The Sun.
London, England, 1825-02-26 00:00:00

FOR THE SUN..

CONTEMPTS OF COURT.
Mlt. EDITOR—There will in every age be
found matters of complaint amongst the commu-
nity, some of them with and many without good
foundation.

The protracted imprisonment of parties for
contempt of Court has been long considered as one
of the grossest privations of liberty that can
visit a British sukject, but not justly so, because
the imprisonment attributed to the act of the
Court itself as a party, appears decidedly to have
induced an erroneous conclusion in the public
mind. This has been oftentimes explained by
the Lord Chancellor, and it may be well reite-
rated for public information. To render it fa-
miliar to common understanding, I will instance
a case in point, as sufficient for the purpose, to
which a hundred others might be added, for they
have been proverbially numerous in the Fleet
Prison.

A mortgagee of an estate, in advancing a pro-
portionate sum of money, pays off' a prior in-
cumbrance, and obtains a lien upon the estate
to the amount of its real vain?, saving only the
equity of redemption to the borrower. Upon a
Bill of Foreclosure he obtains the Court's di-
rection for the first mortgagee to join in a con-
veyance, which he pertinaciously refuses, and
will execute no deed of conveyance or other se-
curity for confirming the title of the party so
claiming. The consequence is, the mortgagee
applies for the assistance of the Court, which is
obtained by order or decree ; the party on whom
the order is made refuses to obey, and is com-
mitted by the Court till he shall do that which
in justice he ought to do, or shew to the satis-
faction of the Court good cause to the contrary :
he remains in contempt wilfully, and an entry
is made that he is deprived of his liberty by the
Act of the Court, when in reality he is only re-
strained till he shall do that which he can and
ought to do for his release.
Temple, Feb. 23,1825. W. M.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF ICING'S BENCH', FEB. 25.
TYRELL r. WAKELY.

Mr. Sergeant VAUGHAN stated, that this was an action
brought by the plaintiff', a surgeon, in St. Thomas's Hospital,
against the defendant, who is the proprietor and editor of a
medical work entitled The Lancet, for a wilful and malicious
libel, reflecting on the character of the plaintiff. Several wit-
nesses were examined. Mr. BaotrGuAst made a very able
and humorous defence.

The CHIEF JUSTICE stated the nature of tire action, and fully
explained the law as applied to the case. The defendant had
not attempted to deny that he was the author of the work ; it
was also certain that when an author had sent a work into the
world it was subject to criticism. The liberty of the press was
the child of a free Government, and he, for one, would never
pluck from its wings a single feather. But all criticisms must
be fair, and not attribute a corrupt or bad motive to the author
of any work ; that was without the bounds of the liberty of the
press. The Learned Judge then adverted to particular pas-
sages charged as libels, and kit it to the Jury to consider
whether or not a corrupt motive could be attributed to the de-
fendant for the publication in question.
The Jury consulted for a quarter of an hour, and found a
verdict for the plaintiff—Damages SO/.
The Court was crowded to excess, and the trial lasted four
hours.

A late number of the Philadelphia Gazelle
states, that from the Ist March, 1824, to the Ist
January, 1825, the total number of vessels that
have sailed from the United State-3 for various
ports in South America (South of the Lite), is
275. Namely, 76 ships, 2 barks, 163 brigs, 33
schooners, and 1 sloop. Of these 48 cleared at
Philadelphia, 62 at New York, 57 at Boston,
22 at Salem, 9 at Norfolk, 8 at Alexandria, and
the remaining 18 at various minor ports.