The Sun.
London, England, 1852-11-08 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGEIVCE-(THIS DAY.

QUEEN'S BENCH.
CRIMINAL INFORMATION—CROLL V. TALUS.
Sir Fred. Thesiger said he was instructed to move for
a rule to show cause why a criminal information should
not bo filed against Mr. John Tallis, printer and pub-
lisher of St. John-square, Smithfield, for a libel which
he had very extensively circulated against Alexander
Croll, who was one of the Sheriff's of the City of London,
and joint Sheriff for the county of Middlesex. Mr.
Croll was a very considerable shareholder in the Great
Central Gas Consumers' Company, which was incorpo-
rated by Act of Parliament in 1851. He was also en-
gineer to
ncompany, and supplied it with gas which
wasine manufactured
e
the
tured bya process for which be had obtained
g
a patent. It appeared that Mr. Tallis had employed the
company to supply,hina with gas for some time, but hav-
ing discontinued dealing with the company, an action
was brought against him for the arrears due by him
for gas, end that action was pending when the
libel was published, and continued to be so still. Mr. Croll
was elected Sheriff on the 30th of August last, during
his absence from London; and on the 30th of September
he gave his inauguration dinner at the London Tavern.
fie was first made aware of the publication, by a letter
which he received on the 22d of October last, enclosing
the handbill or libel of which he complained. On the
following day he saw an advertisement in the Times
obani
isdsthaiemnrtp,ism:,
Messrs.eat intimating
adthdTar
etaslFse inreer mroenipgtibyhte
to
oeen
receipt
newspaper, headed, "Important to every gas consumer in
gratis,tthe
knagtpdtohosen:
postage
mwo of
Mr. Croll
roohi
by the Great Central Gas Con-
sumers' Company, on
that he
theh e 28thwa s
n taware September,of laBnsy2. a
dNd
roews
s,
having been published by the company, at all reflecting
on Mr. Tallis, and that, therefore, ho could neither be
directly nor indirectly, a party to such a production.
The libel in question was very extensively circulated,
and in a form which was likely to make it very attrac-
tive, because it was accompanied by notices of certain
cheap publications which were issued by Mr. Tallis.
The learned counsel then read portions of the alleged
libel. Alluding to the growing cry of dissatisfaction.
among gas consumers, it went oil to say that the engineer
of the Great Central Ccmpeny, who held 125 shares, and
and that they would have to resort to a little more lying,
also the directors, began to tremble for their investments,
boasting, and chicanery, in order to make the increased.
cost of their gas, compared with that of other companies,
less gross and apparent. Mention was then made of tho
clique of hungry speculators, who had contrived to make
their contractor Sheriff, and of their having
d stated beenp an yti
II: sued
called into aid a Sheriff's dinner, at the
London Tavern, for the purpose of promoting the views
of the company. The article next insinuated that Mr.
Tallis had no chance of a fair trial, as Mr. Croll had
been elected sheriff, because as he was not unacquainted
with the node of cooking accounts in joint-stock com-
panies, it vas just possible he might cook the jury panel.
Lord Cempbell—lf there is any charge that Mr. Croll
had cooked accounts, there would be a good ground for
a rule.

Sir Frederick Thesiger—That is not directly charged
against him, but it is insinuated that ho is not unac-
quainted isith making fraudulent and deceptive accounts,
and the in'erence is raised that ho would so utterly dis-
regard his responsiblo duties as Sheriff as to unfairly
strike the
,ury panel.

Lord Cm:lPbell—The office of Sheriff is ono of great
responsibiity and peril, and of great importance to the
public, and the Court thinks that Mr. Croll is entitled
to the protection of the law. I presume, of course, that
be denies my improper interference with the accounts ?
Sir Frecerick Thesiger—So entirely, that he says he
had nothieg whatever to do with the accounts, which
are auditec by persons appointed by the Corporation of
London.

Lord Campbell—You may have a rule, but this case
is not to be taken as a precedent for the Court inter-
fering in matters of dispute between shareholders and
directors.

Sir Frederick Thesiger—l can only say that if this
case had been merely one of that description, wo would
not have trespassed on the Court by making such an
applicatior.
Rule granted.

The proceedings in the Bail Court, the Court of
Exchequer, and the Court of Common Pleas, this
morning, were entirely devoid of interest except to the
parties concerned. The Bail Court only sat two or
three minutes.