The Express.
London, England, 1863-12-21 00:00:00

)irraorocrw cotqiri couzia.

Fitt days Appointed for tbe meted week.
ifialnuNmus, I3L Martin's.haft—lionday, Dee. 12 ; Tuesday.
22: irnitir44l.).
Bei IIoS, Whitebe.asgrore. —Tuesday, Dec. f; Wednes-
day, 2..
CLCKKENOILL, Dun,v,torraoe.—Tneaday. Dec. IL
PHOREMICH, Old4treet-road.—Mondal6.Dec. 21.
SOCTHWAKIL, Swal,Street.—The•day, 22.
Lax erni, Caaaberikell New-rod.—Tuesday, Dec. 22.
4.81 KNWlClL—Wodnesday, Dec. IS.
o..i.wiee.—T6needey, Dec. 24.
CM or Lon Don, Guildhall-buildings.— Tuesday, Dec. 22.

EQUITY COI7RTS.—Die. 19.
(Before Vioe-Chanoeßor Sir R. T. Kinder'sley.)

FUSIN r. lIDRI3ERT.—THE CHANCERY DITCH AT SHEER.
NS's.—COVAITTAL Or AN EDITOR.

This suit relates to an open ditch at Sheerness. which, in
emsequeu.s of the suit, has had bestowed upon it the name
of " sue Chancery ditch." The plaintiff is the dark of the
Board of Health ; and the defendants are the f3scrstary
for War, and one or two gentlemen who are interested in the
Lind adjoining the ditch, and claim to be owners of the soil ;
the object of the suit being to prevent the covering up of
the ditch so as to impede the free flowing of the sewage of
the town. The matter has been several times before the
court on interlocutory motions for in junction, but the cause
has not s t been heard, and in the meanwhile both aides
have filed affidavits. The suit, is appears, excites great
interest at Sheerness, and discussions have taken pines re-
specting it at the meetings of the local Board of Health, and
comments hare been made neon it is the local newspaper.
Mr._ Glasse, with whom was Mr. E. F. Smith, now

moved that Thomas Morton ltigg, the proprietor and pub-
Lieber of :Le Sternest Guardian and rase rent Adrer-
tier, be rommitted for contempt of court in having pub-
lished ccrtsin articles commentiog on certain affidavits
made in the cause, such articles being calculated to bring
contempt on the pencils who had made the affidavits, and
to obstruct the comae of justice. The first public Aim
complained of appeared in the Sheerness Guardian of the
21st November. 1863, and was in the nature of a mart of
the proceediogs at the Based of Health. (The learned
counsel read the report in question, which was rather a &-
lemon& of the character of the discussion than a report
of what t. As said. the subject of the discussion we the
affidavits of some .10 poisons which had been filed by the
defendant and the report gave the cbristian and surnames
of the penroas who had made the affidavits.) The other article
complained of wail the leading article in the Sheerness Guar
dian of the:P.:Lb Nov.

The Vi:e-Chencellar said, if this had not been an applica-
tion to coramit a party to prime, he should out have called
for soy reply, for be had not the smallest doubt of this
being a contempt of court, and a wilful contempt of court.
When he said a wilful contempt of court he did not mean a
man having at the time a wish or desire to commit a con-
tempt of court, but lie meant an act done wilfully and with
an Intention to do what was wrong. He had not the
remotest potion what was the extent of the circulation of the
Sheernee, Gdardiar. ai.d East Kent Adtertiser, or what
was the extent of the influence it exercised, but he must
sesame that, at all erects, it had some circulation, and he
presumed that dir. Kin, who was the printer and publisher,
would not he willing to admit that the paper had no circu-
lation or il.dialuce. Having, oa Saturday, the 21st Novem-
ber, published a report of the proceedings of the Board of
Health, giving the names of persons who had made affidavit&
in a cause before this court, he, on '-'Bth November, inserted in
his paper a leading article which was alleged to be, sod
which he thought was. a grow contempt of this court. His
Bosour then proceeded to cite various passages of the
article, commenting on them as he proceeded. In the outset
attention was called to the names. Then the article
spoke of the proceedings of one of the defen-
dants, the defeudant Jenkins being no doubt meant, as
being utterly disgraceful, and the persons who had made
the affidavits wore described as being his tools, and they
were spasm of as being " cheaply sold." The article
attributed perjury, although it let them off ou the ground
of ignmanca Theo there was a suggestion that a monu-
ment should be erected, and the names of the affidavit
makers it:scribed thereon. This was clearly an intention
to hold them up to the contempt and indignation of
their fellow townsmen. It was contended that the reticle
did not operate to obstruct the course of justice,
because at the time it was published the defendants were
precluded from making farther affidavits, bat that would
not prevent the article being • gross contempt of court. It
was true the time had elapsed for the defendants filing
affidavit's, but the time had not elapsed for the plaintiffs to file
affidavits in reply, and the article might perveit the course
of justice, not by influencing the mind of the judge, but by
baying an effect on the evideoce be adduced. Aad
further, who was to say that at the hearing, or at any other
stage of the cause, the court might not require further es i-
diots. Still farther, the time for cross-examining the 'M-
ambos had not expired, and who could my what influence an
article of this kind might not have cm the witneases.
Therefore there win no ground for saviog that this
article could not be a contempt of court because it
could not have the effect of perverting justice. He had,
therefore, not the smallest difficulty in coming to the con-
clusion that if ever there was a contempt of court, this was
that case. The question then arose, in what way that ecia-
tempt wu to be reek It was always a dieagresthle office to
have to commit a man to prison, but it was not because it
was a disagreeable office that he was to shrink from it.
What he had to consider was, what the parity of the ad-
ministration of justice ?squired him to do with regard to
this respondent, in order to hold hint up as a warning to
others not to commit a similar offence. It appeared to
him that he had ne alternative but to commit him sad he
had the less hesitatioe udoing so by reuses of the course
be had Llama is meeting this motion. Either he had bees
unfortunately advised, or big solicitor bad gives
him d advice which he had thought fit not to follow.
Instead of doing what any rtasonable man would havedone
—instead of tiling an affidavit expressing his regret, he had
canoed affidavits to be filed to prove the truth of some parts
of the article, and to vindicate it, and he had instructed
cousuel to argue that the article was no contempt of court,
sod that he bad a right to pablish what he did, but that if
the court should deride that he had bawd guilty of a col-
tempt of unit would express his regret. So that his
submission amounted to this, that if he was going to be
punished he would do everything to escape that punish-
ment. He should commit Mr. to prism, and then
when be was in prioou and would do what was right, he
would discharge him at the *oiliest possible moment, though
he did not my that the moment he applied he was to be dis-
charged. He was to be punished by committal, he did not
say for how long. and he was to he committed for a coo-
tempt of court, in publishing the article of the 21st and
28th November.

