The Northern Daily Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1853-11-28 00:00:00

investing, or the country borrowing, causes the
disarrangement of the Exchanges, without injury
to the resources of either—to their power of paying
or their power of lending.
If we add to the amount of British exports the
exports of bullion, and if we add the imports of all
kinds, including bullion, we may then have some
estimate of our means, but not of our profit, as we
cannot tell how much of the imports have been
sent as investments, and are employed on foreign
account.

If this is of any use in your illustration of the
Monetary system of the country, you can use it
as you think fit, and I hope you will continue your
remarks on the subject.—Yours, &c
-Liverpool, Nov. 24, 1833

OBSERVER.

Lain 3Entelligence.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.

(Sittings in Banco, before Lord Campbell and Justices Erie,
Coleridge, Wightman, and Crompton.)
CRIMINAL INFORMATION AGAINST " THE TIMES."
The Queen on the Prosecution of the Hon. F. Scott Y.
W. Harrison.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL moved, on behalf of the Hon.
Francis Scott, azd some other gentlemen, for a rule
calling upon Mr. William Harrison, the printer and pub-
lisher of The Times newspaper, to show cause why a criminal
information for a libel should not be issued against him.
This application arose out of an article which appeared in
The Times, reflecting, as these gentlemen thought, and he
must say with truth, very severely upon their characters.
The applicants were the chairman and the directors of the
South Western Railway Company, and it was necessary for
him to make a short statement of the facts to which the
article referred. The South Western Company were the
proprietors of a line of railway running between Southampton
and. Dorchester. In the commencement of the year it was
proposed by the Great Western Cona,)any, whose line ran
through Dorsetshire from north to south, while the South
Western line ran from east to west, to make an application
to parliament for a bill to enable them to make a line be-
tween Dorchester and Exeter.
Lord CAMPBELL said an objection had been suggested by
the officer of the mart against moving fora criminal infor-
mation on the last day of Term. An application for a
mandamus, or a prohibition might be made, but he believed
it was the rule that the learned counsel could only mention
that he intended to apply for a criminal information.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said the rule had probably been
made when there was a pressure of business.
Lord CAMPBELL said it had existed from the most remote
times, when the Queen's Bench did not sit half the time it
might have done.
Mr. Justice COLERIDGE : It is probably on account of the
length of time before cause can be shown,
Lord CAMPBELL : There is another reason. This is a
very solemn proceeding, and it is supposed there may be a
great deal of hurry on the last day of the Term, and we
ought to have abundant time to consider before we exercise
the important power that is vested in us.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said the great object of his
clients was not to press vindictively against the newspaper,
but to to clear themselves.
Mr. Justice COLERIDGE remembered several instances in
which learned counsel had mentioned that they intended to
move. The attorney-general would would answer his pur-
pose by doing so.
Lord. CAMPBELL : We may consider whether the rule
ought to be altered, but while it remains in force we must
abide by it.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL might be allowed to say that
his affidavits contained the most complete refutation of all
the imputations contained in the article. After what had
fallen from the court, he would not now press his motion.
RESTORING AN ATTORNEY.
IN RE MARSHALL.—Sir F. Thesiger moved to restore
Mr. Marshall to the roll of attorneys of this court. In
1842, in consequence of a petition of the Law Society of
Birmingham, Lord Langdale had struck him off the roll of
the Court of Chancery. He had then removed with his
family tc America in order to practise there, and after some
time had undergone a perfectly satisfactory examination be-
fore two judges in that country; but he could not practise
in the States, as he had not been admitted as a citizen.
During his absence an application was made to strike him
off the rolls of this court, which was granted as a matter of
course. Since then he had been engaged in a series of
struggles and difficulties. He had contended with them for
a number of years, gradually regaining his character, till at
length the Law ociety of Birmingham themselves had ap-:
plied to the Master of the Rolls to restore him to the rolls of
the Court of Chancery, and the master had granted that ap-
plication.
Lord CAMPBELL.—As he was struck off by the authority
of that court, I think he may be restored by the same autho
rity. Rule granted accordingly.
The Queen v. the Justices of Lancashire.

