The Express.
London, England, 1863-05-05 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
(THIS DAY.)

EQUITY COURT.
(Before the Barter of the Bak)
HOWARD V. GUNN.

Yr. Rice moved ex parte for an injunction to restrain the
publication of certain letters written by the plaintiff, res-
pecting the affairs of the City of London and general Fire and Life Assurance Company, which the defendant
Gunn was publishing in a pamphlet, wntteu by him on
the affairs of that compsay. it appeared that Gann
had been the secretary and manager, pro tempore, of
the company, and that disputes had arisen between him and
them ending in the termination of his connexion with them,
upon which he had written the pamphlet in question, setting
oat two letters the publication of which the plaintiff now
tonight to restrain. The publisher and printer were also
defendants.

-The Kanter of the Rolls granted an injunction restraining
the publishing or printing of the letters in question.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.

Sittings in Banco.—(Betas Lord Chid Justice Cockburn,
and Justices Crompton, Blackburn, and Mellor.)

This was the first of the Wit four days of term appro-
priated to motions and new trials.

LLIOTENANT-COLONEL INCEDON V. THE EARL OF (OMITC
MEM, THE EARL OP WILTON, AND GENERAL PrEL

Mr. Coleridge, Q.C., applied on behalf of the plaintiff
for a rule nisi calling upon General Peel to show
muse why certain interrogatories disallowed by
Mr. Justice Wightman at chambers should not be allowed
to be put to General Peel. The action against the Mee.
dents was for conspiracy. The declaration oontaios two
counts. The first count charges the defendant. with know-
ingly intending to injure the plaintiff, and that they falsely
and maliciously conspired to prevent him from gaining any
employment in the army and from pining further emolu-
ment therefrom, and that they falsely and maliciously
caused to be represented to the Queen that cer-
tain alleged misconduct attributed to the plain.
tiff woe true and well founded and that be was
not a proper person to continue in the rank of lieutenant-
colonel. The second count also alleged that the defend.
ante canoed the plaintiff to be dismissed. The learned
counsel mid the learned judge had allowed certain intern.
Werke to be put to the other defendants, but he had dis-
allowed some with regard to General Peel. The charges
against those distinguished men, if capable of being made out,
most be done to a certain extent from their answers to
the interrogatories of facts which the plaintiff alleged had
taken place in reference to him. An action mu tried some
time Niue between Lieut.-Colonel Dickson and the Earl of
Wilton, when the defendant and several other distinguished
persona were examined, and amongst others the late Kr.
T. Duncombe, M.P. for Fiosbury. He made a statement
and gave an account of what took plats between
him and the Earl of Wilton and General Peel.
It was essential to the plaintiff's cue that
the circumstance connected with and the remit of

what took place between Mr. Duncombe and General Peel
should be placed before the jury in the trial of this action.
The interrogatories that had been disallowed had reference in
the first place to Mr. Duncombe's question to General
Peel in the Howe of Commons in July, 1838, relative
to the proceedings that were going on with re-
gard to Lieut.-Colonel Dickson sod the Tower Hamlets
Militia, whereby the plaintiff, after tbirty.thres years' ter-
ries, was called upon to resign, without any inquiry into
the charges that had been made wawa him, mid when Gee.
Peel, in his answer, said that Lord Combermere believed the
documentary evidence that had been submitted to him
proved the charges preferred against Lieut.-Col. Dickson,
but that he (General Peel) bad not come to the conclusion
that the more serious part of the oomplaiot bad not beet
proved, but he was of opinion that great irregularities bad
hem permitted by the plaintiff, and that instead of digs
missing him be had called upon him to resign. Lieu*
nut-Colonel Dickson declined and asked for an inquiry.
and General Peel intended to appoint • umber of
officers to inquire into the matter and report thereon.
The interrogatory with regard to that was disallowed i but
the following one—asking if the officers were so appointed
—was allowed.
The Lord Chief Justice said the disallowed inter-
rogatory had referenos to something stated by •
member of the government in his place in parliament, and
be doubted if the matter could be inquired into.
Mr. Coleridge said that if General Peel was put in the
box he apprehended be had a right to put the question to
Mr. Justice Blackburn said the statement referred to wee
made fa the House of Commons. He confessed he should
not like to enforce the interrogatory whilst the house was
sitting. It was spoken in the house, and WWI no doubt a
privileged statement.
Mr. Justice Crompton said it was inquiring of something
he had said in the House of Commons.
Mr. Coleridge Certainly. It was not so much the words
mad on that occasion by General Peel that were wanted, as
the fact that on a certain day certain things took place in the
Hogue of Commons. That the result was so and so. and
that sutesqueetly so and so was doe that was inconaistent
with that statement.

