The Sun.
London, England, 1862-12-03 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, WEDNESDAY EVANING, DECEMBER '3, 1862.

LA

AY.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.
SEYMOUR V. BrTTERWORTII-LIBEL.

This morning, on the resumption of the cross-examination,
Mr. Seymour said he complained that the examination into
his conduct by the benchers was taken after dinner by few
benchers, varying in their attendance. On one occasion
there were only seven benchers present, not enough he
understood to forst a quorum, and he waived his objections,
but the substantial part of the matter had by that time been
disposed of. There was a short-hand writer present, and the
evidence was sent to him in print day by day with one ex •
ception. The sentence was read to him in Parliament
chambers privately, only benchers being present. When it
was read he said he was a young man under forty years of
age, that great injustice had been done to his character and
motives, and that he hoped to live long enough to retrieve
both. He thanked the benchers for having pronounced as
they did with regard to the three principal charges, but he
did not thank them for not publishing the evidence. Be-
fore the publication of the libel there had been leading ar-
ticles in the newspapers. lie believed that all the docu.
ments had previously appeared in the Imes, and been the
subject of leading articles in that journal. There were three
leading articles in the Times about him, close upon one
another, in February. In 1858 he took the benefit of the
Private Arrangement Act to relieve himself from his Ha •
bilities. He was opposed by one ereditor.
Re-examined by Mr. Lush—His debts were mainly for
balance of debts which he had taken upon himself for a
company of which ho was unfortunately chairman. His
liabilities in connection with that company were £40,000.
He paid £20,000, but the remainder brought him down at
last. That was the company in reference to which he was
examined by the Benchers. One creditor opposed. His
debt was £5OO.

The Chief Justice—What was his name
Witness—Parker.
By Mr. Lush—That was not a debt in connection with
that company, but with another proposed company. He
was not aware that there was any vacancy in the Recorder-
ship when he gave his assent to the Foreign Enlistment
Bill. When he spoke on the committal of the bill he had
received no promise of the Recordership. It had been
offered to Mr. Atherton, now Attorney-General, and re-
fused. Baron Watson and Mr. Atherton promised to sup-
port his claims, There never was at any time an under-
standing that his vote was to be influenced by the Recor•
dership. It was not so influenced.
This was the case.

Mr. Lush summed up the evidence and commented upon
he fact that no explanation had been given of the reason
for writing this abominable libel, or as to the author of it,
who had sheltered himself under the respectable name of
the publisher of this journal. Talk of garotting, it bore
no comparison with such abominable slanders. He ridiculed
the idea that Mr. Seymour, by using his Parliamentary in-
fluence to advance himself in his profession, was entitled to
be called a black sheep. If such men were black sheep he
should like to know where they would find a white one.
Sergeant Shee addressed the jury for the defendant.

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY.
(Before Mr. Commissioner Goulburn.)

IN RE STIFF.

_ .
This bankrupt was formerly connected with the .htorning
Chronicle newspaper, the London Journal, and other perio-
dicals, and now came up for his order of discharge.
Mr, Linklater appeared for the assignees, Mr. Lawrance
for the creditors, and Mr. C. E. Lewis for the bankrupt.
Mr. Joseph Hart (of the firm of Hart Brothers and
Hayles), who had been appointed by the Court to prepare
the accounts and report thereon, was in attendance.
Mr. Graham, the official assignee, was proceeding to
read the report.
Mr. Linklater said that the report was very voluminous,
and he would not himself consider that it was necessary
that it should be read. There was at ffrst a strong feeling
that the bankrupt's expenses had exceeded the proper
boundary, but the assignees, considering the sanguine tem-
peravaent of the bankrupt and the nature of the transactions,
had no opposition to offer, and he believed that the only
creditor who formerly opposed, through Mr. Lawrence, did
not now object. The bankrupt had been before the court
nine months, which was sufficient punishment.
His Honour (who had not heard the case originally, it
having been before Mr. Commissioner Evans, resigned)
asked Mr. Linklater whether the consent of the assignees
was the result of their candid opinions ?
_ _

Mr. Linklater said that one was a creditor for £lO,OOO,
and there had been a very short inquiry into all the facts of
the case.
Mr. Lawrance said he represented creditors to a large
amount, who did not now offer any opposition.
Mr. Lewis—Then, under these circumstances, my duty
is very short.

His Honour then granted an immediate order of dis-
charge.

The court was crowded by persons anxious to hear the
result, as, from the nature of the examination, a strong
opposition was expected.

SHERIFFS' COLTRT.

(Before Mr. Kerr.)
routTox V. TELL.

This was an action to recover fora quantity of spirits
sold and delivered to the defendant.

Upon seeing the particulars of the plaintiff's claim, his
Honour said, " Not one of these items could be recovered
if the defendant were to object."
Plaintiff—Why not, your Honour.

His Honour—The Tippling Act will apply hero.
Plaintiff—Oh, no. Under the Chancellor of the Exche-
quer's new act we can sell spirits to be consumed elsewhere
by single bottles.

His Honour—ls that so.
Mr. Buchanan—l. believe the act known as Mr. Glad-
stone's act does not altogether repeal the Tippling Act,
but publicans can now sell single bottles of spirits not to
be consumed on the premises.
His Honour expressed a wish to see the act, and Mr.
Beard sent for it, when his Honour found that publicans'
licenses under the new act were governed and protected by
it " so far only as relates to spirituous liquors sold to be
consumed elsewhere than on the premises, and delivered at
the residence of the purchaser thereof in quantities not less
at one time than a reputed quart."
Mr. Buchanan—That appears to have been marked to
prevent the spirits being consumed on the premises.
His Honour—lf these words are to be literally construed
the spirits must be actually delivered at the residence of the
purchaser. I should think that when the Act is interpreted
it will be found that it should be as "or delivered at the
residence of the purchaser." You see it is not sufficient by
the literal interpretation of the clause for the spirits to be
consumed elsewhere, but they must be actually delivered at
the residence of the purchasers. The word " or" clearly
should be substituted for the conjunction " and."
A verdict had been delivered for plaintiff, as no one was
present on defendant's behalf to raise any objection to the
claim, but no doubt on a future occasion this important
question will be well ventilated.