The Sun.
London, England, 1836-11-15 00:00:00

IN THE MATTER OF THELITDLOW CHARITY.

The LORD CHANCELLOR said in this case he had now
received a letter from the party, who had not given him an
answer before, stating that he had no instructions upon the
subject, and his Lordship therefore assumed that the par-
ties had mad• their election not to move in the matter ; it
therefore remained for him to do that which he considered
his duty, without the application of any of the parties at-
tending before the Master. As the course his Lordship had
to adopt was for the purpose of bringing the party be-
fore him to answer for his contempt, he would ab-
stain, until that party was present, entering into the
substance of the case, or the letter had been addressed to
the Master. The offence of the party sending that
letter, had, however, been considerably aggravated by a
letter he had written to his Lordship. The course his
Lordship therefore would pursue, was to follow that adopted
by Lord Hardwicke and the Court of Exchequer in a case
in which a letter had been sent to one of the Judges of
that Court. The signature to the letter having been
verified, his Lordship would now make an order nisi for
Mr. Lechmere Charlton to shew cause, why he should not
be committed to the Fleet for contempt, and also ordering
him to appear personally for that purpose on Tuesday next.
This case seems to have excited the greatest interest,
not only among the Bar but the public, and the Court,
long before his Lordship took his seat, was crowded to ex-
cess. It is said that, in his letter to the Lord Chancellor,
Mr. Charlton states that he glories in what he has done,
and will not recal one word of the letter to Master Brougham.

ROLLS' COURT.-(THIS DAT.)

Nothing of any interest occurred here this morning.

KING'S BENCH.-(THIS DAY.)

(Sittings in Banco.)
M'CARTHY IP. COLVIN AND CO.

The COURT gave judgment this morning in the above
case, which had been argued a few days ago, and which had
excited some interest in the commercial world. It was
an action brought by the plaintiff, a gentleman residing at
Calcutta, in the East Indies, to recover a sum of 4201.,
paid by his correspondent, Mr. Casterton, in London, into
the house of Colvin and Co., to be by them remitted to
him in India. The defendants merely advised their cor-
respondents in India that the money had been paid to the
plaintiff's credit, and the house in India failed previous
to the arrival out of the advices. The plaintiff had been
nonsuited, subject to the opinion of the full Court, and
Lord DENMAN said they were of opinion that there ought
to be a rule for a new trial.

LILLY V. PRICE.-LIBEL.

This was an action for a libel, brought by Sir John
Scott Lilly, against the defendant, an attorney, for having
written a letter reflecting upon the plaintiff's character.
The case was tried before Lord DENMAN, at the last Lon-
don Sittings, and the Learned Judge having left it to the
Jury to say whether or not they were of opinion that the
letter in question was a confidential commnnication, in
which case they should find a verdict for the defendant, the
Jury returned an answer in the affirmative.
An application had been made during the present term
for a new trial, on the ground that, where the defence was
that the expressions had been uttered as attorney to a
client, and of course confidentially, that should have been
pleaded specially, which had not been done in the present
cast

The COURT was of opinion that that was a defence
which did not require to be specially pleaded. It was a
defence which went to the very root of the action, and,
consequently, the party had that defence open to him with-
out pleading it specially.—Rule refused.