Sir F. THESIGEx moved for a rule to bring up to this court
an order of sessions made in the month of June last, by
which it was resolved that a sum of £53 7s. 6d. should be
allowed out of the county rates to the treasurer, on account
of certain expenses, the origin of which he will now nar-
rate. It was made under very extraordinary circumstances.
Some time ago a complaint was made to the crown, as re-
presenting the Duchy of Lancaster, of the conduct of Mr.
Ramshay, who was the county court judge there.
A great deal of interest was excited by the case.
An inquiry took place at Preston, and the visiting
justices of the House of Correction then granted the use of
the court-house for the purpose of conducting the inquiry.
The chancellor of the duchy heard the charge, being at-
tended and assisted in that duty by his (Sir F. Thesiger's)
learned friend Mr. Ellis, one of the law officers of the
duchy. Counsel attended on behalf of the parties concerned
in the complaint and the defence. Several of the justices,
with their families, came to hear the inquiry conducted, and
as the sittings of the court were long, they thought it right
to order that refreshments should be freely distributed.
These refreshments were moderate in kind, though not in
extent, for they were only sandwiches and wine ; but, in the
end, the charge for them amounted to £53 7s 6d., which
was to be paid out of the county rates. The visiting justices,
after the inquiry was terminated, gave orders to the county
treasurer to charge that sum in the accounts of
the sessional expenses at Preston, anu in them it
was included. Tee treasurer gave in an abstract of
his accounts. The gross sum amounted to £287 odd, of
which the £53 7s 6d formed part. This sum was objected
to, and some motion was made than an application should be
made to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster to pay
it. That was negatived, and another motion that the trea-
surer should take measures to enforce the payment was
negatived. Under the 5 and 6 Vic., c. 50, the treasurer was
bound to send in an abstract of his accounts to the Secretary
of State, and that abstract was to be laid before parliament.
This was done, minus the £53 7s. 6d., and the accounts,
minus that sum, were allowed. Here the matter might
have been thought to terminate. But it appeared that there
was a proper rule at these sessions, that no business should
be transacted unless a pieVious notice of it had been given,
and notice was accordingly given of a motion on the subject
of this sum. The notice was by the chairman of the gene-
ral finance committee, that it be an instruction to the com-

mittee that steps shall be taken with respect to the sum o 1
£53 7s. 6d., paid under the order of the visiting justices,
and disallowed by the sessions in the treasurer's accounts,

Another was that. the resolution disallowing it be rescinded,
and that the sum be allowed in the accounts for the said
House of Correction. The first motion was made, and the

treasurer was ordered to apply to the Duchy of Lancaster
For the payment of this .sum, as expenses in holding the
nquiry, and the further consideration of the other motion
was postponed. Application was made to the Duchy Court,
and the answer was that the Chancellor of the Duchy would
pay for all that he and his assessor had consumed, but for
nothing more. The matter was again taken up, and a notice
of motion was given that the sum be allowed in the accounts.
This was negatived by a major f only. one. There was
auteriviirus a-cirelllar 1.55 LIOU in Jon oa,or a motion to
this effect, that the county treasurer be instructed to apply,
through the deputy clerk of the peace, to the Court of
Queen's Bench for a rule to show cause why he should not
be repaid the sum which he had expended. On that amend-
ment, which was in fact a substantive motion, was proposed,
that the sum of £53 7s. 6d., paid by the treasurer in virtue
of the order of two magistrates, be allowed him in his ac.
counts. The amendment was carried, and constituted the
order which it was the object of this certiorari to bring up
and quash. The gentleman who made this application was
a magistrate ; he had no personal interest in the matter ; he
had not partaken of the refreshments, and he always opposed
paying for them but at the county rates. He proposed that
they should be paid for by subscription among the magis-
trates, and though he was not present when they were
consumed, he had offered to subscribe for their payment.
Lord CAMPBELL : There is no question of any statute
authorising such an application of the county rates. The
rule must be granted.—Rule granted.
_Lumley v. Gye.—The Case of Mdlle. Wagner.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL moved for a rule to show cause
why a commission should not issue, addressed to the Royal
City
.of Berlin, or any of the judges thereof, or some person
appointed by them, for the examination of witnesses out of
the jurisdiction of this court, and in the meantime to post-
pone the trial of the cause. The action was brought by
Mr. Lumley against the defendant, for having induced
Mdlle. Wagner—
Lord CAMPBELL : We are perfectly aware of the nature
of the action.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said that, as their lordships
were aware of the nature of the action, they would fully
appreciate the value and importance of obtaining the evi-
dence of Miss Wagner and of her father, who acted for her.
The commission which had been issued was applied for by
the defendant. It was desired that the examination of the
_ _

witnesses should be viva voce, and therefore Mr. Hayward
proceeded to Berlin to execute the commission. On his
arrival there he was attended by the solicitors on both sides
and by counsel, Mr. Huddlestone and Mr. Creasy, and he
prepared to begin his labours. But difficulties at once
appeared, for Miss Wagner and her father took advice as to
the obligation which they were under to answer questions.
They were advised that they need not take an oath unless

the oath was administered by a judge of one of the Prussian
courts, or by some magistrate of the country, and they there-
fore declined to answer on oath ivhen the oath was admi-
nistered by Mr. Hayward. That gentleman accordingly
made an application to the Royal City Court at Berlin for a
judge to be appointed by the court to administer the oath.
A judge was accordingly appointed, and he attended and
administered the oath according to the Prussian law, these
witnesses having declined to take an oath according to the
English form.
Lord CAMPBELL : The form was of no importance. Any
form of oath binding on the witness would be admissible, and
the evidence given under it would be the same as evidence
given under the ordinary form.

