The Sun.
London, England, 1830-06-26 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, JUNE 25.
BROCHLEBANK V. SUGRUE.

In this case several questions were mooted, buti
the only one which it became necessary for the Court
to decide related to the construction of the Stamp
lAct, with regard to policies of insurance where an,
alteration is made in the original destination or the
voyage.
The action had been brought against one of the
members of the late St. Patrick's Insurance Com-
pany in Ireland, on two policies, one on the ship
fiche, and the other on the freight of that ship.—
The risk first insured was at and from Liverpool to
Quebec, and by a memorandum at the foot of the
policies, two or three months after the insurance was
effected, the voyage was changed from Liverpool to
St. John's, New Brunswick. The question at the
trial was, whether this was a new contract which
required fresh stamp to the policies. Lord Ten
terden was of opinion that it was; and the plaintiff
was allowed to recover only on the premium paid
in respect of the insnre.rce on the freight.
A rule Nisi for a new trial having been obtained,
the case was now argued by Mr. F. POLLOCK and
Mr. Ilu'rcHlNsorr on the part of the plaintiff, and by
the ATTORNEY-GENERAL and Mr. CAMPBELL, for
the defendant.
The COURT, after a full consideration of the
various clauses in the Stamp Act, were of opinion
that no additional stamp was necessary, and there-
fore ordered the rule to be made absolute.
EX-PARTE GRIFFIN.
Mr. KELLY moved fora rule to show cause why
la criminal information should not be filed against
Lord Teynham end Mr. Hinde, his attorney, for a
libel on Messrs. Robert and Edmund Griffin, con-
tained in a letter published in the _Kentish Gazette
rnewspaper 'tithe 18th inst. The. subject of th
letter, the Learned Counsel observed, related to
certain proceedings which had taken place in the
Court of Chancery and Common Plea.. The pre-
sent Lord Teynham, conceiving he had a claim to
an estate of a gentleman named Tyler, filed a bill
in Chancery against Major Tyler, and amongst other
things prayed that an issue might be directed to a
court of law to try whether Henry, the twelfth Lord
Teynham, was of sound mind at the time he suffered
a recovery' of the estate in question. The attorney
for Major Tylor was Mr. Edmund Griffin, one of
the parties on whose behalf the present application
was made. It having been determined that an issue
should be tried, a good deal of negotiation took
place between Mr. Griffin and Lord Teynham's at-
torney, as to certain admissions to be made at the
trial. After considerable discussion, an arrangement
which appeared to be satisfactory to both parties,
was made, and the trial came on before the Lord
Chief Justice of the Court of Common Pleas and
a special jury in Octobe, last. A great
body of evidenc3 was produced on both side,
and the trial, which- occupied three days, ter
urinated in a verdict for the defendant, the jury
not waiting to hear the whole of the Learned Judge',
,summing up.: In the following term, Lord
Teynham applied to the Court of Commor
Pleas, by his counsel, for a rule to set aside
the verdict and for a new trial. The motion
was made on several grounds, but the one on which
alone the Court granted the rule was, that some ac-
counts of a deceased steward of the late Lord Teyn-
ham had been improperly received in evidence. The
argument upon the rule came on in. the course of
the last term, when the Court, without hearing the
;defendant's counsel, thought proper to discharge the
rule.- A few days after the rule had been disposed
of, an account of the proceedings appeared in the
Kentish Gazette, and Major Tyler having seen it,
and observed some inaccuracies relating principally
to matters of a technical nature, and to some points
of law, not at all involving any question as.to the
character or conduct of any of the parties, wrote to
his attorney, Mr. Edmund Griffin on the subject, re.
xplesting he would send to the editor of the news-
paper, and get them corrected. Mr. Griffin accord-,
ingly wrote to the editor, pointing out the inaccu-I
racies alluded to, and having seen in the Mornin..f:
Chronicle newspaper a correct report of the proceed-
ings, he sent that paper to the editor of the Roches-
ter Gazette, and requested him to correct his report
by inserting that from the Morning Chronicle. The
'editor inserted Mr. Griffin's letter, which Container]
no imputation against Lord Teynham, whose name
was not mentioned, nor himself or his family alluded
to. A short time after this letter appeared, a letter,
bearing the signature of Lord Teynham, and sent to
the editor through Mr. Hinde, his Lordship's attor-
ney, was published in the Kentish Gazette. It pur-
ported to be an answer to Mr. Griffin's letter, and
,began thus:—" Having rend in your paper of June
I, an article signed Edmund Griffin,' relative to my
late trial, in an ejectment in the Common Pleas,
against Major Tyler, and as the object of that ar-
ticle is to prejudice the future proceedings in this
important cause, I rely upon your candour, and upon
your impartiality, to insert also my statement. I hope
I shall not he wrong in stating who this Edmund Grif-
fin is, and how he becomes interested in these proceed-
ings. I am informed that he is the son of a waiter
at Brookes' Club, and that his father either kept or
frequented a hell, where Tyler, the father, was a
frequent visiter. There a connexion began, which
ended in the marriage of Tyler's eldest daughter, by
the youngest Miss Roper, with this Griffin's bro-
ther. He is now dead, and. the young woman mar-
ried - again to John Cook, son of the footman . and
lady's-maid Kitty, so often mentioned in that trial.
It is therefore a family connexion of Griffins and
Tylers against me." It tlaen proceeded to make a
most unwarrantable attack upon the defendant's
Counsel in the cause. The Learned Counsel would
not trouble the Court with any more of the letter,
hut proceed to state generally the affidavits which
the two Alr. Grans had made in support of the