.# Alr • • itn • "• - • ;'• ' ' .1) • (- II • 0 4? 1 .4 - 1 .4 Va1l coo. KING'S BENCH, MAY 28. CRIMINAL INFORMATION.- LIB EL THE KING v. PATRICK GRANT, JOHN AGER, Al i 4. JOHN BELL. In this case a rule bad been obtained last term by S James Seadett, calling on the defendants to show can• why one or more criminal informations should not be file against them for publishing certain libels in the Tine Si,' newspaper, and in a pamphlet, upon the characters Mr. Alderman Winchestix, and Mr. Thomas Briggs, a attorney of this Court. Mr. CAMCOELL appeared to-day to show cause, am! "•ciliserved that there must have been some mistake in draw '`ling up the rule as against the defendants Bell and Ages . fur th e y w e re in no way implicated in the publication. The one was a part proprietor and the other the printer ia • the True Sun newsp tiler, but they were not at all con nected in the publication of the pamphlet. Loan CrilFr JUSTICE—I understand that they are all concerned in the ne wspaper, and hut one in the pamphlet If the fact be otherwise, of 'course the rule will not le• ' made absolute against those two defendants. Sir JAMES SCARLETT observed that the proceeding in regard to the pamphlet was against Grant; the libels in the new•paper were of the carne kind, and taken from the pamphlet. Mr. Caaaractr. submitted that it was contrary to the practice of the Court to call On persons jointly' and se ' venally to account for a publication in which some of them had no concern. Loan CittEr Jusncs:—The present proceeding is en- tinily in accordance with the rule of the Court. Mr. CAMPBELL said he felt but little anxiety upon that point, for he did not doubt he should be able to get the rule discharged as against all the three defendants. Mr. Grant, one of his clients, who was the author of the pamphlet, was a gentleman of e ducation, an officer in the army, and was conneqed with a highly respectable family in this count r y, and the present application was made on behalf of Mr. Henry Winchester, a paper manufacturer, anti an Alderman of the City of London, and Mr. Thos. Briggs, an attorney of this Court. This dispute arose out of a commission of bankrupt, which was sued out in November, 1830, by Mr. Winchester against Mr. Grant, and he (Mr. Campbell) could not' belp conceiving that the whole matter was mach more fit to ipso:B6oer} by , the Court of Review, recently established, than for the in terposition of this Court. It appeared, that in 1826, Mr. Grant purchased the property of The Sun newspaper, and that in IS2B, he sold one•fourth of it to a gentleman of the name of Murdo Young. Mr. Grant had expended about the sum of 14,0001. in that speculation, which was an exceedingly profitable one ; but Mr. Grant becoming temporarily e mbarrassed, a commission of bankrupt was sued out against him, unnecessarily sued out, he would say, because all the debts proved under the commission amounted to only 6,1001. whereas the marketable value of the three-fourths of the newspaper was 13,000/. That property had unfortunately proved of no benefit whatever either to Mr. Grant or to his creditors. Mr. Grant, deeming it necessary to explain to his creditors the causes of their not being paid their demands, for that purpose published a pamphlet, entitled " Statement of facts regard ing The Sun newspaper." It appears that Mr. Young, who was the holder of one-fourth share, by the articles of partnership, had a right of pre-emption on the same terms as might be made by any other person, and he offered the sum of 7,5001. for Mr. Grant's shares. But without at present entering into a detail of all the facts, lie (Mr. Campbell) would call their Lordships' attention to this one, viz. that Mr. Grant's certificate was withheld by Mr. Winchester until Dec. 1831, and then granted at a meeting of the creditors, called by public advertisement. The creditors then unanimously voted their thanks to Mr. Grant for his efforts to benefit the creditors, and they also unanimously voted bin, his certificate. At a subsequent meeting, attended by almost all the creditors but Mr. Winchester, it was resolved to call upon the as signees to remove the proceedings and papers into the bands of Messrs. Alliston and Lock, and that if Mr. Win chester would not consent to do so, he be requested to re sign his office of assignee. Sir JAMES Seaatrrz--That was a private meeting, called by Mr. Grant, of his particular friends, whose debts were very trifling. Mr. CAMPBEEL said it was a meeting of the creditors, and letters were written to Mr. Winchester anti Mr. Briggs, to attend if they chose. Sir JAMES SCARLETT-. 1 have the letter here, which states it to be " a private meeting of my creditors." Mr. CAMPBELL continued—At that meeting resolutions were entered into expressive of regret at the appointment of Mr. Winchester, and stating that they believed the appoint ment of certain parties by him had been productive of a very serious grievance, and an injury to the bankrupt's estate. The present proceeding was in the nature of an appeal from those meetings. He felt the extreme inconvenience attending this proceeding, because there were circumstances which were exceedingly unfit to be stated, but in justice to the character of his clients, he was bound to bring them before the Court. The supposed libels were very long, very tedious, and very dull, and therefore he did not propose at present to read them all through. It should be stated that Mr. Young had made no complaint whatever. Mr. Briggs was the solicitor to the commission sued out by Mr. Win chester, and Mr. Winchester was joined as assignee with a most respectable and most honourable gentleman, a banker in the city of London, Mr. Thornton, who had made an affidavit. Mr. Young had made no affidavit, al though he was acquainted with the scheme more intimately than the others, except Mr. Briggs. Mr. Winchester was not perhaps, the author of the scheme, hut was in some !_?y dr agge d i nto i t. Th e pu bli cat i ons i mpu t e d t o M r . n Winchester, Mr. Briggs, and Mr. Young, that to the Preju dice of Mr. G ran t' s cre di tors , a n d a l so o f M r . G r a n t, M r . Young had be en a ll owe d t o get p ossess i on o f th e w h o l e o f t ile r pr o p er t y ; t h at f or t h at purpose M r. Wi nc h ester and Aißrigga withheld Mr. Grant's certificate ; that they refused offers from various quarters more advantageous than Mr. Young's ; that they misrepresented the value of the property ; that they mated various thin g s which were proved to b e f a l se , b y means of which other persons were prevented fr om b uy i ng t h e property at its j —and that Mr. Youn g h a d contr i ved to remain value session of the whole without ma ki ng any remuneirnatii= [The Learned Counsel then read portion s o f t h e pamphlet, . commencing at page 26, in which all the charges against Mr. Winchester and Mr. Briggs were recapitulated, and having done so, he proceeded.] Mr. Briggs and Mr. Winchester had filed affidavits, in which some of the charges were denied, but others left uneontradicted. Oue part, in which Mr. Briggs was charged with pre paring a case which he was to make use of at a meeting of the creditors, in which it was falsely stated that the property was sold to Mr. Young,—that part was not de niest. The answers he (Mr. Campbell) had to give to this application were, that some parts of the affi davits, on