The Sun.
London, England, 1830-05-06 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, MAY 5.
EX PARTE 'YM. HOLMES, ESQ.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said he had to apply
to their Lordships for a rule to show cause why a
criminal information should not be exhibited against
Charles Molloy Westmacott and Ann Durham, for
publishing a libel in a newspaper called the Age on
the 28th of March last. He made the application
on the part of William Holmes, li*q., a gentleman
who was well known. He was a member of the
House of Commons, and Treasurer to his Majesty's
Ordnance. He (the Attorney-General) would read
to their Lordships the passage in the newspaper be-
fore he stated the mode in which he brought home
the connexion with the Paper to the parties against
whom he moved. It purported to be an answer to
an article published in the Courier Newspaper, and
was in these terms :
" About a fortnight ago the Courier put forward, upon
the best. authority, a statement that Prince Leopold was
determined not to guarantee the payment of the Greek
Loan; and, on another occasion, that Capo d'lstria was
taking measures to embroil matters in Greece. These re-
ports, particulArly the former, had, of course, great effect
'upon the Greek stock, which tumbled down 7 or 8 per
cent. in two or three hours, and they have never entirely
recovered since. It is now pretty generally believed that
the whole is a lie from beginning to end, got up for stock_
jobbing purposes ; and the Courier, finding itself somewhat
in ill odour in consequence, endeavours to brazen it out on
Friday night as follows." Then the article purports to
quote some passages from the Courier Newspaper thus
With respect to the article of the 18th of March, we re-
peat that the information it contained was derived from a
good authority on the spot. We believed the statement at
the time, and we continue to believe it now." The writer
in the Age then resumes. He says—" No doubt it wAs
derived from very good authority on the spot,—that is, on
the spot of the Courier office,—a most excell,nt authority,
and an old and well-known Greek he is.—(Laughter.)—
In plain English, the article was written, actually written,
by the illustrious Billy Holmes himself, the identical whip-
per-in of the House of Commons. That was the eminent
authority, the magnificent Billeyholmesios, a Greek of the
island of Sligo.—(Great laughter.)—And Willirm, having
done this feat, marched off to the Stock Exchange, and
began doing a bit in Greeks for himself, when he had them
at the due point of depression, and will eventually make a
good thing of it. This is all very well for Holmes, but it
is not quite so well for the Courier. The people about it
ought to recollect the scrapes it got into in Mudford's time
in this way."
This was the libel. He (the Attorney-General) had
first of all the affidavit of Mr. Holmes himself,
which stated that he knew nothing of the article in
the Courier; that he never wrote any such article,
nor any thing like it ; and that he never, either di-
rectly or indirectly, made any communication to.the
editor of the Courier respecting, any such transac-
tion as that to which the article referred. He
stated, further, that he had never been the holder
of any Greek stock or other foreign stock ; that he
had never speculated in foreign stock; that ha was
never, to his recollection, in the Stock-Exchange,
and certainly never there for any purposes of busi-
nes. There was, therefore, no pretence for this
article as applicable to him. Mr. Holmes also stated,
that in his capacity of Treasurer of his Majesty's
Ordnance, large sums of money passed through his
hands; and he conceived, therefore, that such an
attack as the present affected him the more seriously;
besides which, it involved a charge, basely false,
of corrupt dealing with the public money, and au
endeavour to obtain money by unfair means. The
other affidavits stated the manner in which the two
parties against whom the present application was
directed, were connected with the Age newspaper.
In the affidavit at the Stamp-office, Ann Durham
was stated to be the publisher and sole proprietor,
and her name only appeared at the office. The affi-
davits as to Charles Molloy Westtnacott stated these
facts :—A short time before the publication of the
libel, Mr, Westmacott having met at Drury-lane
Theatre, Mr. Scanlan, of the Courier-office, re-
ferred to the article which had appeared in the
Courier, and said he knew that it was written by
Mr. Holmes, and he (Westmacott) meant to publish
an attack on him (Mr. Mimes) for it in the Age.
Mr. Scanlan assured him that Mr. Holmes knew
nothing about the article, and recommended him to
be cautious in what he did. Mr. Scanlan the next
day mentioned what had passed to Mr. Macintag-
g art the editor of the Courier, and he being ac-
quainted with Mr. Holmes, thought it right to ap-
prise that gentleman of what Mr. Westmaeott had

