The Sun.
London, England, 1831-05-09 00:00:00

VICE- CHANCELL OR' S COURT.

This being the last day of Term, the Court took motions.
COM MITTA L.—CALVERLY v. CALVERLEY.

Mr. KNIGHT applied for the committal of the defendant and
three other persons to the Fleet for contempt, in having cut
down timber and carried it off the land, after the issuing of an
injunction restraining them from doing so. All the parties, with
the exception of the defendant, had been personally served with
the injunction, but in consequence of his keeping out of the way
personal service upon him could not be effected. The Learned
Counsel, however, had an affidavit, statity, that service had been
made upon a person whom the deponent believed was either the
attorney or agent of the defendant, and which he submitted was
sufficient.

Mr. i;1ONRO, for the defendant, considered that if parties
were to be sent to prison upon affidavits like that which had
been brought forward by Mr. Knight, the liberty of the subject
would be continually put in jeopardy, and the Court made an
engine of oppression. Upon his client applying to him to know
whether he should answer the affidavit, he (Mr. Monro) advised
him not to do so, being convinced the Court would not pay the
least attention to so unsatisfactory a document, more especially
in a case where the liberty of the subject was at stake.
The VICE-CHANCELLOR wished to know whether the de-
fendant would answer the affidavit.
Mr. MONRO could not say he had advised him not to do so.
The VICE-CHANCELLOR thought it a fit case for the inter-
position of the Court with respect to all the parties ; but if Mr.
Calverly, the defendant, wished time to answer the affidavit the
Court would gladly give it him ; if he did not, the regular
course of the Court in such cases must be pursued.
. _ -

Mr. MONRO would avail himself of the permission of the
Court and consult with his client.

The COURT then ordered the committal of all the parties;
with the exception of Mr. Calverly, the defendant.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH

At the sitting of the Court this morning Mr. JUSTICE BOSAN-
QLTET and Mr. Justice ALDERSON took the Oaths of Allegiance
andSupremicy, on being appointed Commissioners of the Com-
mon Law Enquiry.
THE KING v. BYRNE AND ANOTHER.
THE MORNING POST.