which the rule was granted, were very im perfectly denied—that others were not denied at all— that the whole was proved to have been committed— and that therefore, as they-, had not come into Court with clean hands, they had not put themselves in a situa tion to call upon this Court for any such extraordinary interference as that now sought to be obtained. The affilavits on the part of the defendants were extremely long, but he would by and by read them. The substance of his answer was, that the commission being sued out in November, 1830, and Mr. Thornton and Mr. Winches ter chosen assignees, an offer was made by Mr. Young to purchase the property at '7,5001., but subject to a debt of 4,0001., due to him from Mr. Grant ; that offer was therefore but 3,5001. A Mr. Westley then came forward, andoffer offered 9,000/, upon which Mr. Young raised his to 9,000/. ; but owing to the conduct of Mr. Bri gg s, whose object was that Mr. Young should have it at his offer, M r . W estley abandoned h i s o ff er to purc h ase. n came forward a Air. Kinnear, who was wil ing to give a large sum of money for it, but he was prevent e d b y M r. Wi nc h es t er and Mr. Briggs, who dissuaded him by saying the property was not SO valuable as he expected it was. Mr. Kin near had made an affidavit of the circumstances. Then came the further negotiation between Mr. Young and Mr. Winchester, made a n to not induceso valuable anti it appeared that various efforts h a d been 11lr as Was expecte d . O n Thurs. Thornton to b e liev e that the pro. perty day, March 17 , 1831, into bet ween Mr. a conditional agreement was en teredno other off e r more Young and the assignees, that if advantageous(the should be made before the following S a t ur d ay 19th March) then Mr. Young ,was to be the purchaser for 9 000/ That agreement was most studiously k ept a Secret' by 111 r. Briggs. Mr. Bell, who afterwards offered 13,0001., and w ith w h om an agree ment had b een entere d i nto by Mr. Lomax, waited on Mr. Br iggs and learnt the particulars of that conditional offer. A meetin g w for the Saturday. appointed at Mr. Thornton's Banking-house what had takeany.l Messrs. Bell and Lomax having 3,000i.P place, heard then came forward to make a de posit of those gent, At that meeting Mr. Briggs expressly stated to indavn enaen (what was proved to be false by four or five a they were too abate s) that the property was sold—that evannd that it was sold to Mr. Young ; in short, they did tbing to prevent the offer being made. That attempt? however, failed. It was common Pleated to Mr. Thornton, 11,0001, and presence Messrs. Lo max and Bell °flared 1100 and afterwa r d s 13 000/. and t h e p r operty w as k nocked down , to them as it were at the .atter sum, and that was an absolute agreement. A meet- (No. 1.2,393.) ing, was then appointed for the following Wednes lay, t complete the purchase, and Mr. Briggs, on behalf of assignees, w,ts reqUested to attend. Mr. Thornton attend, the meeting, but neither Mr. Winchester nor Mr. Beige attended—their ab , enzte effectually preventing the agree ment from being executed, in order that Mr. Young migli , have the property. Mr. Young then filed a bill in (init. to compel the sale to him ; and at a meeting of creditor on the 23d of April. a case was produced by Mr. Brigg which he stated he had submitted to M r. Montagu, an in which it was stated that the property had been sold t, Mr. Young, before the offer of Lomax and Bell. —The proceedings in the Court of Chancery were still going on, the property was going to ruin, and ttr• creditors had not received a single shilling from it. I these facts should be substantiated by the affidavits—if he made out that there was such a scheme concocted by Mr. Briggs and Mr. Young, and that Mr. Winchester had lent himself to it—and also that Mr. Grant had lost ail chance of having any sot plus out of the property, he wa, sure the present Application would not be granted. He had no less than seventeen affidavits made by various per sons, among whom were Mr. Thornton, Mr. Searle, Mr. \Watley, Mr. Bell, and Mr. Lomax—none of them, ex cepting Mr. Bill, having any interest in the question—all of which completely and incontrovertibly proved the charges in the pamphlet. The Learned Counsel then pro ceeded to read portions of the affidavits on which the rule was granted, and of those in answer to it, in order to support the truth of the libellous matter. The following affidavit of Mr. Thornton he read at length : AFFIDAVIT OF MR. THORNTON. " IN THE KIFG'S Bstsicx.—Henry Sykes Thornton, or Birchin lane, in the city of London, banker, maketh oath and saith that a commission of bankruptcy having, upon the petition of Henry Winchester, Esq., been issued forth against Mr. Patrick Grant, this deponent, together with the said Henry Winchester, were appointed assignees under such commission. And this deponent further saith, that lie bath been applied to by the said Patrick Grant to depose to certain proceedings which have taken place under the said commission, which this deponent, as an act of justice only to the bankrupt, has consented to do, this deponent disclaiming any connexion or participation in the conduct of the said bankrupt with reference to the application in this matter. And this deponent further saitli, that the said Patrick Grant bath, in the judgment of this deponent used every exertion for the interest of the creditors under the said commission, and was allowed, both by this deponent, and the said Henry Winchester, to pass his examination with their joint approval and con currence. And he, deponent, was no party to the instruc tions stated to have been afterwards given by the said Henry Winchester to communicate with the said Patrick Grant as to certai❑ alleged deficiencies. And this de ponent further saith, that so being satisfied, he immediately on the application of the said Patrick Grant, acceded to his the said Patrick Grant's request, of signing his cer tificate. And this deponent further saith, that he believes an investigation of the, partnership accounts between the said Patrick Gr int, as the proprietor of three-fourth parts or shares of and in The Sun newspaper, and the types, printing-presses, machinery, and other articles belonging thereto, and Murdo Young, the proprie tor of the other fourth part or share, did take place by some account; hut he says that such account has never been formally examined by him. And this deponent further saith, that having understood from the said Thomas Briggs that several offers had been made for the purchase of the said shares, a meeting of the creditors of the said Patrick was duly convened on the 25th February, 1831, and certain resolutions were passed by the creditors as sembled, authorising this deponent and his co-assignee to sell the said shares and interest iu such manner as is set forth in the affidavit of the said Henry Winchester and Thomas Briggs; and that the said Thomas Briggs shortly afterwards called upon this deponent several times, and pressed him very strongly to conclude a sale to the said. Murdo Young for the sum of 7,5001. (which purchase money was to be paid and allowed in manner set forth in the said affidavit of the said I-henry Winchester and Thomas Briggs), whilst another and better offer, in this deponent's opinion, was pending ; and which deponent refused to do, inasmuch as he did not