The Sun.
London, England, 1830-11-29 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.-(THIS DAY.

ROLLS' COURT.
the Honour the MASTER of the ROLLS was occupied the
whole of the morning with liirthez directions, which possessed
not the slightest public interest,

VICF....CHANCELLOR'S COURT.
This being the last day of Term the Court took motions to-
day, but no cause of any importance came before his Honour
previous to our reporter's leaving.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.
CONTINUED ILLNESS OF MIL ALI). CROWDER.
At the sitting of the Court this morning the Recorder of
London appeared to move the Court on behalf of Alderman
Crowder, the late Lord Mayor of London, that the time that
had been allowed him to deliver in the accounts of his late office
might be enlarged to the end of next term.
Mr. Baron BAYLEY—Lot the order be enlarged to the tid day
of next Term.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH.
At .the sitting of the Court this morning, his Royal Highness
the 'lake of Cumberland and Lord Eldon took the Oaths of Al,
legiance and Supremacy, as Peers of the realm. They afterwards
subscribed to the Declaration required by the Act of Perlis.
mene for granting Catholic Relief that they would not use any
influence they might possess by virtue of their office as Privy
Councillors, to the injury of the Established Church.
CRIMINAL INFORMATION—LIBEL.
THE NINO V. HARRISON.
Sir JAMES SCARLET"', on a former day, obtained a rule,
calling on Mr. Harrison (the defendant) to show cause why a
criminal information should not be tiled against him, for having
published in a newspaper called the Hampshire Telegraph, at
Portsmouth, of which paper he is editor and proprietor, a false
and malicious libel, reflecting on the character and reputation of
a l&l;.tlriljaenanTraNsvrgil ER (Mr. FOLLETT with him)
appeared this day to show cause against the rule.. The Learned
Counsel stated that Mr. Harrison was the Proprietor of a Weekly
Newspaper published at Portsmouth, and that the alleged libel
was published in that paper in the shape of an advertisement ; by
his affidavits, however, he most strongly denied that he had any
idea that it applied, or was intended to apply to Mr. Padwick—
that he received the offensive communication from Chichester
during the time a contested election was going on in that
place. He considered it one of the squibs that passed on such
occasions. He (Mr. Serjeunt Merewether) therefore hoped that
the Court would be of opinion that this was not a case that
called for its extraordinary interference. Mr. Padwick did not
fill any public situation, and therefore ought to have appealed to
the ordinary tribunals of his country, where a Jury would have
been hest able to decide whether or not the offlnitive names and
terms applied to Mr. Padwick. Mr. Harrison positively denied
that they did.
Lord TENTERDEN—If the rule is made absolute, then the
case must go before a jury. Does any one join the defendant in
his affidavits ?

Mr. Serjcant MEREWETHER—yes, my Lord, he is joined
by two gentlemen, who state that they do not believe Mr. Pad.
wick to be the person alluded to in the libel, and the Court will
also observe that Mr. Padwick confines his denial of the charges
to certain parts, there are many portions of the article to which
he does not attempt to give an answer. He does not swear that
he is the person meant, who was represented as jockeying, de-
ceiving, and defrauding his Partner, but ho chooses rather to
give a general denial.
Mr. Juhtice PAIME—The charges are of a general kind,
and in my opinion, of a must serious nature. I remember well
the libel.

Mr. Serjeant MEREWETHER must submit, that a more de.
finite answer ought to have been given to the imputations The
defendant went on in his affidavit to state, that be had been the
Editor of the paper in question for a period of 40 years, during
which time it had never been made the vehicle of personal
abuse, or had it ever been prosecuted for a personal libel. That
ho received the communication by post, and was talking with a
gentleman in the shop when it arrived, to whom he showed it,
and it was their united opinion, that it was a mere election
squib, and he in consequence inserted it in the paper in
the minion and ordinary course of business, and without
the slightest idea or wish to injure the feelings or reputation of
Mr. Padwick, whom he had known for thirty years as a most
respectable man ; and that, on the following week, in his paper,
he expressed the most sincere regret that be should have given
publicity to the article, and added, that being an advertisement,
he did not examine it so minutely as he otherwise should have
donee; but he again declared that lie had no idea it alluded to
Mr. Padwick.

Lord TENTEUDEN—AIe must know it applied, and was
calculated to wound the feelings of some one or another. Ad-
vertisements were not paid for if it was not to answer some par.
ticular purpose i and no one could doubt the intention of the
author of the libel, which, ►aid his Lordship, I consider a very
bad one.

Mr. gerJeant MEItEWETHEII—The defendant had done all
in his power to counteract the mischievous tendency of the pub.
lication, he had expressed his most sincere regret, and therefore
ought not to be put to the great expense of that mode of pro.
seeding; and In ordinary• cases it was contrary to the practice of
the Court to grant criminal informations, (but generally reibsed
them), unless the parties applying tilled some public situation,
or the offence vies one likely to provoke a breach of the public
peace.
Lord TENTEIMEN—What is the situation lit life of Mr,
Padwick ?

Mr. Serjeant MEREWETHER— He is a very respectable gen.
tleman, was formerly an attorney, but has now retired on his
property, and resides In the Isle of Wight. But he is not a Ma.
gistrate, neither does lie fill a public office of any kind. He
therefore contended that it would be contrary to the rules of
the Court if the rule should be made absolute, as the defendant
had committed no criminal offence.
Lord 'r ENTER DEN—I consider it a very immoral o&'nce,
and one of great magnitude, for a person to libel and slander
another whether he knows who the party slandered is or does not.
Sir JAMES SCAR LErr was about to argue in support of the
rule, when

The COURT interfered. and said there was no necessity. The
libel, no doubt, was one of a serious nature, and they considered
that Mr. radw►ck was clearly entitled to the protection and as.
sistance he asked fur from this Court.
The rule for a criminal information was made absolute.