The defendant was in wort, bat no attempt was made to
take him into custody immediately after the judgment was
delivered.

(Before Vice. Chancellor Stuart.)

LAVOIGNAT V. MI! E.-TUE COCETEEB DELLA ARTS E. LORD

- - • - - -•••
WILSON.
•
It will be remembered that the object of them suite wee
to adru:oister the trusts of a deed of settlement, dated the
10th of August, 1652. whereby Lord Vinson covenaoted
with the trustees of it that he would, dories hie life, pay
1,0001. per annum to them, for the Countess dells Mm.. for
her life ror her separate use, with &restraint on anticipation,
in cam of her uwrtiage• sad that alter her death they
should pay 2001. oat of the 1,0001. annually to each of Me
four &righters by the countess ; and the residue to himself.
The deed provided that on the elsath of Lord Vernon the
daughters should become entitled to a sum of 20,00 W. as
therein tiseetiooed ; and it gave Lord Verve power to °pe-
trel the payment by the trustees of the aaeuity to
the unto's. Is 1353 the counter married her
present husband, the Count della Seta, and to
1858 one of the daughters died. The suite came
on, at brat, upon two interlocutory applications, the
one on 14balt of the intuit co-plaintiffs in the oounteses
suit, and the other on that of the countess, for the iocresee
of the allowance which had been hitherto made to her MAW
the settlement. Those apple:otiose were heard on 14th July
bratousci thecircummances ooseected with them +irefully
reported in these columnist:is the following day, It was DOW
stated that an arrangement had Irma entered into between
the parties for the compromise°, the suite. The bill and
all the affidavit' in the suit at "Della Seta v. Lord Venire"
were ti. he taken off the file, end the parties to it were to
pay their awe costa. The suit of "Lavergne' v. White"
was set down to be heard to-day as a short dm e • and the
following minutes of the decree therein were agreed upon.
It was declared that the trusts of the settlement of the
30th August, 1852, should be carried into execution ; that
the order made on the 14th July,lBo3, should he continued,
so far as it directed that the care and custody of ths infant
plaintiffs (the three surviving daughter) should be ander the
direction of the trustees of the deed uatil farther order ;
that the trustees should be the gnarlier of the
children until further order; the guardians soder-
tattles that the countess should hove emcees to them, or
such of them as should be willies to me her, at all rea-
sonable tine; ea to the annuity of 1.0001. per rams.
that so loag as the infant plaintiffs should be it and
unmarried, sad until they should all have attained their re.
• from May last,
isMitli:l6lre ruatfyldirvid7d.rs. t'Pliteata"Vr.. say,ss 5001. for the
countess, and 50101. retained for the infant plaintiffs ; and if
one of tie infant plaintiffs should die during the same
period, 400/. per annum should be retained far the surviving
children, end 600/. paid to the cowrie. If
two of the infant plaintiffs should die during
the sours 2:10/. per annum should be re-
kissed for tie surviving child, and ?MX paid to the aountess ;
and if say or all of the children should marry during the
same period, each child s-i marrying should from the time of
her marriage receive 103/. per annum, as WS, provided by
the settlement, and the unmarried children should receive
the same allowance Pa thereby provided, sad r
if the sister or misters marrying bad died ; the
remainder of the income is emelt ear was to be
paid to the error That arrangement was to
eerier in fore tilt the youngest of the three infant
plaintiffs should attain 21, and DO larger ; sod the truster
ef the settlement were to pay the same aecordiagly until
farther order. The ears of all parties to the suit of
Lasater v. White wire to be bred as Wires whetter
and alter, and when taxed paid eat of ibe capital of the
settarsent trust fur* with liberty to on Mullet to *Pell
aa they night be advised.
Mr. Makes, Q.C., aid Mr. Hoary Illiereas appeared for
the Coaster della tins; Mr. liar" Q.C., for Lord Va-
ses; Mr. Orem% Q.C., der eit Mint Wadi Islip*.