consider the offer made by the said Murdo Young the most beneficial for the said bankrupt's estate. And this deponent further saith, that in conse quence of the said Henry Winchester hiving, on or about the 12th of Match, 1831, called upon this deponent, and informed him, that the said Murdo Young had, by his the said Henry Winchester's persuasion, increased his offer to the amount previously offered by other parties, viz , 9,000/., which sum he would shortly be prepared with, and in consequence also of having seen the said Thomas Briggs on the same subject, who had also informed him that the other persons who had been negotiating for the purchase of the said shares had withdrawn their offers, and therefore it was his opinion and advice that a sale should be carried into effect with the said Murdo Young, he, this depenent, appointed a meeting with the said Henry Winchester, Thomas Briggs, and Murdo Young, to take place on the 17th of March, IS3I, at his count ing house, to mange the terms of such sale. And this deponent further saith, that aecordingly, on the said 17th of March, the said parties duly called upon this deponent, when it was stipulated and arranged bet , leen this deponent • and the said Henry Winchester, as assignees as aforesaid, that the said three-fourth parts or shares should be sold to the said Murdo Young on the 19th day of March then next for the sum of 9,000/., provided, in the mean time, no larger sum should be offered by any other party ; but this deponent denies that he in any way gave directions to the said Thomas Briggs to prepare any deed to the pur port or effect of the instructions set forth by the said Thomas Briggs in his said affidavit, as having been submitted by him to Mr. Coventry; neither did this deponent instruct the said Thomas Briggs to get such deed engrossed. And this deponent further saith, that in consequence of a l e tt er a dd resse d b y t hi s d e ponent to the said Patrick Grant, on the said 19th day of March, John Bell, James Samuel Lomax, Joseph Searle, and Hugh Grant, waited on this deponent at his said counting house, stating that they had come to bid for the said three fourth parts or shares ; and this deponent being engaged at the time, caused them to be conducted into another room, there to await the arrival of the said Henry Win chester and Thomas Briggs. And this deponent further saith, that after some time had elapsed, the said Thomas Briggs came to this deponent and stated, that there was in an adjoining room a set of people, friends to the said Patrick Grant, who stated that they had come to bid fair for the said newspaper, and begged this deponent not to entertain any proposition which might he made by such parties, as they had no money ; he then requested this deponent to permit the said Murdo Young to have the said shares accord ing to the said deed, which the said Thos. Briggs stated he hid prepared and engrossed, and by which deed the said Murdo Young was to have the said shares for the sum of 9,000/. subject to certain deductione, amounting to about 1,000/. And this deponent further saith, that he refused to comply with such request, and directed the said Thomas Briggs to procure the offer of the said parties in writing ; and that thereupon the said John Bell and James Samuel Lomax sent in to this deponent and his co-assignee an offer of 10,0001. for the said shares, the same to be paid in manner set forth in the affidavit of the said Henry Winchester and Thomas Briggs; upon which the said Thomas Briggs called the attention of this deponent to the two offers, and declared it to be his opi nion that the offer of the said Murdo Young was the pre ferable and the best. And this deponent further s iith that the said John Bell and James Samuel Lomax, having afterwards increased their offer to the sum of 11,0001., the said Murdo Young was directed to come before this deponent and his co-assignee ; and the said Murdo Young having then also bid the same sum, the said John Bell and James Samuel Lomax were directed to come before this deponent and his said co-assignee, and thereupon a bidding took place between the said John Bell and James Samuel Lomax and the said Murdo Young, until the said shares were declared sold to the said John Bell and James Samuel Lomax fer the sum of 13,000/., Murdo Young refusing, on being asked, to bid more than 12,500/. And thi: deponent further saith, that he denies that the said Thomas Briggs and all the other before-mentioned parties were in his presence the whole time; and particularly this deponent smith that he was not in the room where the said John Bell, James Samuel Lomax, Joseph Searle, and Hugh Grant were when the said Thomas Briggs and Henry Winchester entered. And this deponent further saith, that throughout the bidding or competition which so took place as aforesaid, it appeared to this deponent that the said Thomas Briggs was anxious that the said Murdo Young should become the purchaser of the said shares, and this deponent further saith, that the said John Bell and James Samuel Lonsax having been declared such purchasers of the said three•foucth parts or shares, a memorandum of the contract was directed to be prepared, LONDON, FRIDAY EVENING, JUNE 1., 183.2. but the said Thomas Briggs having started various jections, it was eventually proposed to refer the nutter 't the Counsel of the respective parties, and the Wednesda following was appointed to conclude the agreement fe sa'e, the said Thomas Briggs stating that his clerk won; sttend to the matter, as he was about leaving London fe York. And this deponent further saith, that on the Wed nesdav following such meeting as aforesaid, the said Jilt Bell and James Samuel Lom-ix, with their professions adviser, and two other persons, attended at his (deponent's banking-house to complete the said purchase, hut neither the said Thomas Briggs nor the clerk of the said Thoma Briggs attended such meeting. And on deponent observir, to the said parties that an objection had been raised to tin hills of the said John Bell and James Samuel Lomax, tht said James Samuel Lomax offered to pay down the sum it 10,0001. in full for the purchase of the said shares, which deponent refused to accede to, believing the previous off, of the said James Samuel Lomax of the sum of 3,000/ down, 3,0001. in fourteen days, and the remaining 7,000/. in bills, without assigning the property, as agreed to bi Mr. Lomax, till such bills were paid, better than on' ) 10,0001 down. And the said deponent further saith, that in consequence of the said Thomas Briggs or the clerk of the said Thomas Briggs not attending such meeting, the said agreement was not completed, and the said parties went away, the said James Samuel Lomax having pre viously deposited in the banking-house of this depo nent and his partners the sum of 3 0001. which he brought with him. And this deponent further saith, that after such last-mentioned meeting, the said Murdo Young called upon this deponent, requested hint to sell to him the said tsbariss, and proposed to this deponent, if he would do so, he would allow to the wife and family of the said Patrick. Grant the sum of 2001. a year beyond the said sum of 9,000/. so offered by him in manner aforesaid, which deponent immediately declined. And this deponent further saith, thst he was so dissatisfied with the part which the said Thomas Briggs had taken, in urging the sale of the piper at a sum which deponent considered be neath its value, that this deponent thought it advisable henceforward, and did from that period, consult his own solicitor on all matters relating to the said estate; and the said Murdo Young having filed a bill in the Court of Chancery against this deponent and his said co-assignee, claiming a right of pre-emption under this deed of co partnership with the said Patrick Grant, and also claiming a specific prformance of an agreement for sale to him, grounding such sale upon the deed which the said Thomas Briggs hail prepared as aforesaid, he, this deponent, under the advice of his said solicitor, joined in convening a meet ing of the creditors of the said Patrick Grant, to take place on the 23rd day of April, 1831, as set forth in the affidavit of the said Henry Winchester and Thomas Briggs, and at such meeting the said Thomas Briggs opened the proceedings by reading an advertisement, and then a case which he hail submitted to Mr. 