The Sun.
London, England, 1853-12-08 00:00:00

LA W INTELLIGENCE.—Dec. 7.

EQUITY COURTS.
(Before Vice-Chancellor Sir W. Page Wood.)
HUGHES V. LIIIILEY.
Mr. Bolt and Mr. Freeling moved for an injunction
to restrain the defendant from surrendering or doing any
act whereby the lease of her Majesty's Theatre. -might
become forfeited. They admitted that since the filing of
the present bill, and the notice of motion, an affidavit had
been sworn by Mr. Lumley, denying that he ever had
any such intention, but they contended that the plaintiff,
who was a creditor to the amount of 9,9001., and had no
other security but the lease in question, bad ample reason
to imagine that such had been Mr. Lumley's intention ;
and if so he ,was entitled to the costs, even if the court
should not makeany order on the motion. Besides the
plaintiffs claim there were judgments entered up against
him by other persons, the whole amounting to 40,0001.
And, in June, 1853, an action of ejectment. was brought
by the plaintiff, and other creditors, and in Nov. 1853,
a verdict given for the plaintiffs in that action, subject
to some questions reserved as to the invalidity of the
deed on the ground of usury, the allegation made being,
that some of the aivancee were at 600 per cent. The
plaintiff, in his first affidavits, alleged that a threat had
been made by the professional adviser of Lumley, to the
• effect that if Hughes succeeded in retaining that verdict,
lid would lose his money, which he construed into a
threat of intention to surrender the lease. The Defen-
dant and his solicitor, in the affidavits in answer, denied
ever having made any- such threat, and it was then
stated that the person alluded to was Lumley's leading
counsel imthe action at law, That gentleman had re-
' fused to make any affidavit, but sent a letter to the
counsel who appeared for Mr. Lumley, stating his
readiness iio., attend, and answer any questions that
might be put to him, and explaining the circumstance
alluded to by saying, that after the trial, as he was leav-
ing the coon, Hughes came up and spoke to him, and
that he said to him that he was sorry for the course he
had taken, as it might end in his losing his money, but
h? denied Wit he ever intended to intimate that Lumley
thought of surrendering or forfeiting the lease, and that
he had never heard such a thing hinted at ; but he al-
luded to, thecitiestion of usury which would arise on the
security. It was, however, contended, that looking at
the perilous eituation in which the plaintiff stood as to
security, a v,eryyslight thing . would be sufficient to
arouse his suspicion, and, justify him in coming to the
court.
Mr. James and 'Mr. Chas!. ROuPell, for the defendant,
contended that there was no ground whatever for the
application,' that the whole thing was a malicious at-
tempt to injure Alie defendant in the eyes of the world ;
that the allegations contained in the affidavits on the
other side, as to the insufficiency of the security, and as
to the non-payment of the rent and rates and' taxes, and
as to the defendant having allowed insurances to drop,
so as to work a forfeiture, were untrue, the fact being
that the plaintiff himself was now in possession, and had
paid these sums.
. The Vice-Chancellor said, the only question about
which he had ever felt any doubt was about the costs ;
lie could certainly make no order on statements so vague
as those in the original affidavit. He was quite satisfied
that Mr. Lumley- had never expressed or authorised
any one else to express any such intention as was im-
puted to him. But the question of the costs depended
on the reasonableness of the plaintiff's application, or
the evidence that he had. Looking at the insufficiency,
of the security, and the other circumstances surround-
ing the, case, he considered that very slender evidence
would. be sufficient to justify the plaintiff. He was not
surprised at the counsel refusing to make any affidavit,
and he had. wished to hear the contents of the letter for
his own satisfaction, with a view of considering whether
any further evidence was likely to be produced. Under
all the circumstances he should reserve the costs ; pro-
bably in the end the plaintiff might have to pay them,
but still he might establish his case. He regretted the
mass of irrelevant matter that had been introduced into
the affidavits.

LTJMLEY V. HUGHES.

This was a bill filed by the defendant in the last case
against the plaintiff in that case to be relieved from the
securities which had been given.
Mr. Freeling, on behalf of the defendant, now moved
that the plaintiff might give security for costs on the
ground that he was described in the bill as of " Her
Majesty's Theatre that not being his proper residence.
It appeared by the affidavits, that on inquiries being
made there, the answer was that Mr. Lumley was not
there, and on asking whether papers left there would
reach him, it was said that a man called sometimes for
letters, but that he had not been for a fortnight ; and it
was further, stated, that the plaintiff.was keeping out of
Ole way tafavoid his creditors. The affidavits on the
other side stated•that the plaintiff occupied a house No.
1, Pall-mill,"*hich formed part of the theatre ; but, in
reply, it was stated that that was a separate house, held
at a separate rent, under a separate lease, and it was ad-
Milted that he had not been there since the Opera was
closed, which was a year and a half ago.
- .Mr. James and Mr. Charles Roupell, for the plaintiff,
relied upon the case of " Hunt v. Padwick," before
Lord Cottenham. The theatre was the place where the
plaintiff was beet known, although he might not have
been there lately, ,and all the securities made to the de-
fendant described him as of Her Majesty's Theatre.
150. 1
~ Pall-mall„, was in fact, a part of the theatre, and
it was Mr. Lundey's residence, although he might not
have been there lately.
The Vice-Chancellor, said, what he should have
thought, but for .the case of " Runt v. Padwick," it
was not necessary to state ; but, on the authority of
that case, he must refuse the motion, but without costs.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.
• THE QUEEN V. DUNCOMBE.
• This was an indictment instituted by the Society for
Suppression of Vice against the defendant, for the pub-
ication of obscene publications and indecent prints.
The defendant pleaded not guilty.
Mr. Watson and Clarkson appeared for the plaintiff;
the defendant appeared in person.
The purchase of an indecent publication at the defen-
dant's shop, 7, West-street, St. Martin's-lane, on the
9th November last, baying been proved,
Mr. Duncombe addressed the jury, stating that the
witness Taylor; who had purchased the book in question
bad made repeated applications to him before he con-
sented to sell it, and had offered to pay almost any sum
for it..

