The Sun.
London, England, 1836-11-10 00:00:00

THE SUN, Tarp('

LAW P.l Tir,LT

ROLLS' COURT, Nev. 9.
rENFOLD V. GILES.
Mr. PEMBERTON, on behalr of the plaintiff; stated the
facts of the case. The bill wes filed by Anne Penfold, to
have carried into execution the trusts of a will under which
sbe tcok an important bequest. It played for an account of
the ,testator's real and personal estate, and that a receiver
might be appointed. The testator in the cause, John Giles,
carried on the business of a brewer at Canterbury, and, being
the owner of cons derable property, by his will, dated the Gth
of November, 1830, he devised all his real and personal es-
tate to his executors, Jeremiah Giles (his brother) and a
Mr. Berton, a solicitor, in trust to convert the same into
money, and to hold the produce, afterthe payment of certain
mortgages and debts, for his wife, for her-life, as a femme
sole, and not to be liable to the controul of anybusband or
husbands, and, after her death, for his brother Jeremiah, with
remainder to his children. I-Ie also gave a legacy of 1001.
to his wife, to be paid immediately on his death. The tes-
tator died in April IS3I, and from that period up to the
present no steps had been taken by the executors to carry
into execution the trusts of the will. In 1834 the plaintiff
filed her bill, and in the answer then put in it was alleged
that at the time the marriage took place the plaintiff de-
scribed herself as the widow of John Penfold, she at the
time knowing that the said John Penfold was alive ;
and therefore it was submitted to the Court whether John
Giles died leaving her his widow, him surviving. An an-
swer had also been put in by the children of the defendant,
Jeremiah Giles, which urged the same defence. When the
cause came to a hearing it was ordered to stand over, for
the purpose of amending the record, it being admitted that
the plaintiff was the wife of John Penfold. He (Mr. Pem-
berton) did not know what defence the defendants intended
to set up, but, so far from fraud having been practised, he
was informed that the gentleman who drew up the will was
no other than the defendant. Mr. Burton.
Mr. PARKER was proceeding to read the evidence, when
Mr. SKIRROW, for the defendants, said he should submit
to the Court that the evidence about to be read could not
be received. It was taken in the cause in which Anne
Giles, in her own right was plaintiff ; but now the record
;vas in a totally different shape, Anne Penfold, alias Giles,
by her next friend, being the plaintiff. This discrepancy
he bei;eved was a fatal objection to the admissibility of the
present evidence.
Mr. KINDERSLEY, for the defendants, the children of
Jeremiah Giles, joined in the objection of the other de-
fendants.
His Lordship the MASTER of the ROLLS postponed the
hearingof the reply till to-morrow.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, .Nov. 9.
THE KING V. BUCISTOKE AND SIX OTHERS.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL showed cause against a rule
for a criminal information against the editors, proprietors,
and printers of a Carmarthen paper. In the first instance
the Learned Gentleman offered, on behalf of the defendants,
to make an apology to the applicant, and to pay the costs
of the application.
Sir W. FOLLETT, in support of the application, had no
authority to consent to any such arrangement.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL then proceeded to state the
case on the part of the defendants. The alleged libel im-
puted to a gentleman who had been Mayor of Carmarthen,
and also to another gentleman who was a magistrate of tilt
borough, that in two instances they had acted with par-
tiality in the discharge of the duties of their office, in the
case of two persons named Rowe and Phillips. The an-
swer of the defendants was that at the time of the pub-
lication of the alleged libel they had reason to believe that
the imputation was well founded, and they had acted with
no unfair motive in giving it publicity. This was the fact
with respect to Rowe's case especially, and their conduct in
that instance was fully borne out by the statement of Rowe
himself. The great sting in the alleged libel in Phillips's
case was the mistake committed by the defendants in the
interpretation of certain words used by one of the appli-
cants. That mistake was speedily discovered, and a spon-
taneous apology was offered by them in the shape of an
article in their paper. There was great reason to complain
of the way in which these proceedings had been instituted.
Not the editors alone, or those who were properly responsi-
ble, but every body connected with the paper, had been in-
cluded in this rule. These supposed libels had now been
published above a year ; and, under these circumstances,
and considering, too, the apology offered, it was hoped that
the Court would not think it necessary to make the rule
absolute, but to dispose of it in some other manner.
The COURT made the rule absolute.
In the course of the day the Lord Mayor, accompanied
by many of the civic authorities, entered the Court, and
having appointed Master Le Blanc attorney for the City,
to defend its liberties and franchises for the year ensuing,
invited the Judges to dinner.
Lord DENMAN said that some of the Judges would do
themselves the honour to atte9d his Lordship.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Nor. 9.
HENNICKY V. THE EARL OF STRATHMORE.
Mr. Sergeant ATCHERLY appeared to show cause against
a rule obtained by Mr. Sergeant Mereweather, for the
plaintiff, for amending an order made by Mr. Justice Park,
by insertion of " the costs of the plaintiff." The costs
amounted to about 10s., and the action had been brought
by the plaintiff against the Noble Lord to recover the
amount of 1201., balance due upon a bill of exchange,
which was signed by the Noble Lord " B. Strathmore."
Under this title, with the addition " commonly called the
Earl of Strathmore," the defendant had been sued by the
plaintiff ; now, he contended that it would be impossible to
establish a misnomer under these circumstances, and he
should, therefore, pray that the rule be discharged with costs.
Mr. Sergeant MEREWEATHER said that the Noble Lord
had felt affronted at the terms, " commonly called the Earl
of Strathmore," because this appeared to convey some
doubts as to his title, which, it appeared, had been disputed.
As the affidavit on the other side, however, declared that
there was no intention of offending the defendant, he
doubted not, if his Learned Friend would permit the cause
to stand over for a very short time, to learn from his client
that he was satisfied, and then the rule might be dismissed
without costs.
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE—I think that Brother Mere-
weather may, even upon his own authority, with the advice
of the Court, agree to the suggestion ; then the two attor-
neys may take up their blue bags and walk off.—(Laughter.)
Mr. Sergeant MEREWEATHER, after what had fallen
feom the Court, would not hesitate.—Rule discharged with-
out costs.