'Montagu, with the opinion of the said Mr. Montagu thereon ; and the said Thomas Briggs having stated in such case that the said shares hail been actually sold to the said Murdo Young, and the said Mr. Montagu having, as it appeared to de ponent, rested his opinion upon a mis-statement of facts, be, this deponent, did declare at such meeting, that the facts hid been untruly represented to the said Mr. Mon tagu, and that his opinion was founded in error. And this deponent further saith, that the said Henry Winches ter having stated at such meeting with reference to bills being given by the said John 13,11 and James Simnel Lo max, that he would take no man's bills for 6,000/. a per son present then offered on the part of James Samuel Lomax, the sum of 10,0001. down in full, which this de ponent (considering the said shares of more value) could not accede to ; and thereupon the said John Bell and James Samuel Lomax, having waved their right to the said sale in favour of a Mr. Hickman, who was present at the said meeting, the said Mr. Hickman offered the sum of 13,0001. down, if be should agree with this deponent and his co assignee. And this deponent further saith, that at a sub sequent interview with the said Mr. Hickman, he, the said William Hickman, renewed his said offer of 13,0001. pro vided a peaceable and quiet possession were given, the said Murdo Young having threatened him with personal vio lence if he the said William Hickman should attempt to take possession; and it appearing that such possession could not be given, the said William Hickman declined giving 13,000/. And this deponent further said), that with a view to avoid further personal responsibility, he instructed his said solicitor to prepare and file a bill in the Court of Chancery in his (this deponent's) own name; but the said Thomas Btiggs having consented to the said Henry Winchester'. joining in such suit, be, this deponent, allowed the said Thomas Briggs to conduct the same." The Learned Counsel concluded his address by stating that he was extremely sorry to have occupied so much of their Lordships' time, but it was of the last importance to his client. He had now again established himself; and the present was an attempt utterly to ruin him. He trusted their Lordships would be of opinion that he had suffered enough already in being deprived of his certificate i for twelve months, for the purpose of accomplishing the fulfilment of this scheme. He trusted their Lordships would think, altho' he admitted it was not possible to ap prove of the present publication, that it admitted of con siderable excuse, considering the extreme ill usage which Mr. Grant had met wish. Mr. PoLaocK was on the same side, and would address their Lordships very shortly, inasmuch as his Learned Friend Mr. Campbell had put the Court in possessio❑ of all the material facts of the case. It distinctly appeared, upon comparing the affidavits on both sides, that beyond all doubt a very considerable proportion of what had been alleged against Messrs. Winchester and Briggs turned out to be true in point of fact, and with respect to the residue, it mattered not to him whether it was made our, it not being incumbent upon him to prove all the minute particulars of the case. He took it to be quite enough, in order to answer an applica tion of the present description, to show that the party making the imputation had sufficient grounds for so doing, and that he had proceeded upon circumstances and facts which would have led the most candid and unprejudiced mind to come to the same conclusion. The gentleman against whom the present application was chiefly directed was Mr. Grant, who appeared to be the principal pro prietor of a paper of very considerable funds—far snore than sufficient to pay all the debts against him, for if 13,0001. would have been given for three-fourths of the paper, under the very disadvantageous, he might almost say hostile circumstances with respect to one of the as signees, arid the proprietor of the remaining fourth, who was the Editor, and had long acted as sole proprietor—it was not too much to say if Mr. Grant could have conducted that paper himself, he would have realized a large property for his creditors, his family, anti himself, probably more than double the amount of his shares ; yet that was the property which Mr. Brigg• and Mr. Alderman Winchester were about to sell for a sum of 7,500/. 4,0001. of which was to be al lowed for a claim on the part of Mr. Young, which no person could tell the accuracy of, and which no person was to examine into. Only one•quarter of the residue was to be paid down, and the remainder was to be p iid in Mr. Young's hills. Such was the arrangement listened and agreed to by Mr. Alderman Winchester, who was after wards fastidious enough to refuse any man's bills when, the same property was about to be sold for thirteen thousand pounds. It was not immaterial to remark, that Mr. Briggs and Mr. Winchester being possessed, by the publication of the libels, of the whole grounds of com plaint, of all that had passed at the different meetings of the creditors being brought before them, it was rather extra ordinary that no person should have been called upon to make an affidavit except Mr. Briggs for himself and Mr. Alderman Winchester for himself. Not a single party, not a single creditor had made an affidavit in praise of the conduct which had been pursued by them, or avowed any confidence in them, or approved of what they did. No one makes a single affidavit, but Mr. Briggs and Mr. Alder man Winchester come forward and, upon their own affi davits alone, endeavour to exculpate themselves from all private motives. They are not joined by a single person who was present at any of the meet ings, or by any creditor who had watched the transac• tions from the beginning to the end. On the con trary, we have creditors making affidavits, and stating that at first they entertained a good opinion of Messrs. Briggs and Winchester, but ultimately discovering how they had acted, they had come to' the resolution that Mr. Grant deserved their thanks ; but that tc Mr. Briggs and Mr. Winchester tl;ey owed no thing. Now Mr. Young, the person who was alleged to be at the bottom of all this, made no com plaint : he was alleged to be the chief actor in the scheme, yet he made no affidavit, he did not even state whether he concurred in the