The Sun.
London, England, 1855-05-24 00:00:00

HARRISON V. BUSH.-JUDGMENT.

This was an action trial for libel, tried at the last
Somerset assizes, in which a: verdict was given for the
plaintiff, damages 20s. The plaintiff is a magistrate of
the county of Somerset, acting in the Frome division,
and the defendant is an inhabitant of that borough ; and
the cause of action was a memorial, signed by the defen-
dant and about 200 other inhabitants ,of the bo-
rough, addressed to Lord Palmerston, as Secre-
tary of State, calling on his lordship to remove
the plaintiff from the Commission of the peace, in col -
sequence, as the memorial alleged, of his having incited
the public to a breach of the peace at and during the
late election for that borough. For the defendant it
was contended this wa3 a privileged communication,
which was replied to by the plaintiff that if so it should
have been addressed to the Lord Chancellor, who alone
had the power to remove a magistrate from the commit-
skin of the peace.

Lord Campbell, in delivering the judgment of the court,
said they wt.ro not called on to decide how far en
honest mistake made by a person seeking redress sub-
jected him to civil or criminal responsibilities. After
greet deliberation, the Court, however, was of opinion
that the defendant had made no mistake in taking the
course he had adopted ; and although had he addressed
the memorial to the Lord Chancellor, it would have been
a privileged communication, it was equally so by being
addressed to the Secretary of State. It was a fallacy
to suppose that a Justice of the Peace was made or
removed by the Lord Chancellor, similar to that of
the appointment and removal of County Court Judges.
A. Justice of the Peace could only be appointed
or removed legally and constitutionally by the Sovereign
acting on her prerogative by the advice of a responsible
minister, and the commission of the peace and the ap-
pointment of justices was in point of law as much the
act of the Sovereign as the appointment of judges and
the granting the commission of Oyer and Terminer, and
the removal of judges was before they were made irre-
movable except by the joint address of both houses of
Parliament to the reigning Sovereign. The Secretary of
State was a responsible adviser of the Crown, and her
Majesty had an interest in this matter, in so far as she
had a desire to see justice administered to all of her
subjects, and consequently she might receive through
him such communications as were for the good
of the parties interested. In this case the inhabitants
might have suffered a grievance by a magistrate foment-
ing a riot instead of quelling it, and life and property
thereby endangered instead of protecting it, and it
would be their duty to see that such conduct should be
inquired into. Under the circumstances they were of
opinion the verdict should be entered for the defendant,
and as the jury had found that the defendant presented
the memorial bona fide for the purpose of obtaining re-
dress, the Court was bound to say he was not a libeller,
and gave judgment in his favour.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.
IMPORTANT PROMISSORY NOTE CASE.

FORBES AND OTHERS V. FISHER AND OTHERS.

The Court gave judgment upon this case this morning
after hearing the remainder of the arguments which
were not concluded yesterday.

Mr. Wiles and Mr. Boviil showed cause against the
rule, and Sir F. Thesiger and Mr. Bramwell supported it.
The Lord Chief Baron said the Court was of opinion
that the rule ought to be discharged. The facts were
very simple ; the action was brought upon promissory
notes or bills of exchange, and the defence set up at the
trial divided itself into three points, which points he
(the Lord Chief Baron) had reserved not so much
on account of their difficulty as upon an agreement
between the counsel oa either side. The amount at
stake was considerable, and, it was contended, there was
a decision which bore upon the question, and which
would exonerate the defendants. The court granted a rule
to show cause on three points, one being with regard to
the authority of the directors under the deed, another
was with respect to the form of the note as regarded the
expression used respecting it, and the third was that the
signature to the note, it was said, was not that of the
firm of drectors. On all these points the Court was of
opinion, however, that the objections made werein-
valid, and the rule must accordingly be discharged.
Rule discharged.

THE DERBY BAL MASQUE.—Last night the enterpris-
ing lessee of Drury-lane Theatre gave, in honour of the
Derby-day, a Bal Masque, on a scale of magnitude ar,d
expense never before attempted. Mr. Smith was, this
time, bold enough to adopt a style of decoration which
we believe is new to our theatres on these eventful even-
ings, and the result was that, although the company
were not dazzled by glass curtains and those unrivalled
gas lights which, under the management of Jullien, had
the effect of throwing even the most brilliant costume
into the shade, the area was illuminated in a most taste-
ful and inspiriting manner. The fronts of the boxes were
ornamented with festoons of flowers and statuettes, each
representing a figure known to the votaries of Terpsi-
chore, whilst the lights which illuminated a large por-
tion of the promenade, were so arranged as to display
tulips, dahlias, and other floricultural beauties. The
greater portion of the company did not appear in cos-
tume. The masquerade was, nevertheless, tolerably
well supported, and the, amusements were kept up till a
very late hour.