The Sun.
London, England, 1837-12-22 00:00:00

nd perused it. With respect to the charge, regarding
Mr. Keely, Mr. Daniel in his plea re-stated the charge—
nd, in an aggravated form, he affirmed that Mr. Dun-
combe " swindled Mr. Keely out' of 2001;." whereas the
fact was, that every shilling had been honourably paid.
As to the proceedings in Chancery, the Learned Attorney-
General said he would call before the Jury his Honour the
Vice-Chancellor, and Mr. K. Bruce, who would state the
Mature of the proceedings. With regard to the charge relat-
ing to Mr. Keely, he would leave his Learned Friend, Sir
W. Follett, to make it out as he could—( A laugh)--and let
Lim call the witness whom Mr. Daniel had stated he could
produce' •to sbustantiate that charge. He (the Attorney-
General) was not reasonably to be expected to call that wit-
ness. If his Learned Friend did, be (the Attorney-General)
pledged himself, upon the documents and the evidence which
would be submitted to the Jury, to prove that the 2001. had
been honourably paid by Mr. Duncombe to Mr. Keely, in the
manner which he had before stated. But he conjectured that
Mr. Daniels would not venture to call any such witness—that
Le would discreetly trust to the ingenious eloquence of his
Learned and able Counsel. If so—if he (the Attorney-
General) were thus deprived of an opportunity of proving
the falsehood of these charges—be must call upon the
Jury to consider seriously what damages they would give
to Mr. Duncombe. Of course that gentleman did not
wish to turn this action to profit—but it was of the last
importance to him that a Jury of his countrymen should,
by the amount of the damages which they awarded in his
favour, manifest their opinion of the falsehood of these charges.
Gentlemen," (concluded the learned Attorney- General,)
"in your hands I most confidently leave this case. I know
not the political sentiments of a single individual among you:
what is more, I care not. It would not give me one mement's
uneasiness to know that all of you had voted for Mr. Perceval
at the last Finsbury election. I address gentlemen ; I address
Englishmen. Happily pillitical feeling is unknown here.
Juries—without any regard to their political opinions, or the
p‘litical opinions of the parties—look to the evidence as laid
before them, and upon that evidence give a verdict on which
they can satisfactorily reflect. It is for you, gentlemen, to
nay what damages shall be given to an English gentleman who
has been thus most infamously calumniated—who has been
denounced as a convicted swindler' and a baffled "
The letter of the 22d July, from Mr. Daniels to Mr. Dun-
cembe, was then put in.
The letter containing the alleged libel was then put in
and read.
Mr. THESSIGER said these letters were admitted by the de-
f to have been published by him in the Morning Post
of tie 24th and 25th July.
Joseph Haynes, clerk to the petitioner's attorney, produced
trace copies of the bill and affidavits in the suit in Chancery,
.3une,onbe v. Sort. He heard Mr. Knight Bruce make the
notion, and after stating who the defendant was, and without
mentioning the name of the plaintiff, he handed up the brief to
Lis Honour the Vice-Chancellor, who appeared to read the
affidavit, and the injunction was granted on the payment of
5501. into Court. Witness paid the money into Court that
The injunction was dissolved on the 21st July, and on
t at day lie received from Mr. Duncombe 7001., making alto-
Le her 1,0701. which he paid over.
Cross-examined by Sir Wss. FOLLETT.—Had been in the
mA.yment of Mr. Carland two or three years; all that time he
4 Mr. C.) bad acted as Solicitor for Mr. Duncombe. Had
trot been crq,a4ed in the action brought by Mr. Surr against
Duneonibe. Witness believed that he had given instruc-
tions for the drawing of the in Chancery—it was drawn
up by Counsel. The affidavit was prepared by Mr. Carland.
lie si to Mr. Kni2ht respecting t'.e motion, but he did not
desire him to abstain from mentioning the name of Mr. Dun-
c The bill was p:epared in order to prevent Mr. D.
f.om being an ested. When he paid the money into Court,
lie get the minutes, and he belie red notice was served upon
Nr. Sun's Solicitor, but he did rot s rye it himself. When
toe injunction was diss.lved, he rave notice of it to Mr. Dun-
combe, and he than got the money from him at his Chambers
i.l Albany.

Edwin Harris, examined by Mr. THESSIGER—He was a
clerk to Mr. Carland, and made the affidavit, v.ll;elh ii filed in
tipa prol:cr office, very she: by after One o'clock, on Wednes-
19th July. Could Dot swear that it was before Two
o'clock, bat it was before the office shut.
Mr. Haynes recalled—Said tt,:o affidavit office shut at Two

c'e:oek.
The affidavit of Mr. Duncombe, trade in the Court of
Chancery in the cause " Duncornkt v. Surr," was pia in and
read.

