The Sun.
London, England, 1854-06-24 00:00:00

VIE OV.

MAIL

BY SUBMARINE; A S.D EROPERU iNT TE LEG'RA Pll.

TRIESTE, Saturday, June 24.—The Austrian
Lloyd's steamer Bombay, Captain A. Olivisch,
arrived from Alexandria at half-past 5 a.m., in
111 hours.
ALEXANDRIA, June 19.—The Candia leaves this
day, with advices from Calcutta to the 16th May,"
Madras 21st May, Hong-Kong 6th May, Singapore
15th May, Penang 18th May, Gallee 26th May,
Bombay 23d May, and Burmah 3d May.
The electric telegraph between Bombay and
Calcutta is completed.
On the 23'l of April a hurricane in Pegu caused
much loss of life and property.
Serious riots by the Chinese have occurred at
Singapore.
Exchange—Shanghai, 68 ; Canton, 52.

LAW INTELLIGENCE-(THLS DAY).

COMMON PLEAS.

EXTRAORDINARY OASE OF LIBEL.-LEFROY V. CRIDLAND.

This was an action to recover damages for libel. The
damages were laid at 10,0001.
The facts of the case were these :—The plaintiff is a
solicitor of extensive prac►tice and high standing at the
west end of the town, and defendant is a magistrate
of Somersetshire, and the present plaintiff had been his
solicitor for about six years. During that period the de-
fendant had, it appeared, lived upon most unhappy terms
with his wife, which ended in their separation, and the
lady finally took proceedings in the Ecclesiastical Court,
which terminated in her obtaining a divorce ; and plaintiff
having previously ceased to be defendant's legal adviser,
prosecuted the suit for divorce upon the part of
Mrs. Cridland. Subsequently, Mrs. Cridland re-
ceived from the defendant a letter of the most extraor-
dinary and disgusting character, and which, reflecting
more grossly upon the character of plaintiff, she had
handed that letter to him, the plaintiff, and hence the
libel, and publication thereof which plaintiff complained

The letter (which is unfit to give in full) was put in and
read, and began by the defendant saying, " So, madam,
you have pawneci my knives, forks, clock, barometer, and
God knows what to keep yourself and your prostitute
sister." (The lady, it was stated, lived with her sister.)
The letter then went on to state that defendant had not
left her destitute, that she had not a rag
belonging to her when he took her, and that
he ha'l kept her from a workhouse. That if
she did noii- let him know where her things had
been pawned he would advertise her in the Times, and
search all the pawnbrokers about Brompton. He charged
her with having pawned his credit, and suggested that she
could get her living as her sister did by prostitution. He
also in the letter added that he had himself had illicit in-
tercourse with the sister. He then went on to say, " You
need not refer me to your so'icitor,"the plaintiff, whom he
described in the grossest terms, and concluded by asking
her whether he (the plaintiff) paid himself his expenses by
being improperly connected with the lady and her sister.
There were not, it appears, the least grounds for defen-
dant's suspicions, and iu the course of the trial this day it
was denied upon oath that there was any truth in the
assertions, and that both ladies bore the most unimpeach-
able characters. The chairman of the bench, of which de-
fendant was a magistrate, had, it appeared, been apprised
of defendant's conduct, who had been designated as a man
unfit to sit in the company of gentlemen.
Mr. Byles, in an able speech, contended that the letter
which had been sent to the wife for her alone to see, could
not be held to be publishing a libel against the plaintiff.
He the learned counsel, regretted the letter had been
written at all, but still it had not been intended for plaintiff
to see, and therefore, as he, plaintiff, had not suffered any
damage until he himself made the matter public, this
action could only be viewed as one brought with a view to
extort damages and costs.
His lordship left the jury to say whether, under all the
circumstances, it was not the publication of a libel, the
more especially as the defendant was now divorced from the
woman to whom it was addressed ; therefore it could not
be said to have been written under the sanctity of married
intercourse; and, added his lordship, with the greatest
warmth, it is a most disgusting, low, abusive letter, and a
man who could write such a one is not fit to sit in the
company of gentlemen. There was not the least pretence
for saying that Mrs. Cridland or her sister were not ladies
of the strictest virtue.
The jury almost immediately found for plaintiff—da-
mages, 1,0001.
The finding of the jury was received with some applause
from the people in the court, which was densely crowded.
The defendant is stated to be a person of great property in
the country.