lir.insti;eCrocapton said be thought it might be tinily
proved by the journals of the homey or by the reporters.
The Lord Chief Justice said he understood the plaintiff
wanted to show that certain inquiries were made on a certain
day in the House of Commons.
Mr. Coleridge said that what be wanted to show was that
on the 19th July, 1818, General Peel bad not made up his
mind, but was ready to inquire further into the
matter. It turned out afterwards, sod it was important to
show that date, that at that time communications were
going on between those three distinguished of (the
defendant) treating the whole thing am practically settled.
The Lord Chief Justice said it was very doubtful if the
interrogatories as framed could be put to an M.P. requmsg
of him what he had said on a given occasion. He, however,
thought they might be put in a lees objectionable form.
Mr. Coleridge said that the late Mr. Dunoombe, when in
the witness box, stated what was now required of General
Peel.

The Lord Chief Justice said that was quite another
thing.
Mr. Coleridge said that General Peel was not called on
the trip, referred to by Earl Wilton, and the plaintiff had
no opportunity of putting those questions to him.
The Lord Chief Justice said the question if pat must be
pot in a lees objectionable form.
Mr. Coleridge said he did not want the words used by
General Peel, but whether he thought himself justified in
saying what he did.
Mr. Justice Blackburn said that raised the question of
privilege. As a matter of discretion for the court he thought
they would sot wisely in not allowing the question to be put.
Mr. Coleridge said, the next interrogatory disallowed had
reference to the board of inquiry on Lieut.-Colonel Dick-
eon's conduct. At the former trial a great deal turned on
it. The Earl of Wilton was called oo thattrial, and he stated
that he refused to attend the board of •mgmiry as a tritons.
though he had been summoned, because General Peel told
him his evidence was not required. General Peel was
not called by the Earl of Wilton to affirm that
statement, and it would be a very strong thing for the
plaintiff to show in the forthcoming trial that General Peel
had such a strong animus against Lieutenant-Colonel
Dickson as to tell Earl Wilton that he need not attend
before the board of inquiry, and as showing that the three
distinguished defendant, had joined together to get rid of
Lieutenant-Colonel Dickson from the service as an bacon.
violent officer. The interrogatory to General Peel to know
it he made that statement to Earl Wilton was disallowed,
though it was such a question as might have been put to
him if he bad been called into the box, and which he would
have been bound to answer.
Mr. Justice Crompton said he thought it was material
to the action.

Coleridge e could not be considered a fishing
question, because it bad reference to a fact that had been
distinctly stated by Earl Wilton. The next interrogatory
disallowed had reference to the report referred to by Geoe-
ral Peel, and it was whether the board of inquiry made their
report on the "28th August. AU that was required was the
date, because Lieutenant-Colonel Dickson was dismissed
after that period.
Mr. Justice Blackburn said the date when the rep,rt
came to General Peel's knowledge was, no doubt, material
to the case.

—Mr. Coleridge said the next question was whether_aq
private instructions were given by General Peel to Lord
/tither Hay, and the members of the board of inquiry.
There was no desire to know what they were, if any went
given.
The Lord Chief Justice doubted whether anything would
be gained by the manner in which the iuterrogatory wen
proposed to be put.
Mr. Coleridge said of course it must be opera to the pomi-
bility of its vagueness. The next interrogatory was to
ascertain whether, on the 6th of September, 18'd, subse-
quent to the date of the receipt of the report of the
board of inquiry by General Peel, he directed the plaintiff
to mums the command of his regiment, the Tower Mom
lets Militia. If so, that was a negation aoootding
military rules of all that had previously taken place ;
further, it was desirable to ascertain whether, on the Ina
September or on any other and what date, General Peel
gave instructions as Secretary of State for War for the
transmission by telegraph of orders to the effect that the
plaintiff shook, not take the command of his regiment until
be (General Peel) had bad an opportunity of forming Wale
decision on the report of the board of inquiry, because if it
were true that General Peel telegraphed to that effect cat
the 16th September the plaintiff would be able to show
that General Peel had been stating to other persons sod
had been acting upon the report as if he bad made up his
mind upon it. Yet it would appear that be bad tele•
graphed instructions that the plaintiff should out
take the command of his regiment till be had had so opPor-
tibilttay of forming soma decisive on the report of the
of inquiry. If it should appear that he
bad not read the report, yet professing to act on it as if he
had read it, it wee very materiel to the plaintiff's case sod