The Sun.
London, England, 1853-11-18 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.—Nov. 17.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.
(Sittings in Banco.)
THE QUEEN V. DINSDALE.

In this case the defendant, Kay Dinsdale, a saddler,
had been tried and convicted upon a criminal informa-
tion charging him with writing and publishing on
Mr. G. Lewis, the clerk to the Master of the Horse, a
libellous letter, with the intent to provoke him to
commit a breach of the peace. The defendant now ap-
peared in court, and
The Attorney-General (with whom was Mr. Field)
prayed judgment.
Lord Campbell then read the notes of the trial.

The defendant then put in an affidavit, which was
read by the officer of the court, and proceeded to ad-
dress the court in person in mitigation of punishment.
He dwelt on the great provocation which he had re-
ceived from Mr. Lewis, and the enormous expense,
amounting to 6001. or 7001., to which he had been put
by the prosecution and the dispute of his account. He
considered Mr. Lewis had treated him with great in-
justice, and excused the writing of the libellous letter
by the provocation which he said he had received.
The Attorney-General said, that not one word of
apology or regret had been uttered by the defendant ;
on the contrary, the course which he had pursued this
day was a great aggravation of his offence, for he had
endeavoured to show the Court that TA. Ir. Lewis's con-
scientious discharge of his public duty justified him (the
defendant) in writing a letter containing the libellous
language complained of. Under these circumstances,
he (the Attorney. General) must call upon the court to
inflict such a punishment upon the defendant as would
show that letters of this description could not be passed
over.
Mr. Justice Coleridge, as the senior Puisne Judge,
then pronounced the judgment of the Court. It was
impossible to treat the writing of the letter otherwise
than as a serious offence, particularly as it was written
by a person who was not ready to retract or to say he
was sorry, in the true sense of the expression, for what
h. had done. The sentence which he (Mr. Justice
' Coleridge) was directed to pass was, that the defendant
pay a fine of 201. to her Majesty, and enter into recog-
nizances of 1001. to be of good behaviour to all Her
Majesty's subjects, and Mr. Lewis in particular, for one
year, and that he be imprisoned in the Queen's Prison,
among the misdemeanants of the first class, till the fine
he paid and the recognizances entered into.

THE QUEEN V. FLETCHER.
In this case the Court had granted a rule calling upon
John Robert Fletcher to show cause why a criminal
information should not be filed against him for the pub-
lication of a libellous handbill, imputing partiality to
the licensing justices for the borough of Grantham.
Mr. Watson, Q.C., on the part of the defendant, said
he was instructed to express the defendant's extreme re-
gret at having made the publication, and that he was
now satisfied that there was no truth in the charges.
It had been arranged, on the part of the prosecution,
that the rule should be discharged upon certain terms
which had been agreed upon.
Mr. C. Clark (with whom was Mr. Phipson) said he
appeared for the justices, and was quite ready on their
part to accept the apology which had been made.
Lord Campbell said, licensing. justices had a delicate
duty to perform. If they acted corruptly they were
amenable to the law; but if they discharged their duty
they were entitled to its protection.
Rule discharged on terms.
EX PARTS -.

Sir F. Thesiger moved for a rule calling upon Edward
Willmer and David Smith, the printers, publishers, and
sole proprietors of the Liverpool Chronicle, to show cause
why a criminal information should not be filed against
them for a most cruel libel upon the honour of a lady,
whereby the peace of a most respectable family had
been invaded. The application was made on the part of
a gentleman residing at Aigburth, near Liverpool, who,
in the year 1847, married the daughter of a gentleman
of rank, living at Edge-bill, in the neighbourhood of
Liverpool. The parties had ever since lived together on
the most affectionate terms, and the conduct of the lady
had been most exemplary. On Saturday last the appli-
cant was calling upon a lady at Edgehill, when he found
that a rumour was current at Liverpool that his wife had
been guilty of infidelity with a servant in her family.
He was then referred to a gentlemen at Liverpool, who
put a newspaper into his hands, and pointed out a para-
graph, which the learned counsel read, and which de-
scribed the nature of the rumour which it alleged was
current to the lady's dishonour. The lady was, in con-
sequence, now compelled to undergo the indignity of
of personally denying, upon oath, that there was the
slightest truth in the imputation upon her honour.
Lord Campbell inquired whether there was evidence
that the applicant was the party meant, and that Will-
mer and Smith were the publishers ?
Sir F. Thesiger said those points could be distinctly
proved. The learned counsel added that the Liverpool
Chronicle was published on a Saturday, and this appli-
cation was made before the next publication. But on
Tuesday last an advertisement had been inserted in the
Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser,
in which it had been stated that the rumour had been
circulated by a discharged servant, and had been most
industriously circulated and believed; it further expressed
regret for the publication, and that a retractation would
appear in the next number of the Liverpool Chronicle.
Lord Campbell—That does not disentitle you to the
rule for which you pray, whatever effect it may have in
a subsequent stage.—Rule nisi granted.

