The Express.
London, England, 1853-11-26 00:00:00

CKIKINAL INIWYMATIUS.

This was a ruleni;;;ereiiirci eeeioiiiiiinEd by Sir F.
Thniger for a crimin.l information against the defendant,
for a libellous copy ofteries 'glint Mr. iblhopp, which he
bad written and circulated.

Mr. Mellor said he appemd for the defendant in this
ease, and was instructed to take a course that he trusted
would prove satisfactory to his learned friend and to the
prosecutor himself. Ilis had communicated to his learned
fried that his client desired to offer the most ample spul•igy
for, and to make th 3 most compfete:retractation of, any
charges or insinuations which were supposed to be contained
in the libel he had published. lie had made this apology
and retractatiun in the fullest possible ma and
desired to express his deep regret that he should have pub-
lished a libel contaiuing such insinuations so injurious to
the prosecutor.
Lord Campbell—Charges.
Mr. Mellor—Both charges and insinuations. He was in-
structed to express the defendant's deep regret for what he
had done, and he trusted his learned friend, on the part of
t►e prosecution, would be satisB• d with this apology.
Sir F.Theeiger said that Mr. Allsopp was willing to accept
the apology and retractation—the positive denial of the
charges made by Mr. Jervis; and to allow this rule to take
the course of the former one. With regard to the coats he
must insist upon their payment, in order to show that this
was not passed over as a light offence.
Rule discharged en payment of costa by the defendant.

BAIL COURT.—Yesnytony.
1111T1169 n 1,010).-IIMPOILS rI. JIMITICIt CON
THE OCEEN T. NEU&IIrOND ♦ND OTHIIII.-1

701 CONSPIXACY.-7111 DIABY ZLICTION.

Mr. Edwin James moved for a rule, calling upon the de-
fendants in this case, to show Awe why the trial of this
indictment should not be postponed until the sittings after
next term, or why they should not take each short notice of
trial as the prceeestor could give. This was an Indictment
for conspiracy, which bad been removed from the Central
Criminal Court into this court. The defendants, eleven in
number, bed been engaged in the Derby election, and two
of them, Mr. Wm. Beresford and Mr. John Huisb, had
removed the indictment into this court. They were in con-
sommes bound to plead and give notice of trial, or they
would forfeit their recognisance,. Mr. Beresford pleaded
on the 6th of Nov., and Mr. Huish on the 14th of Nov. ;
both of them giving due notice of trial for the
Middlesex sittiop on the 21st of Nov., too late
for t►e prosecution to give their notice of trial
for those sittings. Five other defendants pleaded, so that
if the matter was allowed to rest as at present,
only Mr. Beresford and Mr. Huish could be tried by the
indictment, and, therefore, this rule had been applied for
as the only proper Course that could be taken. It was ab-
solutely necessary that all the defendants should be tried
together. There was another ground on which this appli-
cation had been made, namely, that it was necessary to
have the attendance of the *Seen of the Howe of Com-
mons, and also the shorthand writer who attended the
select committee of inquiry. A resolution of the house
declared that all witnesses examined before the house or
before a committee of the ►oue were entitled to the pro-
tection of the house with regard to anything which they
had said in giving evidence, and that no officer or short-
hand writer should give evidence without first obtaining
the special license of %Jabots, of any proceedings before the
house or its committees. The bowie was not now sitting,
and therefore it was impossible to obtain this permission
It was absolutely necessary that the officers and shorthand
writer should attend the trial.

Sir F. Thesiger said that he appeared on the part of Mr.
Berisford, who had done everything in his power to bring
this matter to &speedy issue. Mr. Beresford had no power
over the other defendants, sad he could not compel them to
give notice. To sive any further trouble he would at once
consent to the postponement of the trial. Mr. Smith was
retained by Mr. Hsieh, but he was not present.
The learned judge said the rule would go for the postpone-
ment, unless Mr. Smith did not consent.
Mr. Smith, having come into court soon after, said he
had had no instructions to consent, but he would let his
client know, and it was very likely that he would agree to
take the course adoptid by Sir F. Thesiger.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.-YESTERDAT.
ITTUrell It BANCO.-11113012 XL JVITICt ■AVI.S ■L .1011ITICT

IIIatIOWELL, SOL JVIITICZ WILILY" AND XL JUSTICE T•LroVaD.
11•ZLITT V. IfIZIITILLY.—ACTION FOR 'ERR Pi/ICI OF
71•11•L•TIRO • FRIINCK WORK.
_ _ _ _ _

In this eite;lC;;;intinatWUith; cones that the de-
fendant would abandon the rale nisi for • new trial ob-
tained by his counsel on Thursday.
INSOLVENT DEBTORS' COURT.—YesrnZDAT•