CONSISTORY COURT, Nor. 9.
WILLIAMS V. WILLIAMS.
This was a suit for divorce on the grounds of adultery,
promoted by Maria Williams, of the parish of St. George's,
Hanover-square, in the diocese of London, against her
husband, Henry Williams, late of Leamington. An alle-
gation was offered on behalf of Mrs. Williams.
The King's Advocate for the allegation stated that the
principal article in it contained a charge against Mr. Wil-
liams of having written a letter to a Mrs. Cole, the keeper
of a house of ill-fame in Leamington, dated Friday, the sth
of August to the following effect :—" If Mrs. Cola will
have the goodness to get Sophia Edwards, formerly Lap-
worth, to sign an inclosed paper, which is perfectly true,
she shall receive 51. for her trouble ; but it will be of no
use unless it is done immediately, as the witnesses are to be
examined on, Monday next, if they can be found." The
Learned Advocate then read the paper contained in that
letter :—" I do hereby positively affirm that I know Mr.
Henry Williams, son of the late General Williams,by sight,
but that I never had the slightest improper intercourse with
him." A space was then left for her signature, and for that
of the two attestinz• witnesses. This, he argued, was evi-
dently done for the purpose of rendering void any evidence
which she might give on the examination of witnesses,
which was to take place within three days from the date
of the letter. Another letter had been sent to Mrs. Cole,
supposed also to have been written by Mr. Williams, tel-
ling her to acquaint Rhoda l3rummi'lge that the least
prevarication in her evidence would convict her of per-
jury. There could be no doubt but that this was intended
as intimidation, and more clearly so as this letter was not
signed with his own name, nor was the answer to be directed
to him, but to a Mrs. Foote, of 47, Charlotte-street, Port-
land-place. Sophia Edwards and Rhoda Brummidge were
the alleged participes criminis. The Learned Counsel con-
cluded by stating that if the letters were written by Mr.
Williams, he was guilty of subornation of perjury by means
of his agent, Mrs. Cole. •
Drs. BURNABY and NtexoLL, on behalf of the husband,
opposed the allegation generally, but more especially the
article alluded to above.
The Learned JUDGE stated that it Mr. Williams had
written these letters, or even if they had been written under
his authority, he was guilty of contempt of Court, and had
committed an offence which might be punished elsewhere.
He (Dr. Lushington) was of opinion that he ought to ad-
mit the allegation ; but, under the circumstances of the case,
he must add, with the exception of the third article, and be
at the same time felt bound to say that he had only made
that exception from a belief that it would in nowise be de-
trimental to the cause of the wife, and from no feeling of
tenderness towards the other party.
The Proctor for Mr. Williams then stated that the letters
mentioned were not written by him.