The Sun.
London, England, 1837-01-30 00:00:00

VICE-CHANCERY.-(THIS DAY.)

The VICE-CHANCELLOR took short causes today, none of
which were of the least public interest.

EXCHEQUER COURT.-(THIS DAY.)

BROWNE V. SLOWMAN.

Mr. J. BACON applied in this case for liberty to amend the
answer of the defendant, by inserting a skin of parchment
which had been omitted by mistake when the answer was sworn
and filed. There was an affidavit of the defendant of the fact
of the skin of parchment being accidentally omitted in the an-
swer, and there was an affidavit of the solicitor that no altera-
tion whatever had been made in the omitted skin.
His LORDSHIP granted the application.

KING'S BENCH.-(THIS DAY.)

THE KING V. FERRIN.-CRIMINAL INFORMATION.

The ATTORNEY. GENERAL had been instructed to move for
a rule to show cause why a criminal information should not be
filed- against Robert Perrin, proprietor of the Leeds Intel-
ligencer newspaper for a libel. The application was made
upon the affidavits of Messrs. Clapham, Musgrave, and Lin-
coln, three Magistrates of the borough of Leeds, who stated
that there had been a riotous procession in the streets of that
Own, and on that occasion one man in particular was suffering
from the ill-treatment of the mob, weo were dragging him
violently along the streets. The tumult had risen to such a
height, that it was at length thought necessary to call in the
assistance of the police, and one of the body, named Grim-
shawe, took a very active part on that occasion, and succeeded
in rescuing the man from further ill-treatment. The mob im-
mediately commenced an attack upon the policeman, and the
man was rescued from the policeman's protection in conse-
quence of the riotous conduct of a person named Clapton.
Grimshawe very properly made a representation of all the cir-
cumstances, to his superior officer, and the result was, that an
investigation, which lasted three or four hours, took place be-
fore the Magistrates, and the offender Clapton was convicted
of the rescue, and fined in the penalty of 205., which was sub-
sequently paid. Shortly after this occurrence, a most per-
verted and garbled account of the investigation appeared in
the newspaper in question, stating that the Magistrates gal-
loped through the investigation—that two of them quitted
the Court while it was going on—and the third was
engaged in a frivolous conversation, and paid not the
least attention to what was going forward. This was
followed up by a leading article upon the same subject,
in which it was stated that the Russell Magistrates were glory-
ing in fulfilling their functions, and were unblushingly sacrific-
ing the duties of their office to party purposes ; that justice
might no longer have a bandage over her eyes or hold scales
in her hands, with other slanderous insinuations to the same
effect. He (the Attorney-General) had the affidavits of the
three highly-respectable gentlemen who made the present apL
plication, in which they totally deny the charges made against
them—that they in no way neglected their duty, but were
guided by the most impartial feelings in the decision they had
come to, and had acted to the best of their knowledge and
judgment. He did not recollect a grosser attack made upon
Magistrates in their judicial character, nor one which more
promptly called upon that Court for its interference.
Lord DEN MAN said that the Court did not think that it

ought to grant the present application. Great inconvenience
would arise from the practice of entertaining applications that
might be resisted upon preliminary grounds.—Rule refused.

COMMON PLEAS.-(THIS DAY.)

CORNISH V. KEEN.

The rule which had been obtained in this case was discharged
to-day, the Court being of opinion that there was nothing to
warrant them in granting a new trial.

RANSOM V. DUNDAS AND OTHERS.
This was an application on the part of the defendants to
vary the judgment entered up by the plaintiff as to certain
costs. The plaintiff, it will be recollected, obtained the
Speaker's warrant for 4,000/. to defray the costs incurred be-
fore the Ipswich Election Committee, when the defendants,
Messrs. Dundas and Kelly were unseated. An application
was made to this Court for leave to enter up judgment on
the Speaker's warrant, which application was "granted, and
judgment entered up accordingly. The plaintiff, however, in-
e!uded in the judgment the costs of the application to this
Court ; and it was to set aside the judgment, as far as related
to the 'costs, that the present application was made by the de-
fendants.

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE, after shortly referring to the
facts of the case, granted the application, with liability to the
pl&ntiff to amend.

COURT OF REVIEW.-(THIS DAY

WESTMINSTER IN RE MARKLAND.