facts stated, nor did be complain of them. He (Mr. P.) admitted that there were affidavits en both sides; on the one hand there were the affidavits of Al Alderman Winchester and Mr. Briggs, who came lief() • the Court for the purpose of complaining of a charge; she other there was a host of affidavits to rebut the charge. He (Mr. P.) avowed what that charge was, was undoubtedly an imputation on them that they had been engaged and active parties in a scheme to sell a mo. , valu ible property at a small price, to the injury of tlo creditors, but to the will greater injury of Mr. Grant and it was quite sufficient for him if he showed . tha: Mr. Grant made that charge in truth, though not in temper. If he showed that the parties making such complaint would go away having their rule discharg ed • with costs—excluding their own affidavits—i. Messrs. Winchester and Briggs were now upon tiled trial for a conspiracy to part with the property from some corrupt motive—if they were upon their trial before Jury sworn to say whether they had not joined in a scheme to get rid of the paper—could any one doubt that with such facts before them, they would dsclare them guilty, though they might not be criminal ? But what were the facts ? Could there he any doubt that the agreement for tla. sale of the paper to Mr. Young for 7,500/. was only not completed in consequence of the extraordinary efforts of Mr. Grant, and the honest and independent conduct of Mr Thornton ? Had it not been for his exertions, a valuable property would most likely have been sold to Mr. Young for 7,5001. Through his great exertions much greater offers had been made, and one gentleman of fortune and expectations, having offered largely for the property, was taunted with his name of Kinnear, as if he was not as worthy, as wealthy, and as highly rt spe table a man as the pssty ao whom the assignee and tl:e an!icitor wished to sell the property, or the assignee and solicitor themselves. That gentleman was not the only person who was pre vented from coming forward, but there were others, all of whom were deterred from offering to purchase the property, in consequence of every impediment being thrown in the way by the very parties making the com plaint, to prevent its going into the market. What, he would ask, must be the opinion of all honest men, of the conduct of Alderman Winchester, who, together with his solicitor, when parties were ready to bid for the property, in the face of the co -assignee stated that the property was conditionally sold ? The Loan Gime JUSTICE—They all say the word conditional was not mentioned. Mr. Ponnocx—They all say you arc too late, the pro perty his been sold, and what, he would ask, was to be in ferred from that? The assignment was ready, cut and dried, and in five minutes the property would have been delivered to Mr. Young, but for the exertions of Mr. Thornton and Mr. Grant. Mr. Grant had not obtained from his property that fruit which be had a right to expect, and in consequence of the course which had been pursued, Mr. Thornton thought it right to withdraw him self from his association with his co-assignee. What had been since done ? Mr. Grant had set up another newspaper, which lie never would have thought of but for the manner in which he had been treated, in which he endeavoured, and justly so, to identify himself as the person who was the real proprietor of the other Sun ; and the question with their Lord ships was not so much whether Mr. Grant, in the language he bad used, had spoken in appropriate terms, but whether those terms were not excusable—whether the comments in which hs had indulged, were indulged in under circumstances, not merely calculated to justify them, but which any person desirous of finding an excuse for the conduct of Mr. Alderman Winchester could not com plain of. The very utmost that could be stated in favour of the gentleman who was the solicitor for Mr. Alderman Winchester was, that he might have been made a dupe and a tool of; it might he that Mr. Young had used Briggs as his tool, and it might be that in consequence of that he had drawn Mr. Alderman Winchester into transactions, the consequences of which lie did not foresee ; that might be so, but upon whom were these consequences to fall ? He (Mr. P.) knew what the Lord Chief Justice would have stated if the case had lssen before a jury—that every man must bear the consequence of his own acts, and if a man choose to place himself in a situation of suspicion, be must abide by the consequences. Wish these remarks, he would leave the case in the hands of their Lordships, confident that the present rule would be dismissed with coats. Mr. KELLY rose to address the Court, but was inter rupted by The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE, who observed that the Court would hear him on another day, if necessary. The further arguments were then ordered to stand over to Thursday. THURSDAY, MAY, 31. The further bearing of the case was resumed this day. Sir J. SCARLETT begged to trouble their Lordships with a motion connected with a case in the peremptory paper, that of a motion against Mr. Patrick Grant. His application was not a very usual one ; but it was not with out precedent, and it was made in consequence of several unquestioned mistakes made, he believed, without any design ; but which might tend to mislead the judgment of the Court. Without referring to what those mistakes were, he begged to be permitted to introduce an additional affidavit, giving his Learned Friends sufficient time to answer it it they wished. The affidavit contained a letter from Mr. Thornton, who had male an affidavit on the other side—a letter from Mr. Bell, who had made an affi davit on the other side—and a letter from Mr. Grant, against whom the motion was made. These he wished to introduce in the cause. He would not now state their contents, but they had an immediate reference to the motion. The affidavit was made lay Mr. Young, who had not made one before, and indeed had not been consulted upon the subject. In consequence of the mistakes which had been made, he was desirous that those errors should not influence their Lord ships. He had the best reason for knowing that one was at least a mistake, as he had it under the hand of Mr. Searle himself. It had been stated that a copy of an agreement had been returned to him by Mr. Briggs. Now be had the original in Court, and no copy or the original had ever been returned by Mr. Briggs, nor did Mr. Briggs ever say it had, to Mr. Searle. Mr. Searle was so satisfied that it was a mistake, that he had written to Mr- Briggs to say s,r. The copy which was returned to Mr. Searle was the one that bad been sent to Messrs. Alliston and Lock, on behalf of Mr. Thornton, and by him sent to Mr. Sc trle. Mr. Briggs had not returned his copy at all. Whatever the merits of the case were—and the Learned Counsel assured their Lordships that they had not yet heard them—it was desirable that their decision should not be influenced by any mistakes. Mr. CAMPBELL opposed the motion. The case had already been gone into, and while it was pending, and contrary to all rule, as well as being a moat inconvenient step, this application was made to file an additional affidavit. With respect to the mistake about the copy of the agreement, he admitted that there had been a mistake, but it would be found not to vary the merits of the case. Lord TENTERDEN, after conferring with the other JuNes, said, they could not grant the application without establishing a most inconvenient precedent. The motion was therefore refused. The following are copies of the letters referred to by Sir James Scarlett, to show that the charge made use of on the first day of the agreement, that the copy of the agreement returned by Mr. Briggs to Mr. Searle was untrue : (COPY.)