The Sun.
London, England, 1838-11-23 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 23, 1838.

assist in the house ; and that after being employed for
some time, he was informed that the gentleman called
Captain Lawson was the Marquis of Blandford. In
conclusion, deponent stated that the Marquis and Mrs.
Lawson lived together as man and wife, and that he
always understood that they .had been married. Ann
Boaden deposed that she was engaged as charwoman, and
always understood that they were man and wife ; that she
often took in parcels addressed to " Capt sin Lawson," and
others addressed to Mrs. Lawson ; and that she had often
been asked whether Captain Lawson resided there. The last
affidavit, continued the Attorney-General, was that of Mr.
Gregory, against whom this application had been made. It
stated that deponent, in June 1838, saw two paragraphs in a
certain paper called the Age—that he read them, and found
them to relate to differences between the Churchill family
concerning the Woodstock election ; that he instituted in-
quiries as to the truth of those articles, and having found
that they were incorrect, he determined to put the facts in a
shape which he believed would more fully report the truth ;
that he had therefore published the alleged libels, which he
believed to be true, and that he was, in making the state-
ments complained of, wholly uninfluenced by any interested
motive, or any feeling of il!-will or malice, either against
the Marquis of Blandford or any member of his family.
Such (observed the Attorney-General) were the affidavits
he had to submit to their Lordships ; and he would venture
to say, that the facts as stated in them, were such as to re-
quire no comment. It was to be deplored that such mat-
ters should be made the subject of discussion in any
public place ; but the question here was, whether, after
such affidavits, the Marquis was entitled to have the rule
made absolute.
Sir W. FOLLETT (in support of the rule) said, these li-
bels imputed to the present Marchioness of Blandford and
the whole of her family, that they were illegitimate; that
Lord Sunderland had no right to the title of Duke of Marl-
borough, settled by Act of Parliament, nor any claim to
the estates ; that his mother, although she had lived with
the Marquis for twenty years as his wife, was not really
such. He submitted, whatever might have been the con-
duct of the Marquis of Blandford, that justice would not be
done to the family except the rule were made absolute.

- -
Lord Chief Justice DENMAN said, that this was an ap-
plication of a very serious and interesting nature, both to
the parties more immediately concerned in the question,
and as regarded the principles upon which the Court
ought to administer justice in cases of criminal information.
His Lordship said, he had not the least difficulty in stating
that if the application had been made by the Marquis of
Blandford alone, the rule would never hate been made ab-
solute ; for, upon his own statement of the facts of the
case, a mcst reprehensible course of conduct had been pur-
sued towards a respectable young lady, it being very clear,
upon her own account of the affair, and that given by her
mother, that some contrivance had been resorted to—for
(his Lordship added) he (lid not think himself justified in
asserting that all those parties were perjured. But, it was
not the Marquis of Blandford who was alone to be consi-
dered, but the Marchioness and her family. Notwithstand-
ing the conduct of the Marquis of Blandford, his Lord-
ship said, that Lady Blandford and the, issue of that mar-
riage were entitled to have the rule made absolute.
Rule made absolute.

BAIL COURT, Nov 22.
GLOUCESTER CORPORATION.

Mr. AUSTIN appliod to his Lordship for a rule, calling
upon Dr. Edward Merry to show cause why a writ of
quo warranta should not issue, commanding- him to show
by what authority he held and exercised the office of
Mayor and Alderman of Gloucester. The only question
was whether the Corporation ought to elect a Mayor or
Aldermen first.

Mr. Justice LITTLDALE granted a rule to show cause ;
and similar rules against Aldermen Hicks and Stanley.
POOR-RATE.

Mr. MONTAGUE SMITH applied to his Lordship for a
rule, calling upon the Justices of Cornwall to show cause
why a writ of mandamus should not issue, commanding
them to hear an appeal of William Carlisle, Esq., against
a poor-rate. The ground of the Magistrate's refusal was
the insufficiency of the notice of appeal.
Mr. Justice LITTLEDALE granted a rule to show cause.
Mr. MANSELL applied for a rule, calling upon an at-
torney of this Court, whose name did not transpire, to
answer the matters contained in certain affidavits, alleging
that he had improperly signed the name of a Learned
Barrister to a plea without his authority. The Learned
Counsel said lie feared the offence imputed to the person
against whom he applied was of too frequent occurrence,
and must be put a stop to, or it would lead to the greatest
irregularity and inconvenience.
Mr. Justice LITTLEDALE granted a rule.