M. John Garland, attorney to the pi had acted
in that capacity about four ;ears. Witness took out
s, summons on the 13th July for a stay of proceedings,
upon payment of 3-161., which was seven shillings in
the pound upon the two bids-. That was the whole
r‘mount which Mr. Surr had advanced upon the biiis. Mr.
:Murray, solicitor fur Mr. Surr's trustees, waited upon him,
and said he would oppoa the summons. Witness told him
that he took out the summons with a view to ulterior pro-
ceedings. After the injinction was dissolved. he took out
:another summons for a stay cf proccedii.gs upon the payment
cf 1,000/ , which was paid. The bill was drawn by Mr.
Thomas Chaudless, the Chancery-barrister, upon an affi-
davit of Mr. Duthie, which contained the fact. Witness
ave instriictions that the motion for the injunction should
iye made at the rising of the Court, as that was considered
-I,e best and most convenient time L-that was the usual course.
When. the injunction was granted he caused notices' to be served
un the Shezitf of Middlesex, and upon Mr. Murray. Witness
vas ii court on the Friday when Mr. Jacob moved to dissolve
the injunction, on the ground that at the moment the injunc-
tion was moved for, the affidavit was act on the file.., Witness
aidmitted the fact, and the injunction was dissolved on that
g and.
Cross-examined by Sir W. FCT.I.RTT—First knew of the
:action brought by Surr on the 13th July, when Mr. Duthie
Balled upon him with an affidavit of the facts. He knew that
Suer hod compounded with his creditors, but he was not
.ware that he was not at all beneficially interested in the Bill.
- Witness sent to Mr. Duncombc the affidavit to be filed without
liaving previously sent him any draught, because the bill was
prepared on an affidavit of which Mr. Duncombe was aware.
At the bottom of the bill now put into witness's hand, the
~.cords " I do not think this bill can stand," is in the writing
olf Mr. C'nandless. When Mr. Knight made the motion in
-the Vice-Chancellor's Court, his Honour did not make any
remark upon the difference between the bill and the affidavit.
Witness swears that he (as a solicitor and attorney) did not
think the allegation struck out of the affidavit, and re-
tained in the bill was material to the case. Witness
.lid not hear the Vice-Chancellor ask if the allegations
n the bill were supported by similar allegations in the
&davit. Mr. Jacob did say in the course of his address
1 the Vice-Chancellor that a passage which appeared in the
Ili/ was omitted in the affidavit. Witness did not know that
•• be passage omitted was the one upon which he had just now
een questioned. Other passages were omitted.—[ On re-
lerring to the affidavit witness found that there was no
wither passage omitted, but that in places particular
-a, /or& were omitted or altered.]—Had now no doubt-
hat the passage alluded to by Mr. Jacob was the passage on
-tchich he (witness) had before been questioned. The Vice-
-4#7.lancellor remarked that the passage omitted in the affidavit
,was in the document which had been handed up to the Court.
"Witness said that Mr. Knight had handed to his Honour the
b Hof he held. His Honour did not seem to be indignant at
w hat occurred. He was not more excited than usual ; but
Ire did say that if he had known that the affidavit had not been
Wed he would not have granted the injunction. Mr. Richards
r cad an affidavit made by Mr. Murray, stating that the latter
vas by accident in Court when the affidavit was read, and that
wun going afterwards to the Six Clerks Office he found that the affi-
41avit had not been filed. Witness did not know at that time that
the statement of Mr. Murray was true ; but he found the fact
to be that the injunction was granted before the affidavit was
tiled. The Vice-Chancellor said that after hearing that fact,
he would hear no more of the case. His Honour did not say,
-that to mark his sense of the impropriety of the conduct pur-
aed, he would discharge the injunction, with costs, of course.
On the application of Mr. Richards, the money paid in Court
-was detained as security for costs. Witness had had inter-
views with Keely and Bentley—had examined them, but did
:mot take their depositions in writing. Had inserted these
ribtf tements in his brief. Had heard something of the destruc-
ttion of a check by Mr. Duncombe. Had directed that Surr
:should be subpcened, as well as Keely and Bentley. Had not
rtaken Serle's examination in writing, except so far as his
;admission that he had voted for Mr. Duncombe.

Re-examined by the ATTORNEY-GENERAL.—The witness
:had offered to:Murray (Surr's solicitor) to pay down 3501. on
-the part of Mr. Duncombe. Witness had the money at his
...command at the time. Murray refused to accept it.
Front the factsistated in Mr. Duncombe's affidavit, witness be-
hoved that the latter was entitled to the relief which he asked
of the Court of Chancery. Witness stated that opinion to
Mr. Duneombe and Mr. Duthie. Mr. Duncombe never saw
the Bill which had been filed in the Vice-Chancellor's Court.

. [We shall give the Conclusion in a Second Edition.)

The Dowager Duchess of Beaufort will return to
town on Saturday from a visit to the Hon. Mr. Ryder, at
Westbrook. Sir Walter and Lady Mary Farquhar will return
rto town the same day from Lord Calthorpe's seat in Bucks,
where they have been passing the honeymooon.
_ _

Lord and Lady Granville Somerset left town yester-
day for Badminton, on a visit to the Duke and Duchess of
Ecaufort. Lord and Lady Fitzroy Somerset left the previous
clay for the same destination. The Duke of Wellington,
Lord Ellenborough, and a large party are expected in the
course of next week, when their Graces will give a most
splendid ball to their guests and the nobility and gentry of
Gloucestershire.

Mr. Hope, M.P., is entertaining a family circle,
and other friends, at the Doepdene. Lord and Lady Beres-
ford, the Bavarian Minister, and the Baroness de Cetto, have
;eft town to join the party. Mr. and Mrs. Adrian Hope will
.heave Fulham to pass the recess at the splendid seat of the
_Hon. Member.

Lord Henry Russell, we regret to state, continues
snclist,osed at Haslar Hospital, from the effects of his recent
Lac:cider, t. His Lordship was going out to the Cape of Good
Hope station as Lieutenant of the Melville flag- ship, when the
/disaster in,-urrcd. Dr. Mortimer, of Hasler, is in attendance
•on the Nobie Lord.

. -
Chatsworth will be very gay during the holidays,
accordilig to custom, open house will be kept by the
-.Noble host, who will not return to Devonshire ILuse until
.aster.
The Clarence Club have just purchased the large
:house opposite the Carlton Hotel, in Regent-street, which
:formerly belonged to Sir William Blicke. It is to he fitted
"up as a new Club-house, and they will remove to it as scon as
--she necessary alterations and decorations shall have been
"wire !sled. It is a large and elegant mansion.