The Sun.
London, England, 1853-01-31 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.-(THIS DAY.)

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.
(Sittings in Banco.)
(Before Lord Campbell, Mr. Justice Coleridge, Mr,

Justice Wightman, and Mr. Justice Erle:)
SENTENCE UPON THE REV. DR. NEWMAN.

This morning the Rev. Dr. Newman attended before
the judges of the Queen's Bench to receive the judg-
ment of the Court, in pursuance of the verdict returned
by the jury in the case of Achilli versus Newman.
The Court, the avenues leading to it, and the galleries
were crowded to excess, and the greatest interest was
manifested to see Dr. Newman and to hear the nature
of the sentence upon him. A great number of persons
were unable to obtain admittance.

Dr. Newman occupied a seat in front of the Queen's

counsel.

Sir F. Thesiger moved the judgment of the Court.
A number of affidavits in mitigation of the sentence
were then handed in to the Court and read. The first
was that of Dr. Newman himself, in which he said
that his attention was first called to Dr. Achilli by
his delivering lectures in Birmingham against the
Roman Catholic Church, and that, as he had no per-
sonal knowledge of him, he could not have had
any personal feeling in the publication of the al-
leged libel. He denied that he wrote the article
in the Dublin Review, or was any party to its insertion:
but said, as Dr. Achilli had made statements strongly
affecting the Church to which he had formerly belonged,
he thought it right to inquire into the accusations which
were made in that article, in respect to Dr. Achilli's
character. He then went on to state the result of his
inquiries as to Dr. Achilli's conduct in Italy, and Malta,
and Corfu, with the view of showing that he had reasons
for setting up the different pleas which he had put upon
record.

Sir Frederick Thesiger objected to the defendant en-
tering upon these statements, as the prosecutor could
have no opportunity of replying to them by counter
affidavits, and as the matter recited occurred after the
publication of the libel, and could, therefore, be no
ground for the belief on which he proceeded, when he
attacked the character of Dr. Achill

The Court, after some discussion, decided that the
part of the affidavit objected to was admissible.
The next affidavit was that of Mr. J. W. Harding,
of Lincoln's-inn-fields, who said he was authorised to
collect evidence, with respect to Dr. Achilli, in Italy
and Malta ; that he had no instructions but to elicit the
truth, and that no attempt was made by him, or, accord-
ing to his belief, by any other person, to suborn wit-
nesses to give false testimony. He also Said, he believed
from the information he had received that all the
charges in the defendant's pleas were capable of being
proved if all the witnesses had been in attendance. He
added, in reference to the woman De Allessandris, who
did not appear at the trial, that she told him that she
had been seduced by Dr. Achilli, and. that she made an
affidavit to that effect before a magistrate, but as she
Was then pregnant she absolutely refused to come to
The affidavit of Mr. J. Lewis, in regard to the
authenticity of a document, purporting to be a copy of
the proceedings before the police at Naples, but not re-
ceived in evidence at the trial, was held not to be ad-
missible.

The affidavit of Mr. Babington, the medical attendant
of Dr. Newman, was next read. He stated that the
defendant was suffering from internal complaints of a
very serious nature, and that imprisonment would t give
Ilse to a degree of feebleness from which he probably
Would never recover.

Similar affidavits were handed in and read from Sir
Benjamin Brodie, Dr. Ogle, and other medical gentlemen
of eminence.

The Attorney-General then addressed the Court in
inititation of punishment, contending that the affidavits
whicli he just had read clearly showed that the defend-
ant Was not actuated by any malice or ill-will in pub-
lishing the alleged libel, but merely desired to defend the
Church which Dr. Achilli bad assailed and denounced
in the most opprobrious terms.
Mr. Sergeant Wilkins followed on the same side,
Mr. Bramwell, Mr. Addison, and Mr. Baddeley also
addressed the Court on behalf f Dr. Newman.
Sir Frederick Thesiger was then heard in aggravation
of punishment.
Sir F. Kelly followed on the same side.
,41r. Just. ce Coleridge sentenced Dr. Newman to pay
„a fine of 10, .to the Queen, and to be confined in the
Queen's Bend prison in the first class of misdemeanours
until that fine is paid.
The lenient nature of the sentence seemed to occasion
Considerable surprise in the court.
[A report of the learned Judge's observations will be
given in our next edition.]

