The Sun.
London, England, 1836-11-24 00:00:00

the proprietors of the Satirist newspaper, and Mr.
PRITCHARD on behalf of the publisher, who had been in-
cluded in the rule, but who now stated that for some time
past he had not been in any way connected with that paper.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL, in support of the rule, ob-
served that there would be no security for private
character of the present atrocious attempt of the Satirist
newspaper was suffered to pass with impunity. A very
useful fact had been brought out upon the other side, which
was, that the statements upon which his Learned Friend,
Mr. Thessiger, founded his application were made by the
proprietors of the newspaper, while they hired a publisher
to vend their slander at 20s. per week, and his name was
registered at the Starep-office, with that of Sophia Syl-
vester Parvey, who it appears, his Learned Friend Mr.
Kelly seemed to think, should not only escape with im-
punity, but that the Court was to pronounce an eulogium
upon her spirited conduct in the cause of honour and mo-
rality. It was quite clear that in the present case the Court
had been imposed upon by the affidavit of a person who was
now pronounced by the other side to be a worthless cha-
racter. He would contend, that consistently with all pre-
cedent, their Lordships might make the present rule abso-
lute, for no precedent did exist—the circumstances were
quite novel and extraordinary, and he sincerely hoped that
such a one would never arise again. Their Lordships
would recollect that from the time the slander appeared
in the Satirist newspaper, the 29th of May, 1836, down
to the present hour, no information had been given
as to what authority or upon whose information it was
published, and there was not only a general charge
of swindling, but there were particular facts put forward of
what had occurred when no other person was present but
Shepherd.
The COURT interrupted the Attorney-General, by ob-
serving that they were extremely jealous of doing anything
which might be drawn into a precedent, but the present
appeared to be a case of a very peculiar nature. Here
was a person calumniated in the grossest manner as a noto-
rious swindler and scoundrel, for such words appeared upon
the affidavits. He comes forward and vindicates himself
successfully from the imputation, and then the application
is met by a person calling himself Shepherd, who states that
this person, the object of the libel, absolutely cheated him-
self at a private house ; and then it subsequently appears,
upon further inquiry, that this Shepherd has fabricated the
whole history of this transaction. That being made appa-
rent to the Court, they were now called upon to wake the
rule, which had been discharged upon that feigned affidavit,
absolute ; because the applicant had actually preferred an
indictment for perjury against Shepherd, and Shepherd has
disappeared. The circumstance of a person using the name of
Shepherd having voluntarily come forward to substantiate the
charge mad. in the newspaper only showed the statement had
been originally made by the defendants without any autho-
rity. It seemed, therefore, to the Court, that the rule
having been discharged upon an affidavit which they could
not but believe to be false, that was ground enough for them
to say that the party should be placed in the same situation
in which he would have stood if that affidavit had not been
made ; and in making that decision, the Court was of opi-
nion that they were not doing any thing that could be drawn
into a precedent.—Rule absolute.
THE ICING V. THE INHABITANTS OF ST. SAVIOUR'S,

SOITHWARE.

Sir F. POLLOCK had been instructed to move fora rule
to show cause why a mandamus should not issue, directed
to the churchwardens, overseers of the poor, and inhabitants
of the parish of St. Saviour's, Southwark, in the county of
Surrey, and commanding them to make a rate, pursuant to
the provisions of two statutes, one passed in the reign of
Charles 11., and the other in the 6th year of the reign of
George 111. He would merely trouble the Court with an
outline of the circumstances, which were that so far back as the
reign of Henry VIII., an Act was passed for uniting two
parishes in Southwark, to be called the parish of St.
Saviour. There was afterwards a conveyance of a church
belonging to a monastery, together with the tithes belong-
ing to it to the See of Winchester, at that time in trust for
certain purposes, which were to maintain a chapel, to endow
a school, and to repair a church. Afterwards an Act was
passed in the reign of Charles 11., to enable the parish-
ioners of St. Saviour's to make a rate for the maintenance
of the Ministers and the repair of the Church, and after re-
citing the former Act it provided that " the Church being
very great and chargeable to be maintained, and the reve-
nues of the rectory not amounting to more than 1001. per
annum, be it enacted, that all the messuages, lands, and
tenements of this parish should be ever after exonerated
from all tithes belonging to said rectory ; and in Considera-
tion thereof it should be lawful for the churchwardens of
the parish for the time being, and the overseers of the poor,
calling together six or more of the inhabitants to assemble
in vestry, and make a rate or assessment not exceeding
3501. in any one year, out of which each of the chap-
lains were to be paid 1001. ; and schoolmaster 301„
201. for himself, and 10/. for an assistant." The 59th
George 111., without repealing any of the provisions
of the former Acts, enacts that it should be lawful to
increase the amount of the rate so as to give 3001. to the
chaplains, and these sums were paid from time to time
down to the present year, in which year the vestry being
called upon to make a rate assembled, and a poll having
been taken the numbers were for postponing the rate, 350 ;
for making the rate, 257 ; so that a majority of 93 were for
enjoying their premises tithe free, without making any rate
as an equivalent.
Sir F. POLLOCK now moved for a rule nisi for a manda-
mus to compel them to make the rate, as it was one which
did not depend upon the option of the parish, it being one
of the conditions of the bargain by which they held the
premises tithe free. The terms of the Act were that "it
shall and may be lawful " for the parishioners to maks the
rate, and that, he contended, made it imperative upon them
to do so, inasmuch as the Court had so decided in the case
of the metropolitan commissioners for lighting, where
the
words were, " it shall be lawful for them in their discretion.
Under these circumstances, he submitted that he was en-
titled to the rule.
CotraT—You may take a rule.

BAIL COURT.
(Before Mr. Justice LITTLEDALE.)
THE KING V. LANE.
Mr. WATSON moved to make a rule absolute to admit
the defendant to bail. He was committed to Hereford Gaol
on the Coroner's warrant, charged with the manslaughter
of John Yarnold. Mr. Watson now handed in the depo-
sitions taken before the Coroner, from which it appeared
that on the 14th of September last, the defendant and the
deceased, both very young men, met at Ledbury races,
Herefordshire, where the deceased, who was a very quarrel-
some fellow, provoked the defendant to fight him. They
fought two rounds, and then some persons interfered and
parted them. After this the defendant left the race-course,
when he was followed by the deceased, who again struck
him, and they fought two other rounds, in the last of which
the defendant fell heavily on the deceased, who was imme-
diately picked up by the bystanders and taken home, where
he lingered until the 16th, when he expired. On a post
mortem examination, it was found that his bladder had been
ruptured, and that injury had caused his death. The de-
ceased shortly before he died admitted that he was to blame,
and had provoked the defendant to fight him.
The COIRT ordered the defendant to find bail, himself
in 801., and four sureties in 201. each ; and in order to save
the party expense, said that bail might be put in in the county.