str,ted. Mr. Holmes told Mr. Macintaggart, that if
any thing should be published on the subject alluded
to, and his name made use of, it would meet with
his disapprobation, and desired him to express his
intention to prosecute. Mr. Macintaggart accord.
ingly mentioned this to Mr. Scanlan; and Mr. West-
macott having called at the Courier-office again, a
conversation took place between him and Mr.,Scan-
lan, who told him that the statement that Mr.
Holmes was the writer of the article to which he
had before referred was false, and he had Mr.
Holmes's authority to say so; adding, that if, after
this, he thought proper to publish any thing re-
specting Mr. Holmes, he would do so at his peril.
Mr. \Vestniacott said he would rather lose 1,0001.
than not publish the report he had heard; and that
he could depend upon it, as he had had it from an
eminent person. He then asked for the Courier,
in which the article referred to had appeared, and
Mr. Scanlan having refused to let him have the pa-
per, he said he should go to Peele's coffee-house
and copy the article from the tile there. These facts
were stated in the affidavit of Mr. Scanlan; but in
'ease they should not be thought sufficient to show
that Mr. Westmacott was the author of the libel,
he (the Learned Counsel) was provided with three
other affidavits. In one of. them the deponent
stated that he had been employed to serve Charles
Molloy Westmacott and Ann Durham with a sub-
poena :n a suit in Chancery;—that he . understood
they lived together as man and wife, and that Ann
Durham, on being served with the process, an-
swered to the name of " Mrs. Westmacott." The
affidavit also stated that Mr. Westmacott, in the
answer which he put in to the bill in Chancery,
swore that he was conductor and editor of the Age:
and there was, besides, the affidavit of a short-hand
writer, who had been present at a trial in the Court
of Common Pleas, in which Mr. Westmacott was
examined as a witness; and it stated, that on that
occasion, Westmacott swore that he was the con-
ductor of the paper in question. These facts, the
Learned Counsel submitted, were sufficient to fix
Mr. Westmacott with responsibility for the article
complained of.—Rule nisi granted.

INSOLVENT DEBTORS' COURT, MAY 5.

IMPORTANT DECISION IN FAVOUR OF CREDITORS.

A rule was made a few days ago, calling upon the
London Dock Company, and a person named Gif-
ford, who was in 1823 discharged in this Court, to
show cause why the sum of 761. 104. should not be
paid by the London Dock Company in discharge of
the debts of Gifford. The circumstances of the case
were these :—ln 1822 a sailor, named Sweeney,
lodged at the house of Gifford, who was then a
cow-keeper and milkman, in \Yapping-, and being
about to go on a voyage, the sailor empowered Gif-
ford to receive his monthly money during his ab-
sence, so as to form a fund for him on his return.
When he returned to England he found that Gifford
had received about 301. for him; but Gifford refused
to pay it over to him, and the poor fellow was
obliged to bring an action for its recovery, in which
he succeeded in getting a verdict. The debt and
costs amounted to 76/. 10s. It now appeared that
the insolvent Gifford omitted all mention of the
lease of his premises in his schedule, and that his
premises having been required in the London Dock
improvements, a compensation Jury had lately
awarded him 2201. for the lease, and 2501. for the
good-will. The former was not at present payable,
owing to the title not being completed, but the Lon-
don Dock Company were prepared to pay the 2501.
The seaman, upon hearing that Gifford was likely to
receive a large sum of money, caused a notice to be
served on the London Dock Company not to pay
any money to the insolvent, and now made this ap-
plication, calling on Gifford and on the London
Dock Company to show cause why the latter
should not pay the amount of debts on Gifford's
schedule.

