The Sun.
London, England, 1853-11-25 00:00:00

INFORMATION.

The learned counsel for the defendants said he was
instructed to express to the Court their sincere regret that
a libel, reflecting on the character of Mrs. Franks, a
lady residing in Liverpool, had appeared in the Liver poq
Chronicle, of which they were proprietors. They stated
that they had nothing to do with editing the paper, or
with the insertion of the paragraph ; and the editor
likewise joined with them in expressing regret at its
publication. He was further authorised by them to
withdraw all the statements contained in the libel attack-
ing the character and honour of the lady, and which had
given herself and her family so much annoyance.
Lord Campbell—What has the other side to say
Sir F. Thesiger said he could not allow the matter to
pass without a single observation with regard to the
serious consequences which resulted from persons who
conducted public journals incautiously allowing private
slander to appear in this way in their columns. It was
impossible to describe the unhappiness which had been
occasioned in a family where he understood there had
for a long time been the most perfect attachment and
mutual confidence between both parties, by the foul
slander cast upon the character of Mrs. Franks, and
from which, being now in her confinement, she was suf-
fering very materially. The apology now made could
not remedy the mischief it had done, it could not com-
pensate for the hours and days of unhappiness caused in
this family since the publication took place ; and it
must be well known to their lordships how prone per-
sons were to believe that such accusations were never
made without some slight foundation, and thus, when
anything of this nature appeared in a newspaper, the
mischief it produced was almost irremedial. This
was certainly an occasion when he was justified in calling
for very severe punishment ; but as those who instructed
him felt that to proceed further against the parties might
tend only to keep alive this foul libel, he felt he ought to
yield to their desire, and accept the proffered apology,
but on payment of costs, for on this condition he must
insist (though he had no instructions to that effect), for
the purpose of marking the sense which the court enter-
tained of the publication.

Lord Campbell thought Sir Frederick Thesiger had
accepted the apology in a very handsome and generous
spirit. It was a vilely culpable publication, and no
editor of any journal was justified in inserting such state-
ments in his columns. The public had nothing to do
with private slander, and to the credit of the press of
this country, he must say that the sanctity of private
life was respected by it. The prosecutor would be fully
justified in pressing for a severe punishment, and he
was, therefore, glad to find that the defendants had
thought right to make an ample apology.
The rule was then discharged with costs.
LUMLEY V. GYE.

The A ttorney-General, who was counsel for the defend-
ant, applied for a rule to show cause why a commission
should not issue from this court addressed to the Royal
Court of Berlin for the examination of certain witnesses
who were now in that capital, and whose evidence was
necessary to the cause. A commission it appeared was issued
some time back for a similar purpose. Mr. Hayward,
a barrister, was the commissioner ; but it failed in its
object, in consequence of a judge, who was sent by the
Royal Court of Berlin to administer the Prussian oath
to the witnesses, insisting that the inquiry ought to be
conducted by him, and not by Mr. Hayward ; and the
present application, if granted, would accomplish the
purpose of Mr. Gye, in a manner accordant with the
laws of Prussia.
Rule granted.

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY—(THIS DAY).
(Before Mr. Commissioner Goulburn.)
EXPARTE-IMPORTANT QUESTION UNDER A DEBTOR
TRADER'S SUMMONS,

The only case before his Honour during the morning
was against a firm in the City, to show cause why they
did not admit or deny the debt, or be declared bank.
rupt.

Mr. Billing appeared on behalf of the parties sum-
moned, and contended that the notice had not been pro-
perly served, for the words of the 78th section were,
" That if the demand of a creditor appears to be due
from two or more persons carrying on trade in partner-
ship, the delivery of such account and notice to any of
the parties personally, or to some adult inmate at his
usual or last known place of abode or business, and also
at the place of business of the firm aforesaid, &c." He
said that the summons had been only served personally
one one partner, and therefore the act had not been
complied with.
His Honour overruled the objection.
Mr. Billing submitted that, in that case, they could
not take out a petition against the firm.

His Honour said that Was not the question now, and
asked Mr. Billing whether he admitted or denied the
debt.

Mr. Billing said that Mr. Commissioner Daniels had
decided the reverse of his Honour, and he (Mr. B.)
should therefore sit down, and leave the creditor to
adopt any course he should see fit.
The usual order in default was then made.

SECONDARIES COURT.—(THIS DAY.)
(Before Mr. Secondary Potter.)
HAYDON ♦ CLARKE.

MALICIOUS PROSECUTION.—This was an action to re-
cover damages for false imprisonment and malicious
prosecution. Defendant suffered judgment to go by
default

The damages were laid at 5001. Mr. Parry appeared
for the plaintiff, and stated the case. Plaintiff is a
licensed drover in Smithfield market, and defendant is a
licenced victualler and cattle dealer at North °eking.
i
ham. From the evidence it appeared that the
i defendant joined a person of the name of Cum-
Ifliers i purchases of cattle at different fairs, and
market early
plaintiff was regularly engaged as their drover.
On the 7th July
ithey purchased 5 heifers at Tilbury
' Fort. Stuebladequent 37 Cummers in the presence of de-
at anti
fendant
e next morning,
plaintiff to take the cattle to Smithfield
I over the proceeds to
not there to sell.
pxtrfferfiacceourmdirangelrsy caanmde
aftoteLrownadrodns
1 and sold the beasts
I called on defendant and .ttoolfdlshsim. each,wh aatndhheanhdaedd
done. The matter rested for
Cummers and de-
for some time, except
continual disagreement between
fendant, the former insisting qsitttlernent of ac-
counts
was
counts as 200 beasts had lieen'snolcal, Cummers in-
sisted that there was a balance due toand and should
retain the amount paid by plaintiff until an account
come to. The result was, that in the middle':
last, defendant gave plaintiff in charge for stealinugtr
cattle, and he was committed and brought to trial g•
bute
on the evidence of Cummers and others, the plaintiff's
innocence was so apparent that the jury stopped the
case and plaintiff was discharged.
Mr. Cummers was now examined, and gave the same
evidence as he did at the trial. I
The jury gave 1101. damages.

---
THE COURT.—Her Majesty and the Royal Family will
leave Windsor Castle to-morrow morning, for Gosport,
accompanied by the Duke and Duchess de Brabant,
where the Fairy, Royal steam-yacht, the Hon. Captain
Joseph Denman, who has succeeded Lord Adolphus Fitz-
clarence in the command, will be in readiness, en route
to Osborne, West Cowes.
PRIVY Con/fem.—The Earl of Aberdeen, and several
of his colleagues in office, will leave town, at twelve
o'clock to-day, by special train for Windsor Castle,
where her Majesty will hold a Privy Council at two
o'clock, when the further prorogation of Parliament,
which stands adjourned to Tuesday next, the 29th inst.,
will be fixed.