Lord Campbell :eft it to the jury to say whether the
charge had been proved.
The Foreman of the jury said they found the defen-
dant guilty, but recommended him to mercy.
Lord Campbell (with much warmth)—To mercy !On
what ground 4 Let me hear the ground on which you
recommend him to mercy. For God's sake—for the
sake of trial by jury, let me not hear such a recommen-
dation.
Some of the jury said they had not concurred in the
recommendation.
Lord Campbell—Recommend to mercy a man who is
selling poison ; I am shocked by what I hear.
The Foreman said solos of the jury considered. the
defendant had been entrapped into the sale.
Lord Campbell deferred passingsentence until the
next case had been disposed of. -
THE QUEEN V. CANNON.
This was an indictment charging the defendant with
exposing for sale and selling indecent prints, and obscene
publications.
Mr. Watson and Mr. Clarkson representing the " So-
ciety for the Suppression of Vice," appeared, as in the
above case, as counsel for the prosecution.
The defendant pleaded guilty.
Formal proof of the offence was then adduced ; and
the defendant was found guilty.
Duncombe, the defendant in the first case, then ad.
dressed his lordship in mitigation of punishment, and
put in affidavits in support of his object.
Counsel for the prosecution then adduced evidence to
show that the defendant had, some years ago, been found
guilty of the same offence, and that 94 prints, 64 books,
1173 songs, and 601bs. weight of letter-press of the same
abominable and infamous character had been seized at
his shop.
At the shop of Cannon, the other defendant, 3,205
prints and 24 books had also been seized.
Lord Campbell then proceeded to pass sentence upon
both defendants. They had been convicted, he said,
upon the clearest testimony. If Duncombe had, in truth,
been entrapped merely to sell one of the abominable pub-
lications, and if this had been a solitary offence, as the
jury seemed at first to imagine, there might be some
ground for mitigation of punishment ; but that it was not
so, had been clearly made out ; and it was clearly shown,
in proof, that they were both regular dealers, and had been
so for many years, in the abominable traffic of which they
now stood convicted. His lordship, then addressing himself
directly to the defendants, said—You are sellers of
poison—you are corruptors of the morals of the youth of
this country, and you try to earn your bread by this
most detestable traffic. The moral guilt that you have
incurred is, in my opinion, much greater than if you
were actually guilty of housebreaking. But, as the law
now stands, you are only guilty of misdemeanour, and
Sou can only be punished by imprisonment and hard
4bour. For the offence of which you have been found
!lcuilt, the sentence of the Court is that you be respec-
% confined in the House of Correction for Middlesex
f",,„_tw seers, and kept to hard labour.
.fle-
tody
of
the
ndants were accordingly removed in the cus-
proper officer.

tRT
(Sittings CO
OF COMMON PLEAS.
justiee 'e Prins in Middlesex, before Chief
rvis and a Common Jury.)
malcit v.
fiu
The plaintiff in this LLY AND OTHERS.
~:reeril recently kept a betting-
street, in Cranbourne
damages for a libel, which ii;.d.a,nd he sued to recover
Wee/et/primes, attributing di's}ren published in the
practices to him.
The libel was contained in an artirest
atiiirtiliaited and in which which a letter from "A Dupe w signed. " Flibinite,"
hadi been to
merited upon. The " Dupe" stated
he was
waatsiatl,old
the plaintiff's and asked the odds againste
for the Queen's Plate :.t Leicester ; that
4 -to •1 ; that he took it for a crown, and got
for 255. That he presented it for payment, but that the-et
pliiintiff•would not pay him, but said it was for the
Bedford race, at which place the horse was not entered.
This alleged conduct " Flibinite" denounced in the
strongest terms; hinting at the virtues of an ash stick,
and alluding to "a host of others whom betting-house
keepers had fleeced in the same manner."
'The defendants, in answer to the action, pleaded,
firstly, not guilty ; and secondly, they asserted in justi-
cation that the statement was in substance true).
Mr. Edwin James, Q.C., and Mr. Cooper appeared
for the plaintiff; and Mr. Serjeant Byles and Mr. Tom-
linson were counsel for the defendants.
The following evidence was given :--
Thomas Waugh said, I was manager of Milne's Bet-
ting Office, and I made out the ticket referred to in the