COURT OF CHANCERY.
(Before the Lords Justices.)
PEACOCK V STOORFORD.
This was an appeal from a decision of Vice Chancellor
Kindersley. The question arose out of the construction
of a will by which the testator, Thomas Stockford, who
died on the 3(1 of August, 1823, bequeathed 2,000/. 3 per
cents. to the use of his 4 nieces, Sarah Stockford, Elizabeth
Edmunds, Anne Bennet, and Anne Mann, and after the
death of any one of them, and " in trust for the benefit of
all and every lawful children of her or them so dying, or
of the survivors," and upon these words the question
turned in the decision of the property, Anne Mann
died, leaving two children. His Honour decided that
the legacy should be divided into five shares among the
three sun .1% ing nieces and the two children of Anne Maim.
Their Lordships this morning gave judgment, reversing
the decision of the Vice Chancellor without costs.
(Before Vice Chancellor Wood.)
WOLLASTON V. OSBORN.
This was a claim for specific performance of a contract
for the purchase of a house and premises near Reigate ;
and the defence set up wag, that the pal ty purporting
to be the agent of the vendor had no power or authority
to sell, on the 1 Cth of 0c,.,., 1831, the copyhold house
and premises called Dover's Green, situated within
about one mile Reigate, and then occupied by
Miss Telford, as tenant, waatpat up for sale by auction
at the Auction-mart, London, by Mr. Adnam, of 34,
King's-road, Brighton,_ auctioneer, "by order of the
proprietress," as stated in the particulars of sale. It
seems the property in question belonged to three ladies
of the rame of Broughton, and was mortgaged to three
of the defendants, Edward Duke, William Osborn, and
John Duke. Mr. Edward Duke is a solicitor, residing
in Brighton, and was one of those named in the particu-
lars of sale to whom reference was to be made, and it
Was by his authority, as alleged, that the property was
put up to sale. However. Vie plaintiff became the pur-
chaser, and Mr. E. Duke furnished him with an abstract
of title. Differences having arisen, the plaintiff, Mr.
Wollaston, was informed that Mr. Adnam had no au-
thority to sell, and that Mr. E. Duke knew nothing
about the matter. Mr. Wollaston thereupon filed his
claim for specific performance against the Micscr
Broughton, and also against the mortgagees, alleging
that they, or some or one of them, had entered into the
contract. The claim was afterwards amended, and in
the amended ;claim the plaintiff charged that a joint
contract had been entered into by all the defendants.
The evidence in support of the claim was little more
than a statement of the facts already mentioned, and
the defendants contented themselves with a denial of
authority to the agent.
Sin Honour this morning gave judgment, dismissing
the claim without costs.

CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT.-(THIS DAY.)

The February sessions commenced this morning at the
Old Bailey, before the Lord Mayor, Recorder, and
Sheriffs.

The Reccrder charged the Grand Jury, remarking that
the number of prisoners for trial was about the average,
and among the cases brought before them would be those
Of Mr. Pries for forgeries connected with the corn trade ;
of Johnson, charged with swindling ; of Lamande, the
allepman to Messrs. Benson, charged with fraud in
selling spurious gold chain. There was also a charge of
attempted murder by shooting.
The Grand Jury then retired, and proceeded to find
several true bills, and the trials were then proceeded
with.

The judges on the rota are Baron Parke, Baron Mar-
tin, and Mr. Justice Cresswell ; and the aldermen on the
tot; to attend as commissioners, are Sir Peter Laurie,
'lit, Sir George Carroll, Bart., Sir John Musgrove,
Bart., and Messrs. Wilson, Finnis, and Cubitt.