—THE KING V. GRANT. " .SIR, —Having made two copies of the agreement in question, one for you anti the other for Messrs. Alliston and Co., Mr. Thornton's solicitors, I have reason to be lieve that the one annexed to my affidavit in the above was returned me by Messrs. Alliston and Co., and not by you. " I regret that the error should have arisen, but having written to you on the 31st March to return me the draft, and finding it indorsed, returned by you on that day, will, I trust, after such a lapse of time, account for my falling into the error. " I have handed Mr. Grant's attorney a copy of this letter. " I remain your's obediently, " J. SEARLE. " Fetter-lane; Fleet-street, May 30, 1832." " Mr. Briggs." " Freeman's-court, May 30, 1832. " DEAR SIR,—We find by our books that we borrowed a copy of the proposed agreement for the three-fourths of The Sun newspaper from Mr. Searle on the 23d March, 1831 , of which we took a copy, and returned the original to Mr. Searle about the same period. " We are, dear Sir, your's faithfully, " ALLISTON, LOCK, SMITH, and ALLISTON." Several motions, but none of any moment, were then disposed 'ed of, after which the case of the King v. Grant and others, as standing first on the peremptory paper, was called on. Mr. KELLY rose to fellow Mr. COMIELL and (PRICE Mr. Poi. Loci () in showing cause against the rub. and said, that he would trouble their Lordshii, with but a few observations. In 'ooking at tit• publications, he said no one could doubt that if t!, rule were made absolute, and the parties put upon their trial on the criminal information—although every !- legation contained in the publications was proved to It, strictly true—it would he impossible to protect then: against the consequences of a verdict against them. They were no doubt libellous—the publication was admitted, and convicted they must be. That being the certain con sequence of the rule being made absolute, he hoped for tlo indulgence of the Court while he called their attention-- not to the particulars of the affidavits (for they had been so ably detailed by his Learned Friend)—hut to a mere out line of the case, and the position in which the partie were placed. The complainants, by their affidavits, had brought before the Court the whole of the pamphlet, con sisting of twenty-eight pages—they had not selected certain parts on which to found their arguments, or to rest their case, but had given the whole publication as libellous, and therefore if the affidavits and arguments had run to a great length, i t was not the fault of his clients, who were bound to en deavour •to substantiate every distinct allegation in the pamphlet. This was the more important, because, as Mr. Winchester and Mr. Briggs had complained of the whole of the pamphlet, and as they had not selected any particu lar parts of it, they were bound to deny every charge con tained in the pamphlet, which he contended they had not fully done. The first charge in the pamphlet im puted to the parties, that from improper motives they withheld Mr. Grant's certificate for a year. He need not say that every consideration ought to be !:own to a person in Mr. Grant's situat;on. iittt with a full notice in the pamphlet of that allegation, it would be seen that through aut the whole of the affidavits of Mr. Winchester and Mr. Briggs not one part pointed to that single fact, eo as to throw the slightest discredit upon it.. It was said in the pamphlet from which those gen tlemen had come forward to justify themselves, that there was some complaint about some furniture of Mr. Grant's at Boulogne, and some property of Mrs. Grant's ; but it was not pretended that for a year the certificate was not denied ; and it was evident that that was a mere pretence, and that every satisfactory explanation was given by Mr. Grant. Mr. Winchester merely stated that, from the nn• satisfactory conduct of Mr. Grant upon that point, lie withheld the certificate. Another charge was, that Mr. Winchester and Mr. Briggs had done all in their power, and had used every means to prevent the sale of The Sun newspaper to every other person but to Mr. Young. He (Mr. Kelly) need not say that it was the bounden duty of Mr. Winchester, as assignee, and of Mr. Briggs, as seli citor to the commission, to do all they could to pro mote an advantageous sale of this property. But it was wholly uncontradicted. And the facts were sworn to by six or seven persons, that at different periods they applied and made various offere, both to Mr. Winchester and Mr. Briggs, to purchase the property, and that every argument, every means was taken to deter them from be coming the purchasers; but that there was a most unex ampled readiness on the part of the complainants to deal with Mr. Young. Directly an offer was made by Mr. Young, they went secretly to him, but on almost every occasion of offers by other individuals, they were diverted from purchasing it ; one person was told he was a young man, and they would advise him not to risk his money in such a speculation. Another was informed that it was a bid concern, and lie was advised to have nothing to do with it. They had full notice fo in the pamphlet and in the newspaper that this was a charge against them, and that they thus betrayed their duty, and yet they bad not denied the fact. It was true that they had given a general denial, but although the names of the persons making the offer were known then, they had not distinctly and fully denied the fact. With regard to the proceed ings of Mr. Young, there was one fact in the affidavits which w is beyond all in inner of doubt, viz. that Mr. Briggs willfully concealed from the persons making offers, that Mr. Young had made an offer which would be ac cepted, and the sale concluded, unless a greater offer was made. A conditional offer was made by Mr. Young on the 17th, and it was to be concluded on the 19th.