TheArronNET-GENERAL proceeded : As the witnesses said
that they considered the Prussian form to be binding, Mr.
Hayward made no objection, and the examination proceeded.
After a few questions had been put, it was considered neces-
sary to ask Miss Wagner whether a certain document was
in her handwriting. On that question being put, the Prus-
sian judge interposed, and said that the question could not
be asked in that shape and at that moment, butthe document
must first be read and certain other questions asked as pre-
liminary to that one. Mr. Hayward objected to this interfe-
rence. The Prussian judge, however, said that he was the
judge to manage the examination, and:that he had the entire
and exclusive management of it, and that it was for him to
determine what questions were to be put, and he therefore
persisted in the course he had adopted. Mr. Huddleston
then protested. Mr. Creasy did the same, and the business
was suspended. The evidence of Miss Wagner and of her
father was absolutely necessary; and it had therefore become
a subject of consideration whether any other commission
would be sufficient to procure it. It had been thought that
if this Court would address a commission to the Royal City
Court of Berlin, it would not be difficult for that Court to
obtain the evidence_of these persons, and this application
was now made for that purpose. The statute relating to
these matters authorised such a course.—Rule to show cause
granted.

LONDON BAIL COURT.
The Queen v. Beresford and others.
Mr. E. JAMES moved in this case to postpone the trial of
this prosecution until next Hilary Term.
This was a prosecution against the Hon. W. Beresford
and ten other persons for a conspiracy arising out of the
Derby election. The indictment, which is for a conspiracy,
was found at the Central Criminal Court, and removed into
this court by certiorari at the instance of two of the defen-
dants, the Hon. W. Beresford and Mr. Huish. On the
removal of the indictment they were obliged to enter into
recognisances to plead and give notice of trial in this term,
which they had. duly done. Five of the other defendants,
George Richardson Cox, William Thomas Cox, John Cole,
Christopher Hibburd, and John Clark, however, did not
plead until the 21st of November, and it was, therefore, too
late to give them notice of trial for the sittings after term,
and therefore it would be impossible to try the case at those
sittings against-all the defendants, and it was most advisable
that the case should be gone into against all the defendants
at the same time. It was therefore proposed to call on the
five defendants, who had pleaded on the 21st of November,
to show cause why they should not take such notice of trial
as the prosecutor could now give, and calling on Messrs.
Beresford and Huish to show cause why the trial should not
be postponed, unless the other five defendants who had
pleaded as above should not consent to take such short
notice of trial.
Mr. Justice CROMPTON : What do you intend to do
as to the other five ?
Mr. JAMES : They have not pleaded at all, and we must
pursue another course as to them. There was another ge-
neral ground for postponing the trial which he must also
mention. By a resolution of the House of Commons, in 1818,
no officer of the house or shorthand-writer employed on any
committee of the house, is allowed to attend and give evi-
dence at any trial without the special leave of the house ;
and in this case it would be necessary both to have the evi-
dence of one of the shorthand-writers of the house and also
the production of some of the journals of the house;' and,
as the house was not now sitting, it would be impossible to
obtain the requisite leave of the house for their officers to
att end.

Sir F. THESIGER stated that he appeared for Major
Beresford, and begged to say that that gentleman had done
everything in his power to facilitate the trial of this case,
as he was most anxious to meet the charge brought against
him, and he begged to say he had no power or control what-
ever over the five defendants whose names had been mentioned,
or the others. He mentioned this in order that it might
not be supposed that he had anything whatever to do with
keeping them back. No doubt it was most desirable that
the case should be gone into against all the defendants at
the same time, and he therefore wished to say, on the part
of Major Beresford, that he was quite ready to assent to
any course that might be thought best. There was no
doubt that the leave of the house for the attendance of these
officers was necessary, therefore, perhaps, the best course
would be for the trial to stand over until Hilary term.
Mr. JAMES begged to say that he did not in the slightest
manner wish to impute to Major Beresford or Mr. Huish
the keeping back of the other defendants from pleading. He
was bound to say those gentlemen had done all that they
were called on to do, to put the case in a proper train for
inquiry.
Mr. Justice CROMPTON : I do not act on the notion that
there is the least attempt on either side to induce delay ; but
think the best course to pursue is to postpone the trial of the
case until Hilary Term, if it is consented to by the two de-
fendants who have pleaded in time.
Sir F. THESIGER expressed his assent on the part of Major
Beresford, and stated that Mr. Macaulay and Mr. M. Smith
appeared for Mr. Huish.
Mr. Justice CROMPTON said that if either of those gentle-
men would consent on the part of Mr. Huish, the rule would
be absolute at once to postpone the trial; if not, then a rule
nisi only would be granted.
At a subsequent period Mr. &mit came into court, and
stated he had no instructions in the matter; but he had no
doubt that Mr. Huish would consent to Cm postponement.
The matter then stood over, Mr. SMITH undertaking to
communicate with his client, and inform the officers of the
court of the result.

