The Sun.
London, England, 1853-11-26 00:00:00

CRIMINAL INFORMATION.

This was a rule nisi, which had been obtained by Sir
F. Thesiger for a criminal information against the de-
fendant for a libellous copy of verses against Mr. All-
sopp, which he had written and circulated.
Mr. Mellor said he appeared for the defendant in this
case, and was instructed to take a course that he trusted
would prove satisfactory to his learned friend and to
the prosecutor himself. He had communicated to his
learned friend that his client desired to make the most
ample apology for, and to make the most complete re-
traction of, any charges or insinuations which were sup-
posed to be contained in the libel he had published. He
had made this apology and
,retraction in the fullest pos-
sible manner, and desired to express his deep regret that
he should have published a libel containing such insinua-
tions so injurious to the prosecutor.
Lord Campbell—Charges.
Mr. Mellor—Both charges and insinuations. He was
instructed to express the defendant's deep regret for
what he had done, and he trusted his learned friend on
the part of the prosecution, would be satisfied with this
apology.
Sir F. Thesiger said that Mr. Allsopp was willing to
accept the apology and retraction—the positive denial
of the charges made by Mr. Jervis ; and to allow this
rule to take the course of the former one. With regard
to the costs he must insist upon their payment, in
order to show that this was not passed over as a light
offence.

Rule discharged on payment of costs by the de
fendant.

BAIL COURT.

Sittings in Banco. Before Mr. Justice Crompton.
THE QUEEN V. BERESFORD AND OTHERS-INDICTMENT

• FOR CONSPIRACY-THE DERBY ELECTION,

Mr. Edwin James moved for a rule, calling upon the
defendants in this case, to show cause why the trial of
this indictment should not be postponed until the sit-
tings after next term, or why they should not take such
short notice of trial as the prosecutor could give. This
was an indictment for conspiracy, which had been re-
moved from the Central Criminal Court into this court.
The defendants, eleven in number, had been engaged in
the Derby election, and two of them, Mr. W. Beresford
and Mr. John Huish, had removed the indictment into
this court. They were in consequence bound to plead
and give notice of trial, or they would forfeit their
recognisances. Mr, Beresford pleaded on the sth of
November, and Mr. Huish on the 14th of November ;
both of them giving due notice of trial for the
Middlesex sittings on the 21st of November, too late
for the prosecution to give their notice of trial for
those sittings. Five other defendants pleaded, so that
if the matter was allowed to rest as at present,
only Mr. Beresford and Mr. Huish could be tried by the
indictment, and, therefore, this rule had been applied
for as the only proper course that could be taken. It was
absolutely necessary that all the defendants should be
tried together. There was another ground on which
this application had been made, namely, that it was
necessary to have the attendance of the officers of the
House of Commons, and also the shorthand writer who
attended the select committee of inquiry. A resolution
of the house declared that all witnesses examined before
the house or before a committee of the house were en-
titled to the protection of the house with regard to any-
thing which they had said in giving evidence, and that
no officer or shorthand writer should give evidence with-
out first obtaining the special license of the house of any
proceedings before the house or its committees. The
house was not now sitting, and therefore it was impos-
sible to obtain this permission. It was absolutely neces-
sary that the officers and shorthand writer should attend
the trial.

Sir F. Thesiger said that he appeared on the part of
Mr. Beresford, who had done everything in his power
to bring this matter to a speedy issue. Mr. Beresford
bad no power over the other defendants, and he could
not compel them to give notice. To save any further
trouble he would at once consent to the postponement
of the trial. Mr. Smith was retained by Mr. Huish,
but he was not present.
The learned judge said the rule would go for the post-
ponement, unless Mr. Smith did not consent.
Mr. Smith having come into court soon after, said he
had had no instructions to consent, but he would let his
client know, and it was very likely that he would agree
to take the course adopted by Sir F. Thesiger.

VICE-CHANCELLORS' COURTS.
(Before Sir Richard Aindersley.)

TURNER V. DANBY—TIIE PAINTINGS of " TURNER."
This case was again mentioned to-day
of the August sittings it was mentioned At the close
that a suit
pictures,
which, been instituted relative to Mr.
Turner's
which, by his will he had bequeathed to forma
gallery
to be called "Turners Gallery." The pictures were
his house in Queen Anne-street, under the care of Mrs.at
Danby, a defendant, to whose care they had been
re-
commended in Mr. Turner's will. As the paintings
were in a very doubtful state of preservation from damp
and injury, the matter was mentioned to this Court, In
August, when Mr. Hardwicke. Sir C. Eastlake, and
Mr. Clarkson Stanfield were requested to see these
paintings and report upon their condition.
The Vice-Chancellor now observed that he had re-
ceived a report from those gentlemen, after he had left
town, to the effect that, although many of the pictures
were damaged by long neglect, yet the damage must
have arisen anterior to the death of Mr. Turner, and
they recommended, of course, that the paintings should
be protected against damp. They stated that on one
side of Mr. Turner's house were two empty houses, and
on the other a builder's shop ; and that, therefore, this
was not a place of safe custody. He (the Vice. Cha-
ncellor) had written to the gentlemen, who, owing to Mr.
Stanfield's absence, had not replied until yesterday. They
said considering the difficulty of finding a suitable place
for the pictures, and the illness of Mrs. Danby, it would
be better to leave them for the present in the house, but
under the care of some respectable and responsible man.
His Honour said he had himself inspected the pictures,
and that he agreed with the gentlemen who had made
him a report, that the damage was not of recent date,
and might probably have been occasioned by some ex-
periments by Mr. Turner in varnishing ; some part of
the paintings had been quite destroyed ; some were in
oil,
and some were in water ; but the colours appeared
as though they had been smeared, so much so, that the
design could scarcely be detected. He thought the mat-
terThhade
etztribe considered by counsel.
consider
the parties, then conferred, and pro-
reieed to
commend for r what would be the best course to re-
litigation. the protection of the property pending the