— Mr. Briggs saw Mr. Bell, but ❑ever mentioned a single circumstance to bins. Mr. Bell proceeded in his negotia tion, wirhont knowing a word of the conditionel agree went on the 17th; and it was only by accident that he heard, that if a better offer than Mr. Young's was not made b♦ or on the 19th, the property would be sold to Mr. Young. Mr. Briggs was charged with a breach of his duty, in withholding that important information ; and that was a fact which, before a Jury, would be con clusive that he was acting in favour of, and with a par tiality to, Mr. Young. The meeting of the 19th was the most important part of the case. In the publications the complainants were charged with falsehood, awl with having swindled, or endeavoured to swindle, the cre ditors of Mr. Grant out of the property. It was a most delicate thing thus to speak of gentlemen of whom he knew nothing ; but to show that they had no claim to the extraordinary interference of this Court, it was necessary to state what took place at that meeting of the 19tb, and which was most important in the cause. It was sworn by four or five persons that at the commence ment of that meeting an offer was made by Mr. Bell, and that Mr. Briggs said it was too late, for the property Lad been sold to Mr. Young, and that, too, unconditionally. Note, unless those persons had been guilty of perjury, the charge of untruth had been clearly established against Mr. Winchester and Mr. Briggs. The latter gentlemen denied the charge in vague and general terms, and they called on the Court to believe that denial because it was stated to have taken place in the presence of the assignees. Now it was apparent, and it was sworn, that it took place on the part of Mr. Briggs before Mr. Winchester entered the room, and then Mr. Winchester repeated the same thing; but afterwards, when Mr. Thornton c tme in, he said the property was not sold. As to those parts of the publica tions tending to show that Mr. Briggs had acted as the friend and agent of Mr. Young, and not as the solicitor to the assignees, who had opposite interests to those of Mr. Young, there was a remarkable instil:see at that meeting. When Mr. Thornton, who viewed the ease with different feelings from Mr. Winchester—when he insisted on selling the property to the best bidder, and that it should not be hurried into the hands of Mr. Young, it was Mr. Briggs himself who bid on the part of Mr. Young, and that, too, without the slightest communication with Mr. Young at the time. What did that show, hut that Mr. Briggs was the friend and agent of Mr. Young, and supported his interest against the interests, of the creditors? With regard to the question as to the copy of the agreement being re turned by Mr. Briggs to Mr. Searle, he would say nothing about it, as it was a mistake ; and it was, moreover, quite immaterial. There was, however, another fact. By both the pamphlet and the newspaper another misrepresenta tion was charged against Mr. Briggs, in express terms, is getting the opinion of the Learned Counsel, and pro ducing it at the meeting of the 23d of April, for the purpose of showing that the assignees could not interfere with the rights of Mr. Young. He was charged with having alleged that the property was sold to Mr. Young, and that was untrue. Mr. Briggs did not deny that; the only way in which he bad noticed it was by de claring that he never said he had made a false statement to Counsel. On the other hand, he was met by showing that the case submitted to Counsel did contain, or at least he so read it at the meeting, that untrue allegation. If a case were laid before Counsel, stating that the property had been sold, there could be no doubt how the opinion of that Counsel would be. It was further stated in the pamphlet, and not denied by Mr. Briggs—or if denied, he eras contradicted by Mr. Thornton and others, that on that circumstance being stated, Mr. Thornton contradicted it on the spot, and said it was false. Mr. Thornton con firmed the statement in the pamphlet, and he was con firmed by three or four other persons. Some observations had been made about the resolutions of certain creditors, expressive of their disapprobation of Mr. Winchester's con duct, and requesting him to resign, not being agreed to and signed by three fourths of the creditors in number and value. Perhaps they were not, but it was perfectly incor rect to say that the whole amount of their debts did not ex• ceed that of Mr. Winchester, because there were two persons, Mr. Hill and Mr. Logan, whose debts amounted to between 2,0001. and 3,0001. Mr. Winchester's debt was not half that amount. It was true that Mr. Hill was not present at the meeting ; but he signed, and approved of the resolutions. Mr. Winchester was present, and therefore theme was nothing unfair in the proceedings; but whatever number were there, it was a fact alleged anti borne out by the affidavits. But there was one observation of Sir James Scarlett'e to which he (Mr. Kelly) would call their Lordship' ttention, viz., that it was untrue to say that the suit in Chancery was founded wholly or in part upon the agreement or deed, whatever it might be. It was sworn that the suit was wholly founded on that deed, and his L earned Friend, on looking at the affidavits, could perceive that that was the case. He had now stand the situation in which Mr. Grant really was. He bad embarked 15,0001. or 20,000/. in The Sun Newspaper, and had lost every shilling of it. He had been made a banki upt—be d. been kept out of his certificate for a year without any charge being made against him, owing to his dealings with Mr. Young, and to every species of impediment being thrown in his way while endeavouring to agable his cre ditors to get their just rights, and in the hope of having a surplus to himself. Mr. Grant found when he obtained his certificate that there was not a shilling for his credi , ors, because all who made offers o❑ his p tit had been fright end away ; and on the oth,r hand Mr. Young had thrown the property into Chancery. It could not be for gotten v. hat a stigma attached to a person who was kei t out of his certificate ; it could nut be forgotten that, when a witness was put into the box he was asked, as the first question,—" Who are you ? " and if it were found that be had been a bankrupt, he teas asked if he had got his certificate, and bow much i❑ the pound his estate realized to his creditors. At that time, if Air. Grunt had been put into the witness-box, and been asked those ques tions, a stigma would have been cast upon }aim. He had been prevented doing anything for his family, or taking that station in society to which he was entitled, and under such circumstances, it w;! not surprising that after all that he had suffered, be published a statement of his case, every fact of which had been positively sworn to.— The Learned Counsel said he would not trouble their Lordships with any further prticulars, but he must be per mitted to make ore observation. It tvas contrary to all . . the rules of the Court to grant a erimind information to parties who did not come into Court with clean hands, and who were not supported by their character. In this case every circumstance in the publication had been sworn to be true by several persons of great revectability, nearly all of whom were entirely disinterested. Under these ciro cumstances, he trusted that the Rule would he discharged. A LEARNED COU NSEL, whose name we could nut learn, followed on the same side. Sir JAMES SCARLETT—My Lords, I have now to en.® deavour to sustain this Rule, and, certainly, in addressits your Lordships, I shall not do so in the same tone of curl fidence which my L.