The Sun.
London, England, 1837-06-03 00:00:00

factory investigation of the charge. This was due to
the accused and due to the service. Now what is the
treatment which Col. Arthur and the military service
of the country have received in reference to this accu-
sation at the hands of Col. Bradley, and the Members
of the House of Commons who co-operate with him ?
The acts of cruelty, including that which which we
already mentioned, are said to have occurred between
the years 1818 and 1820. Why were they not brought
forward before the year 1836 ? Is it it fair ? Is
it honourable ? Is it just either to the individual
accused, or to the service to wh:ch he belongs ?
It fortunately happens that Colonel Arthur can
meet and repel the charges - thus brought against
him at the distance of almost twenty years from
the transaction, although the transaction is said
to have occurred in a distant climate not pecu-
liarly favourable to the longevity of witnesses He
has adduced evidence sufficient to enable his military
superiors to pronounce the accusation utterly false,
and to do complete justice to his reputation. But
suppose Colonel Arthur, from the death of witnesses,
or .any other cause, had not been able to meet the
charges now brought against him, after an interval of
eighteen or twenty years, would it have followed that
his accusers were entitled to credit ? Would they
have had a right even to be heard before an assembly
pretending to any respect for justice, or any regard for
the feelings and the honour of men employed in distant
colonies, whether in the civil or military service of the
State ? No. The answer to them should have been,
" You are too late in bringing forward your accusation.
It is more reasonable to suspect you of slander than to
suppose that such charges as you advance could have
been so long suppressed. To listen to you would be
to encourage fabricated charges, and to make the .cha-
racter and station of every public servant insecure."
This would have been the prOper answer to Mr. Dun-
combe's motion, had Lord Howick not possessed the
means of giving any other. And this is, in effect,
what Lord Howick did say, although, fortunately, he
was enabled to add to it much that must have been
highly satisfactory to the friends of Colonel Arthur,
and deeply humiliating to the accusers of that officer.
We wish that Members of the House of Commons,
however indifferent some of them may be to their own
reputation, would learn to be a little careful of the
feelings and character of other men. While accusa-
tions so unfounded as that against Colonel Arthur can
be stated in petitions to the House of Commons ; and
while Members can be found to present such petitions ;
and while the House of Commons insists, as a matter
of privilege, that nobody shall be legally responsible
for whatever it chooses to print, it seems to us that the
characters of the hundreds of millions of men who are
subjects of the King of England are exceedingly in-
secure.—Morning Post.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

HOUSE OF LORDS, JuNit 2.

APPEALS.-DONALDSON V. HALDHANI AND ANOTHER.

This was an appeal against a decree of the Court of Ses-
sion of Scotland, by which the appellant had been decreed
liable to make good to the respondents a loss which
they had suffered through his alleged negligence in the bu-
siness of a writer to the signet.—Judgment was postponed.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Jux.ro 2.
GOULD V. OLIVER.

This was an action brought by the shipper of goods
against the owner of a vessel trading between Quebec and
London to recover a general average for the loss of some
timber, which had been stowed on deck, and which was
thrown overboard in a storm ; and it came before the Court
now for argument upon special demurrer to the plea, rais-
ing the question whether, if a custom existed in the timber
trade of stowing the timber on deck, that would be suf-
ficient to form an exception to the general rule of law, that
for the loss of goods stowed upon deck the suffering party
was not entitled to contribution.

.Mr. Sergeant STEPHEN was heard on a former day in
opposition to the demurrer.
Mi. Sergeant WILDE now addressed the Court in sup-
port of it.
The COURT deferred their judgment.

PREROGATIVE COURT, JUNX 2.

REYNOLDS V. THRUPP AND THE EAST INDIA COMPANY,

This is a question as to certain unsigned testamentary
papers, propounded as together containing a codicil to the
will of Mr. Robert Mitford. The deceased died in Paris
on the 21st of April last year, leaving a real estate of some
value, personal property in England to the amount of 8.0001.
and personal property in India estimated at 80,0001.
He left a widow and a brother, the Rev. John Mitford, with
Mrs. Reynolds, the only next of kin. In 1828 the de-
ceased separated from his wife, and on that occasion a
settlement was made under which she had the interest of
20,000 sicca rupees for life ; and by a deed in April, 1835,
she had 6001. more for life. The will, which was not dis-
puted, was dated the 20th of July, 1835, of which Mr.
Henry Nevill Reynolds and Mr. Thrupp were executors.
The will,. which was in the testator's handwriting, recited
the provision made for the wife, and excluded the brother
of the deceased from all benefit. On the 24th of March,
1836, the deceased went to Paris, and shortly after
his arrival there was attacked with illness. On the 14th
of April Dr. Morgan, his medical attendant, by de-
sire of the deceased, wrote to his nephew, Mr. H. H.
Reynolds, to come to meet him. On the 19th the three
physicians attending the decea .ed suggested to the nephew
the propriety of speaking to the deceased on the subject
of his will, which Mr. Reynolds, out of delicacy, forbore to
do ; but next day, the deceased being considerably worse,
he did mention the subject to the deceased, add, by his
directions, in the presence of two of the physicians, he
wrote the papers propounded, which were to this effect :
The fi:st contained some statements dictated by the de-
ceased as to the bequests contained in the will ; the second
is ss follows :—" I make this a codicil to my will. Ann
(meaning his sister) and you (meaning his nephew and his
wife) must sink everything for your own use." The third
gave his servant, George Clienery, 1001. The papers are
propounded by Mr. H. R. Reynolds, and opposed by Mr.
Thrupp, one of the executors of the original will, and by
the East India Company, who, as appears from the above
statement, are greatly benefited by it.
The Cooler pronounced against the validity of the two
former papers, and granted probate to the latter one, to-
gether with the original will.

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY, JuNB 2.
MADAME VESTILIS'S BAMKItUPTCY.
- .

To-day was ;;Pointed for the second meeting of the cre-
ditors under the fiat awarded against Madame Vestris, but
the bankruptcy haring been superseded, no further business
took place to-day in this Court.
JOHN ROSE ANDERSON'S BANKRUPTCY.
_ _ _

The second meeting of the creditors under the fit issued
against Mr. Anderson, the brothenin-law of Madame Ves-
tris, was held to-day, for the proof of debts and the final
examination of the bankrupt.
Several additional proofs were adm:tted for bills of ex-
change accepted by Madame Vestris, but no point of inte-
rest occurred upon them. The bankrupt having signed his
balance-sheet, the Learned Commissioner said the state-
ment was cot upon the face of it very satisfactory.. There
appeared to be debts and liabilities against the estate to the
amount of nearly 10,0001., and the assets consisted of about
1,100/. of debts, some of which might be very doubtful,
and property only to the amount of 171. It seemed that
for about six years the bankrupt had lived at the rate of
1,000/. per annum. Ho (the Commissioner) wished to
know if the official assignee was satisfied with the accounts.
Mr. Whitmore (the official assignee) said the accounts
were undoubtedly not satisfactory to him. From the ba-
lance sheet of Madame Vestris it did not appear that her
estate was indebted to that of Mr. Anderson to the extent
stated. In other respects the accounts were not satisfac-
tory to him.
The Commissioner asked if the assignee, or any of the
creditors, objected to the accounts, and no answer in the
affirmative being given, the bankrupt passed his final exa-
mination.