The Sun.
London, England, 1830-02-11 00:00:00

LONDON, THURSDAY EV.

On
,Wednesday next will be published,
AN ENQUIRY into the CAUSES and
REMEDIES of PAUPERISM.

SERIES 1,2, and 3

By the Right Hon. 11. WILMOT HORTON, M.P.
Series I. will contain Correspondence with C. Poulett
Thomson, Esq. M.P., upon the conditions under which
Colonization would be justifiable as a national measure.
Series 2. Correspondence with M. Duchatel, Author of
an Essay on Charity; on the Practicability of Successful
Colonization ; on the Propriety of Considering any National
Outlay for that Object as an Economy instead of an Ex-
pence, and upon Erroneous Notions respecting the "filling
up of the vacuum." . .

Series 3. Letters to Sir Francis Burdett, Bart., 'ALP.
on the Relations between Landlord and Tenant in Ireland ;
on the Character and Effect of Protestant Church Pro-
perty upon the Condition of the Irish Tenantry; on the
authority of Lord Bacon and others, who have been cited
as opposed to Colonization ; on a Roman Catholic Petition
against the Sub-letting Act ; and on the Ratio of Mortality
in the Irish Emigrations of 1823 and 1825.

Series 4,5, and 6, which will conclude the Enquiry, will
be published on' the Ist of March.

Printed for Edmund Lloyd, 57, Harley-street, London ;
and aold by all other Booksellers.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, FEE. 10.
REEVES V. SCOTT.
In this case a rule nisi for a new trial had been
granted. The action was brought by Mr. Charles
Reeves, an attorney, against the defendant, James
Scott, for a malicious prosecution, he having indicted
the plaintiff for perjury in swearing that he (Scott),
who had been a clerk in the office of Messrs. Frowd
and Rose, attornies, wed had the management of a
cause of " Murray v. Reeves," in which Messrs.
Frowsl and Rose were concerned as attornies for
the p!..intiff Murray. The present action was tried
at Guildhall before Lord Tenterden in February
last, when the plaintiff obtained a verdict with 100!.
damages. The present rule to set that verdict aside
was obtained on two grounds,—first, misdirection on
the part of the Learned Judge and next, that the
verdict was against evidence.—Rule discharged.
THE KING V. MURRAY.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL prayed the judgment
of the Court upon the defendant (Mr. John
Murray, the bookseller, of Albemarle-street), who
had been convicted, as the publisher of a book en-
titled The Annals of Jamaica, of a libel on Louia
Celeste Lecesne and John Eschoffery.
Mr. Murray having appeared on the floor of the
Court,
Lord TENTERDEN read his notes of the trial, con-
taining the libel and the facts, which we reported on
the 21st of December last.
The affidavit of Mr. Murray stated that he was
first applied to to publish the work in question (the
author of which was the Rev. George Wilson
Bridges) by a gentleman of high character and sta-
tion in society, who made a favourable report of it
to him ; that it having been introduced to him by
such high authority, he omitted to examine its con-
tents before publishing it, and was not aware that
it contained any matter of a libellous nature ; that
he was unacquainted with any of the facts relating
to the history of the prosecution, or to the pro-
ceedings alluded to in the libel ; and that the first
intimation he received that the hook contained a
libel was by the chance communication of a friend,
who told him that an indictment had been preferred
against him; that he immediately caused 671
volumes of the work to be withdrawn from circula-
tion, and removed all the copies in his possession
from his house to his warehouse. He stated, in
conclusion, that he regretted he should have been
the means of publishing a statement that was un-
true, and calculated to wound the feelings of the
prosecutors.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL, for the prosecution,
had affidavits from Mr. Lecesne and Mr. Esehoffery,
the two persons whose characters had been attacked
by this publication. Those affidavits contained a
succinct history of all the transactions alluded to in
the libel, and gave a direct contradiction to all the
matters affecting their character. He should not
however, trouble the Court to hear the affidavits
read. Messrs. Lecesne and Eschoffery had no re-
sentment towards Mr. Murray : they had instituted
the present prosecution in order that, before their
return to Jamaica, their characters might be cleared
from that odium which this publication was calcu-
lated to cast upon them. Mr. Murray had done
that which became his character, and had made
every reparation which the prosecutors could expect
or require. Mr. Lecesne, anticipating that course
of conduct which Mr. Murray had adopted, had
requested him (the Attorney-General) to beg that
the Court would inflict a very slight punishment,
or impose merely a nominal fine on Mr. Murray,
whose great respectability they and he (the Attor-
ney-General) most fully acknowledged.
Mr. Justice BAYLEY told the defendant that the
sentence of the Court was, that he should pay a
fine of one shilling. " The Court," added his
Lordship, " joins in the observation made by the
Learned Counsel for the prosecution, that you con-
ducted yourself with great propriety, as soon as you
were apprized of the improper tendency of the work,
or any part of it."
Mr. Murray then paid the fine and withdrew.

NOTARIES—EXPARTE RIDGEWAY.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL had obtained a rule to
show cause why a mandamus should not issue, di.
rected to the Scriveners' Company of London, com-
manding them to admit Mr. Foxcroft Ridgeway to
be a member of that Company, with a view to his
being made a Notary Public.
Mr. CAMPBELL now showed cause against the
rule. This Company was one of the most ancient
Companies of London, and they were called Writers
of Court Letters to the City of London. They,
were incorporated by the Charter of the 14th of
James the First, and allowed to make bye-laws,
which they did ; and these bye-laws were approved
by Lord Bacon and other eminent lawyers. By one
of these bye-laws it was provided that no one should
be admitted a member of the Company without hav-
ing served an apprenticeship of seven year; to a scri-
vener anti member of the Company, and nndergoing an
examination as to the fact of his having done so. By
an Act of the 41st of the late King, cap. 89, persons
applying for faculties to become notaries, were
bound to show that they were members of the
Scriveners' Company, and had served seven years
with a notary, or with a member of the Scriveners'
Company, being a notary. Mr. Ridgeway, on the
29th of July last, applied to be admitted a member
of the Company with a view to his obtaining a
faculty to become a notary, but the Company re-
fused to admit him, and the reason was this :
From the examination of the applicant himself, and
of Mr. Phalli) Drake, with whom he had done
business as a notary, it appeared that the applicant
had entered into the service of Mr. Drake, a
notary, on the 19th June, 1822, and had con-
tinued to do business with him ever since. But
then during the whole or a great part of that time he
acted as a clerk to the Messrs. Hopkinson, bankers,
in Regent•street, and his attendance was from the
hours of nine in the morning till five in the after-
noon, and it was only after five in the afternoon that
he attended at Mr. Drake's office ; and the whole of
the notarial business which he did was to present
i
bills as a notary n the evening, which he had presented
in the morning as a banker's clerk. The object of
the Act was to provide, that persons who became
notaries, should be experienced in the business; and