EXCHEQUER COURT, Nov. 22.
RICHARDSON V. CLARIDGE, KNT., AND OTHERS.
This was an action against the defendants, as Directors
of the Company formed for the purpose of carrying out
the London and Brighton Railway without a tunnel, or
Cundy's line, and was brought to recover the sum of
1311. 125., the balance due to the plaintiff for his services as
surveyor. It was tried before Mr. Baron Gurney, when
his Lordship directed a verdict for tile plaintiff, which was
accordingly entered.
In the early part of tile term Mr. Platt obtained a rule
Nisi for a new trial.
The Learned JUDGE now read over his notes of the trial.
The Learned Judge considered that the plea was not made
out, and the Jury, under his direction, found for tile
plaintiff.
Mr. BUTT appeared to support the verdict, and con-
tended that the ruling of the Learned Judge at Nisi Pries
was right.
Lord ABINGER—The Court are unanimously of opinion
that the written paper refer red to is no receipt, but an
agreement. Now, will the party agree to a stet processes ?
Mr. Baron PARKE—That ought to be the case. The
action should never have been brought.
Mr. BUTT was not then prepared to decide ; but he
would consider the matter.
Mr. PLATT would at once consent.
Lord ABINGER—Then the rule for a new trial is made
absolute, unless the plaintiff agrees to a stet processes.

PREROGATIVE COURT.—Nov. 22.
MOORE AND WEEDON, ALSO GILL, v. GOODE.
This was a suit respecting the validity of the will of the
late Mrs. Mary Jones, who died in April, 1837.
The Learned JUDGE delivered an elaborate judgment in
the cause, pronouncing for the validity of the paper pro-
pounded.
The Proctor for the parties opposing the will gave notice
of an appeal.

WINTLE AND WINTLE V. WINTLE.
This is a suit respecting the validity of the will of the
late Mr. Thomas Wintle, who died on the 13th of March,
1837. The arguments were commenced this day. We
reserve our report till they are further advanced.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.

HA 7'TON- GARDEN.

- -
A lad, about eighteen years of age, who was raggedly
attired, being barefooted, and evidently in a starving state,
was brought up by a mendicity officer, charget with
begging.
Mr. BENETT (to the prisoner)—You prefer begging to
work, I am afraid.

Prisoner—l do not ; but they could not expect me to
work at stone-breaking without shoes. I only wanted to
raise two or three shillings to take me to my native place,
Manchester.

Mr BF.NETT said, as he had never been brought before
a Magistrate, he would merely commit him for seven days
to the House of Correction, and if he felt disposed to be
passed to his own parish, by applying to the visiting Ma-
gistrates, they would pass him.
The prisoner thanked his Worship, and said it was all
he wished to be passed.

sault, and convicted the defendant in a penalty of 20s. and
costs, which was paid.

MARYLEBONE.

YesterdayG.White, landlord of the Lord Tyrewley public-
house, High-street, Marylebone, appeared before Mr. Hos-
KINS and Mr. RAWLINSON, to answer the charge of E.
Brown, a boy about twelve years of age, residing with his
parents at No. 1, Ward's-buildings, Woodstock-street, who
deposed that on the 21st of October last, as he was passing
along High-street, defendant, who was standing at his door,
called him back, and asked him the price of some paunches
which he (complainant) was carrying in his hand. Defen-
dant, without waiting for an answer, then took up a small
gun, upon which he put a percussion• cap, and placing the
weapon in the hands of a little child, his nephew, the latter
pulled the trigger, when a portion of the cap entered the
right eye of the complainant, who, notwithstanding he had
been attended to by Mr. Alexander, had by the occurrence
lost his sight.
Defendant-4 know not how the eye became injured ;
the gun is but a small one, a mere child's toy, and could
not, I should imagine, have hurt anybody.
The gun was here produced ; it was one of a very slight
construction, and intended merely as a plaything for a child ;
the lock was, however, perfect, and percussion caps had
evidently been used.
A satisfactory arrangement was subsequently entered
into by the parties.
A wretched looking man, who gave his name John Cur-
ran, was placed at the bar, charged with having stolen a
pair of Wellington boots.
The prisoner, who denied that he had ever had the boots
in his possession, was fully committed for trial.