VICE CHANCELLOR'S COURT.
Jermy v. Jermy.—Dower.
This suit, which now came on upon further direction, was
instituted to administer the estate of Mr. Jermy, who was
murdered some time since by Rush. The widow of Mr.
Jermy elected upon his death. to receive one-third of the
rents and profits of the estates of the deceased gentleman in
respect of her dower, in lieu of having one-third set out by
metes and bounds. A portion of the timber on the estate
having been sold, and some fines having been received from
copyhold, a question arose between the widow and the heir
as to whether she was entitled to a third of the sum arising
from these two sources.
Mr. J. V. Prior and Mr. Prendergast represented the
parties interested.
In the course of the statement of counsel, it appeared
that it had hitherto been found impossible to let the mansion
house in which the murder took place, although the parties
were willing to allow a tenant to have it for two years rent
free.

The Vice-Chancellor held that the widow was entitled to
one-third of the copyhold fines and of the proceeds of the
timber.

ONE OF FERGUS O'CONNOR'S PLANS.
(Grflliths v. the Ofikal
_Manager of the National Land

Company.)
Mr. T. H. Terrell renewed a motion which he had
made on a previous occasion, to restrain the defendant
from issuing a writ of possession against the plaintiff, in
respect of some meadow land, part of one of the estates
formerly purchased by Mr. Feargus O'Connor, and called
"Lowland and Applehurst Farms." It appeared that the
plaintiff had worked upon the estate in question for Mr.
O'Connor, `und there being a large bill owing to him, the
amount of which was in dispute (he claiming upwards of
.€4OO, Mr. O'Connor admitting only n 75), it was arranged
that the plaintiff should take to some meadow land at Low-
land, at the nrice of 441)0_ ;f
account more was found due to him, Mr. O'Connor should
pay it, but if less, then the plaintiff should hand over the

_ _—
balance.
On the 9th July, 1851, a letter was written by O'Connor
to the plaintiff, as follows :
" Dear Griffiths,—You shall not be deprived of the
meadow-land; the ruffians at Lowlands have no power to
do so. But you mako a mistake when you say a balance of
4001. is due to you; it is only 275/.7 and I am prepared to
convey the meadows to you, though you have got them at a
much cheaper price than I paid for them, if you are pre-
pared to pay the balance.
Shortly after this an act was passed for winding up the
affairs of the company, and it being known that Mr O'Connor
had been dealinc, with the property in an improper manner,
and selling parts of it as his own, the act provided that certain
persons therein specified, who had got allotments, and others
who had purchased, sl ould be confirmed in possessiln ' • and
,that all those whom the Master in Chancery charged with
winding up the affairs of the company should find to be
bona fide purchasers, should be entitled to have the land so
purchased. _

The VICE-CHANCELLOR, after recapitulating tile facts,
granted the injunction; but stated that nothing that he had
said on the previous occasion was intended to lead to the
inference that the matter was not to go on before the master.
He thought it would be better that he should himself
communicate with the master, and explain his views.

EXCHEQUER CHAMBER.
The Queen v. Garret'.
This was a case reserved by Mr. Baron Parke for the
opinion of this court. The indictment contained several
counts. It stated that Sir Peter Laurie and others, trading
under the name of the Union Bank of London, were the
correspondents of Duncan and Co., of New York, for whom
they were in the habit of paying money. The firm had ob-
tained a circular letter of credit from Duncan and Co., upon
the Union Bank for £2lO. He came to London and ob-
tained some small sums, which were endorsed upon the let-
ter of credit • he then went to St. Petersburgh, and altered
the letter of credit to £5,210. He took it to Wilson and
Co. at St. Petersburgh, who were also correspondents of
Duncan and Co., and obtained from them two sums of f
£1,200 and £,2,500, and he gave them a cheque for £1,200