CHANCERY COURT.
(Before Sir W. Page Wood.)

THE LONDON AND NORTH-WESTERN RAILWAY COMPANY
V. THE SHREWSBURY AND BIRMINGHAM RAILWAY

COMPANY.
The further hearing of the arguments in this part
leard motion was resumed and concluded yesterday.
Although the argument has extended over the greater
portion of three days, the substantial merits of the case
may be briefly stated. The motion on the part of the
plaintiffs to restrain the defendants from using the
Stour Valley line of railway, was made under thecae cir-
cumstances :—The plaintiffs are the lessees of the Stour
Valley Railway line, and by section 12 of the Smeth-
wick Deviation Act it is provided that it should be law-
ful for the defendants to use the Stour Valley line, and
any railway made in substitution thereof, and the con-
veniences attached to such railways, in the event of the
same being leased or sold to the London and North-
Western Railway Company at all proper and reason-
able times, subject to the payment of reasonable rents
and tolls, and to the observance of the bye-laws of the
company; and in the event of differences between the
plaintiffs and defendants, that such differences might be
settled by arbitration, the umpires to be appointed by the
Commissioners of Railways. It was, however, provided
that the powers in respect to the Stour Valley line and
the plaintiffs' station at Birmingham conferred upon the
Shrewsbury and Birmingham Railway Company, should
cease in case of an amalgamation with the Great Wes-
tern Railway Company, or certain other specified rail-
ways. In consequence of an alliance having been
entered into between the Shrewsbury and Birmingham
Company and the Great Western Railway Company, of
a kind which was considered by the plaintiffs to be an
amalgamation within the meaning of the proviso, they
refused to permit the defendants the use of the Stour
Valley line, till a court of equity had decided the ques-
tion. A suit was accordingly instituted by the defen-
dants against the plaintiffs, in the Courts of the Lords
Justice, in December, 1852, and their lordships pro-
nounced a decree, in which it was declared that the
power conferred on the Shrewsbury and Birmingham
Railway Company, by the 12th section of the Smethwick
Deviation Act, had not ceased or become void legally or
equitably, and it was ordered that they should be at liberty
to bring such action or take such proceedings by arbitration
in respect of the matters in question, as they might be
advised. A correspondence then took place between the
two companies, and ultimately it was agreed that the
question of tolls to be paid by the defendants, and other
matters, should be referred to arbitration ; and the pre-
sent bill was filed to restrain the defendants from using
the Stour Valley line in the meantime. The reference
was still pending before the umpire (Mr. Hawkshawe),
who had not made his award, and the present motion
was made to restrain the defendants from using the
Stour Valley line till the award in question was made.
The Solicitor-General and Mr. Speed appeared on the
part of the plaintiffs ; and Mr. Rolt and Mr. Gifford for
the defendants.
On the conclusion of the Solicitor-General's reply,
His Honour proceeded to give judgment, referring at
some length to the facts of the case, and the various
points brought forward in the arguments of counsel.
His Honour said he was of opinion that both parties had
brought their case to a conclusion before the umpire, and
that the whole matter remained for his decision as soon
as Mr. Lloyd had made his reply. He did not, there-
fore, doubt that the award would be made before the
Ist of January next, and he should, therefore, make an
order to restrain the defendants from using the Stour
Valley line till that date, giving the parties liberty to
apply.—Order accordingly.

BAIL COURT.