Mr. WOODROFFE, on behalf of the seaman, was
heard in support of the rule obtained on a former
day; Mr. CRESWELL appeared for the London Dock
Company; and Mr. COOKE for the insolvent.
The COURT, after hearing the arguments of all
the Counsel, ordered the sum of 761. 10s. to be paid
by the London Dock Company out of the funds in
their hands belonging to Gifford, to the assignee, in
discharge of Gifford's debts to the sailor, who had
himself been appointed assignee by the Court at the
hearing in 1823.
Thus by means of this Court an insolvent, dis-
charged so long ago as 1823, has been made to pay
20s. in the pound on all the debts in his schedule
out of property subsequently acquired.

SHAKERLY'S DIVORCE BILL.

HOUSE OF LORDS, MAY 5.

The examination of witnesses was resumed in this
Bill to-day.
Mr. Hubert, proprietor of the Hyde•park hotel,
'being examined by Mr. ADAM, stated that Mr. and
Mrs. Shakerly were in the habit of frequenting his
hotel. In 1826 they resided there for six weeks,
and occupied three apartments.
H. Williams had been for many years acquainted
with Mr. and Mrs. Shakerly. He called to see them
in July, 1826, at the Hyde-park hotel. On enter-
ing the sitting-room he saw the Marquis de Har-
rare coming out of another room (which witness
described). It appeared from the plan and the ex-
planation of Mr. Hubert, that the apartment out of
which the witness saw the Marquis coming was the
betl-room which Mr. and Mrs. Shakerly occupied.
Witness saw Mrs. Shakerly coming. out of the same
room, immediately after the Marquis, but by a dif-
ferent door.

William Derby had been acquainted with Mr.
and Mrs. Shakerly since 1817. He had lived with
them at Boulogne for three weeks, and as far as lie
had an opportunity of judging, the parties h,id lived
very happily together. He had seen them at Paris,
where they had lived at the house of the Duke
D'Arany, the father of Mrs. Shakerly.

After some further immaterial evidence,
The LORD CHANCELLOR said that he thought the
case had been sufficiently established.
On the motion of the LORD CHANCELLOR, tht
second reading was fixed for Monday next.

A meeting of the county of Edinburgh was
held on Frith), last to consider the Bill now before Par-
liament for altering the Scotch judicature, when it was
unanimously resolved that a committee be appointed to ex-
amine the contents and probable effect of the Bill, and to
report upon it, and any matter connected therewith, to the
er()LCLE ii, theßCtYnU:'ting in July next ; and that the Duke of
BeccLEUQH, LORD LIEUTENANT, and Sir GEORGE
CLERK, the member for the county, be requested to use
every means in their power to prevent the Bill passing
into a Law this Ses,oon, in order that tints might be given
for the full consideration of a measure of so much im-
portance to the people of Scotland.

A short time ago, a small spaniel bitch, be-
longing to Mr. JOHN COCKETT, of Small Gains, Dengie,
in this county, had a litter of puppies, which were soon
after consigned to a watery grave. The mother, thus
bereaved of the objects of her maternal tenderness, placed
her affection on a young duck, about a week old. The
hitch devotes the whole of her time and tenderness to her
little charge, and flies with great fierceness at other ani-
mals of the canine species, on their too closely approach-
sng her protegee. The young duck nestles under her
foster mother, evincing great attachment to her, and run-
ning to her for protection whenever apprehensive of din-
gen.—Essex Herald.

Steam-boats were not in general use in England
until the year 1814, although they had been known
in the United States of America some years previous
as public means of conveyance.
The following return will show the gradual in•
crease of that wonderful invention in this country:—

Years.

Vessels.

Tons.

Men.

The gradual increase, therefore, from the year
1811 up to 1830, is 331 vessels, making 30,566
tons, and employing 2,870 men. Of this number,
about 170 ply up and down the river Thames, be-
ween London, Gravesend, Margate, Ramsgate,
Newcastle, Leith, Calais, Boulogne, Ostend, Ham-
burg,and St. Petersburgh; the finest of these vessels
belong to the General Steam Navigation Company,
on board of which every accommodation is offered
to passengers.