Sir J. SC ARLETT said, this was a rule calling upon the Editor
and Printer of the Morning Post Newspaper to show cause why
a criminal information should not be tiled against them for a libel
on the Lord Mayor. The rule was granted on an affidavit of his
Lordship, which distinctly denied that he had ever published or
caused to be published a hand-bill, which was copied into the
Morning Post, which purported that instructions were given to
the City Police not to protect the windows of citizens that did
not illuminate on the 25th of April, but merely to confine their
exertions in keeping the carriage road clear. 'I his hand-bill, and
the paragraph with which it was introduced, formed the ground
of the application.
Lord TENTERDEN—The Lord Mayor denies that he ever
issued any such hand-bill, or knew anything about it.
Sis JAMES SCARLETT—Yes, my Lord, he negatives that
charge, and when the Attorney-General obtained this rule, he
said that it was not the intention of the Lord Mayor to lay any
stress upon the observations of the Editor of the Paper, he should
have let them pass in silence, but it wa• his object to prove that
the hand-bill did not emanate from him, or by his authority.
He (Sir James Scarlett) hoped therefore, his Lordship would con-
sent to the terms lie was instructed to offer. His client admitted
that they caused the hand-bill to be published in the Morning
Post, but they did so under the firm belief that it was issued by
the Lord Mayor.
Lord TEN PERDEN—Have the defendants made an affidavit
of the fact.
Sir JAMES SCA RLETT—Yes, my Lord, and also that it was
copied from an Evening Paper of the preceding day. They also
state that as soon as this application was made they caused every
inquiry to be made into the circumstances, when they found
that the Evening Paper had been imposed upon, and that they
had been the means of innocently publishing a fabrication.
nut the
Finding they were incorrect, they published in the Morning
Editor
Post of the fojlowing day a contradiction, stating they had been
led into an error by another Paper, on whiiii they never doubted
but that they could rely. Now through him (Sir James Scarlet)
they were willing to make any satisfaction to the Lord Mayor
that he desired. They had already published a contradiction to
their statement and an apology ; he therefore hoped his Lordship
would consent to the rule being discharged on the payment of
costs.
Attorney
intention l'heATeTf ATTORNEY-ViNycErlVnl;insagidthintreeenirtaariknslynfwtahse
(itthenecessary for the
the consideration of that Court, although it must be
observed that his name had been rather roughly handled. But
filling the office he then held, it was impossible he could have
passed the hand-bill by without notice, as it contained
such a severe imputation on the manner in which he
And
thinkhe
Gene-
ral)w'i cthh thought dischargedlthe duties of his office. The defendants had, however,
acknowledged that the hand-bill was a fabrication, with
Lord Mayor to proceed further in justification of his character
or conductaHe must, howeverZobserve,.that the defendants had
htLordshipthe
Court felt satisfied.
would
acted extremely culpable and careless in not having satisfied
themselves of the authenticity of the hand-bill before they
Published it. He would consent, however, with the permission
not
of the Court, that the rule should be discharged on the terms
prop .
Thor (IOURT after a short consultion, consented that the
rule should Ise discharged on the paymatent of costs, as between
attorney and client.—Rule discharged.
THE KING v. COWLING.
This defendant appeared this morning and put in bail,
himself in the sum of .001., and two sureties 1001. each, to keep
the peace towards Colonel Jolliffe, M.P. for three years.
THE KING v. WAKLEY AND OTHERS.
Mr. CAMPBELL said, in this case, which was a rule, calling
upon the defendants to shew cause why a criminal information
should not be filed against them at the instance of the Royal
College of Surgeons, he had to apply to the Court to enlarge
the rule until next Term.
Lord TENTERDEN —On what grounds Mr. Campbell ?
Mr. CAM PBE LL—NY client, Mr. Wakley, only obtained a copy
of the affidavits on Saturday, and they being very long, he is
not prepared. He also swears that he has abundant cause to show
against the rule. , GENER AI
The ATTORNEI- , said the rule was obtained
against four individuals, and only two appeared.
Mr. ADOLPHUS said he appeared for the other defendants,
and there were strong grounds for the rule to be discharged
After some further conversation, Lord TENTERDE
INHABITANTS n te u
" Let the rule be enlaresuals."_ R 1 N said,
u e enlarged.
THE KING V. TH.6 OF
of the ATTORNEy NORWICH.
GEN
On the motion . - ERAL, the rule for
a criminal information against certain members of the
Corpo-
ration of Norwich, for proceedings arising out of the
elec-
tion of an Alderman for that City, was enlarged until
unduenext
term.

oF COMMON PLEAS.
„„egliegimigtehnt somethisfemwo rdnaiynsgaigno this
Their case, the
Lordshipsfact e
hiectiCoOjetUgga.l,,,,,l'aitt
DALGLEISII v. FIODSON—jUDGMENT.
The
of which
• themselves bound to come to the opinion, that the Captain
did-l-
t not break the blockade or intend to do so, but meant honestly
$„ obtain' instructions from the blockading squadron. In the
arguments.- it had been cyotiii:theeenvccelerod,ulithat the voyage was illegal in
intriencement, because the ship was estined to a port noti-
its co •
1 •kaded. Their Lordships could not accede to that argument,
and felt themselves fortified in not adopting it by the case of
L, layler, reported in 9 Barnwell and Cre. ,ell which
Nayler •
o. King's Bench, and which
' its circumstances was precisely similar to the present. Their
in
Lord entirely concurring with the law laid down in that
Court
to* stand, and' cl-si:ected' ju dg.
inch' isdre:it:itteeol 'tibYb°ebenterede iUdpe d
orderf
ob r

The Scotch Burghseof_ N
reidegßatreeschtion'vote for Mr. HORATIO Ross. have
eicctd delegates,ise
and instructed
Arbroath,
structedtho
those
COUNTY or DEVON NOMINATION.—At a
meeting of the freeholders at the Castle of Exeter, on Friday,
Lords EBRINGTON and JOHN RUSSELL were nominated
to represent the county of Devon in the next Parliament.
There was no opposition and the Members were to be
chaired this day (S tturday). S'r Tnos. DYKE ACLAND
appeared at the hustings, and entered into an explanation
of his public conduct. The Hon. Baronet was at first re-
ceived with dissatisfaction, but he was afterwards cheered.
.--Devonport Telegraph.