Mr. Francis blarkland lent to his son Edwin 1,0001. on his
promissory note payable with interest, in order to enable his
son to purchase the house and business of a chemist and drug-
gist in Yarmouth, and at the same time signified his intention
of exonerating the son at the time of the father's death from
all liability to his (the father's) representatives, and he men-
tioned also orally and by letter repeatedly, that he would in-
sert such intention in a codicil to his will. The son pur-
chased the house and business, and on his father's solicitation
he passed a bond in live years after to exclude the promissory
note from :the statute of limitations. On one occasion the
father visited the son, and induced him to incur expenses in the
alteration of his shop to the amount of 600/. The father died
and made no allusion in his will to the 1,000/. The son be-
came a bankrupt.
Mr. BETHEL, for the executor of the father, applied to have
this:sum from the son's estate.
Mr. SWANSTON, for the assignees of the son, resisted the ap-
plication on the ground thlt the repeated declarations of the
father made the 1,000/. a free gift.
The Court said that the assignees had not a shadow of right
or reason to resist the claim.

CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT.
(THIS DAY.)

The Right Honourable the LORD MAYOR, accompanied by
the RECORDER, Aldermen JOHNSON and LAINSON, the Sheriffs,
&c., this morning opened the business of the present Session.
The Grand Jury having been sworn,
The RECORDER proceeded to address them. He said, the
calendar contained the names of a considerable number of pri-
soners, and, unhappily, many of the cases were of a very se-
rious character. There did not however appear, upon looking
into the depositions, to be in any of them any difficulty of a
legal description on which the advice of the Court might be
required ; but if such became necessary, however the Court
might be constituted, at the time every assistance should be
cheerfully afforded them. He should trouble them with a few
observations upon some of the cases. There were, he ob-
served, two charges which fell within the terms of an Act which
made the attempt to wound, or fire loaded arms with intent to
do a grievious bodily harm, a capital offence; and if the in-
strument used were a blunt instrument, but yet capable of
effecting such an object, it equally came within the meaning of
the statute. A prisoner named Penruddock having undergone
an examination before medical practitioners, and being dissa-
tisfied with the result, was charged with having, under feelings
of great excitement, struck several blows on the head of one
of the persons engaged in examining him. In considering
this case it would be important for the Grand Jury to inquire
with what kind of an instrument the blow was inflicted, and
whether it was used in such a way as to leave no doubt
that the intention of the prisoner was to do a serious
bodily injury. As far as' he (the Learned Recorder)
could collect from the depositions, as well as from
information otherwise obtained, the instrument used was a life-
preserver—an instrument which received that name, though
its tendency was exactly of an opposite nature from that which
the word imported. If the jury were of opinion that the pri-
soner's object was to endanger the life of the person, or do
a serious bodily injury to him upon whose head he dealt forth
his blows, they should not hesitate in putting the case in the
way of further investigation. There was a case of a person
named Jonathan I3ailley, who was charged with the wilful
murder of his wife. There would be laid before them evi-
dence of the previous bad treatment of the prisoner to the
deceased, but no eye-witnesses could speok to that which was
the immediate cause of her death. There would, however,
be placed before them the dying declaration of the unfortu-
nate woman as to the circumstance, and this the law al-
lowed, upon the principle that a person supposing himself at
the point of death, and on the brink of eternity, could have no
motive to induce a departure from the truth in the slightest
particular, and would have every reason to give a faithful ac-
count of the cause of his approaching dissolution. If, then,
a declaration implicating the husband appeared to have been
made by the deceased, and if the evidence of the surgeon
who examined the wound after death tended to the belief that
from it death resulted, they should find the bill, and thus put
the matter in the course of a more deliberate inquiry. There
was a case with the particulars of which he need not trouble
them, that of the prisoner Pegaworth for the murder of
Ready. He feared in this matter the jury would have no dis-
cretion, and would be obliged to present a bill for the full charge.
There was also a serious case (for unhappily the calendar con-
tained many of them) in which the Captain of a vessel was
charged with the murder of one of his crew. It was stated in
the depositions that the treatment of the deceased by the pri-
soner was such as to cause his death ; and while on the one
hand it was their duty to protect masters of vessels in the ex-
ercise of that authority which was necessary for the due navi-
gation of their ships, they should,'on the other, take care that
the discipline should not be such as to endanger the lives or
the health of those who were subject to it. From all the cir-
cumstances of the case to which he alluded, he feared there
was too much reason to apprehend, at least, that the conduct

of the accused repaired explanation. The Recorder having
adverted to the case of Mr. Kelly, charged with firing at a
policeman, concluded his address by recommending the Jury
to pay great attention to the consideration of every case, that
so the ends of justice would be attained, and the interests of
the public duly attended to.