The Sun.
London, England, 1862-06-04 00:00:00

Why don't Glasgow name his horses? I suppose
he's a Pcedobaptist. As for Warminster, if it isn't
a mistake for Westminster, where the Abbey is,
you know, and Parliament, only Parliament's all
at :Sp6om to-day. Warminster's a winning kind of
name, only you don't win with your name, except
when you are a Lord, and want to be be married,
and as for an Ensign, why, my brother Bill's an
ensign, and he can't run a bit. To be sure that
right, because a British soldier—Bill's an officer,
but the moral is the same—l say a British moral
officer ought not to run, and then Exchequer, what
a name. I've heard of runs on the Exchequer,
but never of an Exchequer running, though Mr.
Gladstone runs on any time. Fancy Mr. Gladstone
running for the Derby, quite inconsistent, I should
say, and he had better be taking offtaxes than squan-
dering his time down here, drinking champagne,
which is sure to disagree with him, and make him
fractions, like a baby when you give him rhubarb
on your finger, though I dare say Mr. Gladstone's
champagne is not of rhubarb, and indeed he is not
here, which accounts for it, besides Exchequer be-
ing scratched, Neptunus is the same as Neptune,
who was the god of the inferior regions, and, if so,
he must be an inferior horse, and not likely to win,
though he struck the earth, and carried off Porcu-
pine to be queen down there. Stop, was her name
Porcupine or Prospero ? It could not have been
Prospero, because I have seen Mr. Macready play
that, but then, to be sure, it was a revival, which
is different. Also, I think it was Plato, at least I
know somebody reasoned well, and therefore he
may win after all, for there goes eggs to the roast-
ing of reason. No, you can't roast reasons, though
you may bake raisins—something wrong there.
Malek was the name of Mr. Codta's opera, and I
remember that did not run, so perhaps this will
not, and if he does not run ho can't conduct an
opera, which Mr. Costa can, nobody better ; and
here is St. Alexis. Putting a saint in a race, what
Puseyism ! I suppose that's in compliment to Mr.
Gladstone, who has no business here at all, he
hasn't, and indeed he is not here, for it would not
do to have a horse-racing Lord Chancellor, who has
quite enough to do to feed his seals. Stop, though,
the seals feed him, I have heard—l must ask Dr.
Solater the next time I see the theological gardens
—they call'em that because fellows go there on
Sunday. Well, that's about all, and I should like
to sneeze. Eh ? But I haven't prophesied, after
all. Well, that's ridiculous enough. Prophesy,
let's see, I'm to foretell what is to come, that is,
what is to come to the post, and come first. Well,
noblesse oblige, don't you see? It wouldn't be the
thing for me—living under his roof, don't you see,
at least you don't see his roof, and I don't live
under it, except when I'm acting, but the moral is
the same. I mean that it wouldn't do, you see.
Eh ? 0, why you must see that I only prophesy
one way—it would be a bad compliment to our
American cousins—at least, he isn't an American,
nor my cousin, but performs that part, which ac-
counts for it. I couldn't mention anybody but
Buckstone. I want to sneeze.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.—June 3.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.

(Sittings in Banco, before Lord Chief Justice Erle,
and Justices Williams, Williams, and Byles.)

TOWNE V. DANIELLS-LIBEL.

The plaintiff in this case was a solicitor at Rams-
gate, and the defendant was a dissenting minister
and lecturer in that town. In December, 1861, the
plaintiff was employed by Messrs. Volckman, con-
fectioners in London, to collect a small debt due by
the defendant for confectionery, which had been
supplied upon his order to start a poor woman in
business ; and the plaintiff first wrote a letter de-
manding payment, and having received no answer,
issued a writ. The defendant before the service of
the writ paid the plaintiff the debt, and ss. for the
letter, and afterwards wrote to Messrs. Volckman
saying what he had done, and referring to the
plaintiff, added, "He has not had the civility to
send me any acknowledgment, and, not being igno-
rant of his antecedents, I have felt it best to give
you information that he has the money." The
plaintiff claimed damages, contending that this was
a libel upon him, but at the trial before Mr. Justice
Keating a few days ago the verdict was for the
defendant.
Mr. Edward James now moved for a rule for a
new trial, and stated that in addressing the jury he
submitted to them that the words used imputed
dishonesty to the plaintiff; and his lordship, in
summing up, left it to the jury to say whether the
words had this meaning, but did not tell them that
even if the words did not mean this they might still
be libellous. The jury, under these circumstances,
might have been under the impression that it was
only in the event of dishonesty being imputed that
an action would lie, and it was submitted that this
amounted to misdirection.

The Lord Chief Justice said the judge left to the
jury the question whether the words bore the
meaning which the plaintiff's counsel contended for;
and the great complaint was, that the defendant's
counsel having contended for a more favourable con-
struction, the judge said nothing to do away with
the effect of this. Certainly this did not amount to
misdirection.—Rule refused.

COURT OF PROB ATE AND DIVORCE.
(Before Sir C. Cresswell.)
DYKE T. WILLIAMS.
Dr. Wambey, on the part of the defendant, who
claims to be nephew and next lawful heir to the late
Mrs. Elmaley, who was murdered about two years
ago at Stepney, applied to the court to direct the
Queen's Proctor to allow bis client to inspect cer-
tain documents in his possessioli. The papers in
question had been transferred from the custody of the
police to the hands of the Queen's Proctor, and this
inspection was necessary to enable his client to
establish the legitimacy of the deceased, and prove
his own pedigree.
Dr. Spinks opposed the application.
Sir C. Cresswell said that this was a very vague
application, as no particular papers were specified,
and the object of the applicant appeared to be to
have a roving commission to inspect the brief of the
opposition side. He felt bound to refuse the appli-
cation.
Dr. Spinks said that the papers in question were
in the hands of the Court of Chancery.
WADDELL V. WADDELL.
In this case the wife petitioned for a divorce on
the ground of cruelty and adultery, and the case
stood over for judgment. The facts have been
already fully reported.
Sir C. Cresswell now decided that the case had
been fully made out, and pronounced the decree
nisi, with costs.