•arned Friend (Mr. Campbell) has as sumed. I shall not presume to disparage a gentleman who has the reputation to be nearly efflansct,il with a per- Snit high in hi. Majesty's councils, being confident that even if Mr. Grant was it Cabinet Minister bin. , elf, the question which is at issue between the parties wunld not he decided differently by your Lordships. Aly Lords, I could not bltt admire the dexterity of my Learned Friend in the mode of conducting his defence ; I discovered, as I passed along, the theory by which he defended his clients, and which I think may be considered to be, in the first place, by stating as facts all those circumstances which were not proved, and which his client had only ventured to swear to his belief and opinion ; and stating that roundly and broadly, as if the affidavits had sworn positively to it, which not a single person had ventured to screw up his con science to swear to positively ; by omitting all facts, which were not contradicted. I pass that howeveihy, my Lords, ss wholly unimportant at present. Your Lordships have heard none of them, and certainly as it respects the merits of the application, your Lordships have heard but little of the real lacts of the case, from me; but it now becomes my painful duty to stile them in detail ; and lastly, my Lords, they have exaggerated all the unimportant facts, and hare kept back the whole history of the case. I3,fore I under take the duty which will be painful and tedious to your Lordships and myself ; but which I am bound to discharge in consequence of the confidence of the tone of the asseta tions on the other side, it will be fitting that I should call your Lordships' attention t ) a few facts whicli are not denied. My Lords, the commimlion issued on the 4 , h of Nov. 1830. Mr. Grant obtained his certificate from Mr. Alderman Winchester on the 6th of December s 1831. Up to that period, no libel whatever had been published against Mr. Alderman ‘Vinchester. Shortly afterwards, however, Mr. Grant, the now advocate of the interests of his creditors, set up a paper, which he called the True Sun, in opposition to the paper in which he wai part proprietor, called The Sun. On the 6th of March, 1832, he published an advertisement, or pam phlet he had written, commenting strongly upon the character of Mr. Alderman Winchester and Mr. Briggs; and shortly afterwards, upon the 9th and 16th of April, came out in the paper called the True Sun the libel of which we complain. Now, my Lords, the first charge in that libel to which I call the attention of your Lordships is, that the commis sion against Mr. Grant was taken out to answer a fraudu lent and sinister purpose, end to benefit Mr. Alderman Win chester and Mr. Briggs, in some way or other, and that they were in collusion wito Mr. Young. That is not only stated in the pamphlet, hut Mr. Campbell himself has stated it to be the fact; he stated roundly that that was sworn to in the affidavits. No doubt it was by Gram ; but I will defy your Lordships to discover any particular fact which will justify such a statement. That Mr. Briggs and Mr. Alderman Winchester had, in colluiton with Mr. Young, endeavoured to prevent any other person from obtaining his share of the paper, and that they were de termined to sell it to Mr. Young at the lowest price, that in doing so they were actu ited by a sinister object, and to serve their own interest and purpose—that is all stated, my Lords, upon belief. That is also stated in the libels; and he also charges Mr. Alderman Winchester and Mr. Briggs with swindling. I will also give the statement to your Lordships in his own words—" The whole scheme of the commission which Mr. Winchester sued out against Mr. Grant was a swindle ; and the same spirit which led to the suing out of the commission marred Mr. Grant's attempts to repurchase his property." Now, your Lord slii?s will have the goodness to observe the tone the affi davits take here; it seems as if it was intended to insinuate that it was not the interest of Mr. Grant, but their own individual interest, which Mr. Kinnear, Mr. Hickman, Mr. Bell, and Mr. Lomax had at heart in what they did. That it was done, not for the interest of Air. Grant, but to serve their own interest. The libel does nut state that, but he says all these attempts were marred. Then he says, " finally, that be baffled all the fraudulent devices to which the Lord Mayor that is to be, had recourse. Mr. Win chester's constituents soon discovered their mistake in having supposed him trust-worthy ; but they hesitated to act with the firmness which the occasion required. They were, moreover, involved in law : and to the law Mr. Grant also might have appealed, had it been allowed him to do so ; the law, however, afforded him no right of redress, he had therefore no resource but in public opinion ; to the public accordingly he has addressed himself, and by their aid he is rapidly recovering his property. Who shall say that by doing so lie gives to any one just cause of complaint? He long ago pointed out to his creditors a fund from which his debts might be paid, and if it was their pleasure to permit a trio of swindlers to stand between them and their property, the fault certainly was not his. If they chose to allow Mr. Winchester and Mr. Briggs to cheat theta out of their interest in The Sian, Mr. Grant surely was not in consequence bound to forego his interest in that property." Then in the other newspaper, which is but a repetition of what was in the pamphlet, they state that " the body of creditors, whose interests Mr. Winchester has so grossly betrayed, refused, in consequence, to recog nize him as assignee, to sanction his acts, to permit him, in short, to take any further steps under the commission which he himself sued out." And in a previous part,— We have repeatedly stated to the public that Mr. Alder _ . man Winchester has, in the exercise of his functions, as assignee of The Sun newspaper, been guilty of fraud and falsehood." Your Lordships will see presently that the falsehood with which they are charged has been indus triously picked out from several conversations ; and the whole of their affidavits, when you come to look at them, show most clearly that they have sworn by the card in order to justify what they have done. Now the body of creditors, whose interest, it was stated, Mr. Alderman Winchester had so gross) , betrayed, and in consequence of which they had refused to recognise him as assignee, were small in number and value, and had come to that resolution at a meeting called by Mr. Grant of his own accord. But yet it was put forth as the sentiments of the majority, in number and value, of the creditors ; that Mr. Alderman Winchester was unworthy of trust, and that he ought to resign his place as assignee. The meeting was called solely to serve the purposes of Mr. Grant, and to sustain his views against the general body of the creditors : " As to Mr. Briggs, we decline to say any thing more at present. We understand that a motion will be made in a few days, at the instance of some of the creditors, to have him struck off the Rolls. An application for Mr. Winchester's removal from the assigueeship is also about to be made. When the result of that application shall be known, it will remain for the Honourable Court of Aldermen to pronounce an opinion of the conduct of this aspirant to the Mayoralty. We trust, however, that thry will, without waiting for further evidence than was supplied at the meeting on Saturday, vindicate the cha r.icter of civic dignitaries, and chew their respectfor puha?, dec:ncy, by expelling Mr. Winchester from their body. Now, ray Lords, my Learned Friends were candid enoubh to admit that these were libels. I thank them fore the con e,ssion. They admitted that there was grat dan 4er in such publication' , ; but they said that they w ere justified by the occasion which had t ailed hem forth, or at least that tl ey believed the circumstances ander which they bad been published would induce your L irdshsps not to make the rule for a criminal information absolute. My Lords, I do not venture to state with confi dence that your Lordships will make this rule absolute ; it