The Sun.
London, England, 1838-11-14 00:00:00

EXCESSIVE BAIL.

The following communication is addreAsed to the editor of
the Shrewsbury Chronicle, and appears in the last number of
that Paper :
Sir —Last week you published a letter, to which was affixed
of
William Blinkhorn," the police-officer of this
the name
town, who calls himself the representative of "forty-four gen-
tlemen and tradesmett who possess all the respectability and
wealth of _Newtown.
I have taken
up this matter entirely upon public grounds.
As to Blinkhorn,
I hold no personal hostility towards him, i
further than being the
of a
gross invasion oifottohae
liberty of the subject, and I cannot allow myself to go
controversy with such a man.
The immortal "forty-four" comprise many who are not pa-
rishioners, and many more who have positively refused, and still
one farthing towards the support of this person, do, to pay . al-
though their names are down as subscribers, they not being so
perfectly satisfie with the excellence of his services, as is the
octor of the d letter bearing his name.
"'nlet is quite contrary to my intention to go into the detail of
the bold and impudent assertions of the writer of that letter,
because I can name six rate-payers who refused subscription
to the Blinkhorn Testimonial," who pay more rates than the
"forty-four" whom he has immortalised. I assure you of this
fact, and if you think the matter of sufficient public import.
ance, and will send an impartial person to this town to inves-
tigate it, I will pay him for his time and expense. Our first
merchants, manufacturers, and farmers, do not subscribe—con-
sequently they are not (according to the well-known writer)
respectable.
I am quite tired of troubling you further on this Blinkhorn
correspondence. It is sufficient for me that the prisoner, John
Williams, was, by the order of Lord John Russell, released
from prison. But I am, from a sense of public duty, deter-
mined to lay the matter before the Lord Chancellor, and if
the facts proved to me, and which will be substantiated by
affidavit, be correct, it is more than probable that Blinkhorn
will stand in an awkward situation at our next Assizes, or in
the Court of Queen's Bench.
As to the Rev. Mr. Evors, I wish to ask, Why was the
bail adjudged by two Magistrates at the Petty Sessions
(namely, two 251. and one 50/. sureties) doubled when Wil-
liams went to Mr. Evors's private dwelling to two 50/. and
one 100/. sureties?
I beg to direct your attention to the judicious comments in
the Morning Chronicle, Sun, and Examiner, on this impor-
tant subject.
If such unreasonable acts are allowei by the Magistracy,
the boasted liberties of Englishmen are an idle farce.
I am, Sir, your obedient servant,
JOHN WILLIAMS.

CAPT. CIIAMIER'S NEW NAVAL NOVEL.—
This new production is founded on the same extraordinary
event from which Lord Byron adopted the details of the most
striking and powerful portion of of his most remarkable work,
Don Juan. That event—the Mutiny of the Bounty—is, per-
haps, one of the most interesting that ever occurred in con-
nection with our naval annals ; and when it is understood that
Capt. Chamier has traced that event, from its very commence-
ment on board the Bounty, up to its final and singular results,
as they presented themselves nearly half a century afterwards,
on the discovery of Pitcairn's Island, his work cannot fail to
excite extraordinary interest and curiosity.
Bi,IDGE.-This structure is now un-
dergoing the temporary repair recommended by the Govern-
ment engineer, and will be open for both foot passengers and
vehicles in about a month hence.—Montrose Review.

BAIL COURT, Nor. 13.
DEFRIES V. SOLOMONS AND WIFE.
Mr. JAMES applied to the Court for a rule to show cause
why there should not be a new trial in this case. It was an
action to recover damages for certain slanderous words spoken
by defendant's wife of and concerning plaintiff. The Jury re-
turned a verdict for the defendant, the plaintiff having failed
in proving the uttering of the precise words mentioned in the
declaration. The ground of the present application was that
the plaintiff had been taken by surprise.
Mr. Justice LITTLEDALE refused the rule.
Hir LORDSHIP afterwards disposed of some cases in the
peremptory paper, none of which were of any public im-
portance.