The Sun.
London, England, 1831-06-10 00:00:00

PRICE 713.

LAW. INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF CHANGERI', JcsE 9.
CRAIG V. ONSLOW.

The LORD CHANCELLOR gave judgment in this
case. A bill was filed for the specific performance
of an agreement, by which the plaintiff contracted
to purchase of Lord Onslow certain estates for
91,000/. Objections were taken to the title, and
the vender proceeded to recover possession of the
estates he had agreed to sell, and to restrain thes
proceedings at law was one of the objects of the
bill. In 1818 the parties had come to an under-
standing, and agreed in writing to put an end to the
suit, and arrangements were made for the payment
of the purchase money. The plaintiff afterwards
disputed the agreement, on the ground that certain
facts had been concealed from him at the time he
entered into it, and he thereupon filed a new bill,
praying that be might have the benefit of the former
suit. To this bill the defendant demurred. His
Lordship, therefore, dismissed the appeal.

CO URT OF KING'S BENCH, JczcE 9.
THE KING V. CLAYTON AND OTHERS.
The ATTORNEY. GENERAL brought on this case
at a late hour to-day, having been called on to move
after the Court had been occupied for several hours
in hearing cases frorr the new trial paper. He said
that this was a role, which called upon Joseph
Clayton, Robert Stephen Rintoul, and Arthur
Symonds, the publisher, editor, and proprietors o'
the Spectator newspaper, to show cause why a cri-
minal information should not be exhibited against
them for printing and publishing certain scandalous
libels on his Grace the Duke of Beaufort and his
family. He would take the liberty of considering,
first, the paragraph which had been set out in one of
the affidavits upon which the rule had been ob'ained.
It began thus :—" In the way of taking Counsel let
every Reformer commune only with himself, saying,
What can I by myself do to promote the good
cause ?' " That, he hoped, was not a libel. " The ques-
tion answered, let him rush to do what strikes him as
the best thing to be done at the moment ; and that
thing finished, let him begin another instantly."
Then there was another extract (not immediately
following), which was in these terms :—" The sub-
scription of the great borough-owners is the most
barefaced piece of profligacy to be found in the
whole history of boroughmongering. Why, the
money subscribed is rightfully the nation's—at least,
if that still belongs to a man which has been wrong-
fully taken from him, and if, as is clear, these
borough Lords would not have had the money to
subscribe, unless they had quartered their brothers
and sisters, and mothers and aunts, on the public,
as well as not a few of them, their mistresses and
illigitimate children." It then went on,—" Who
forgets the history of the late Duke of Beaufort's
will, which may be seen at Doctors' Commons on
payment of a shilling, and which charges the estates
of the present Duke with annuities to his brothers
until they shall be better provided for. by Govern-
ment ?' The amount of public money received by
the Somersets since the late Duke of Beolvrt came
of age, far exceeds the value of the esta4s valich he
bequeathed to the present Duke." Now, whether it
was intended to say that this passage contained an
imputation against the late Duke of Beaufort, who
made the will, or the present Duke, he (the Attorney-
General) was at a loss to know; but whether against
the one nr the other, he did not find that the para-
graph charged any thing criminal. The Duke of
Beaufort had made an affidavit, in which he set out
an extract from the will, and certainly from that it
appeared that the clause alluded to was not there.
He (the Learned Counsel) should take the liberty of
questioning whether, in the passages referred to as
printed in the Spectator, there was any thing like a
libel on the Duke of Beaufort or his family.
ile apprehended that we had not yet arrived at
that state of purity as to make it a libel to say
that a particular family had received a large
amount of public money from the Government, and
he thought the Court would be inclined to hesitate
a good deal before they pronounced their opinion that
the paragraph in question was a libel, or that this
was a fit case for a criminal information. The At-
torney-General then alluded to the excited state of
the public mind at the time of the publication (April
last), and observed that this was not a case where
female character had been slandered, nor where gross
imputations had been made upon a person in the
middle ranks of life, and where, if he sat down under
the charge, he was at once put out of society. It
was the case of one of the first noblemen in the land
—one who had long filled a most conspicuous sta-
tion, and as to whom the public had the means of
knowing whether the charge made was true or false.
He (the Attorney-General) had no wish to go fur-
ther into the case. His client had in his affidavit
expressed his regret that any thing which had been
inserted in his newspaper as matter of fact should
have been incorrectly stated. The Learned Counsel
paused for a moment or two, but finding no disposi-
tion on the other side to abandon the rule, he pro-
ceeded to advert again to the clause in the will, and
contended that the statement in the paragraph might
be considered as strictly true, if it were to be taken
that the Government had granted the church prefer-
ment; and Mr. Rintoul, th chief proprietor and edi-
tor of the Spectator, had stated in his affidavit that
the statement which lie had put forth had been used
in the debates in Parliament, and currently reported
in political circles for several years. The affidavit of
Mr. Rintoul admitted that on inquiry it had been
found that the clause in the will had been incorrectly
stated in the paragraph, and he expressed his regret
for it; but he went on to state some circumstances,
to show-that if it were to be considered as contain-
ing an imputation on the Duke of Beaufort or his
family, his Grace had not answered it quite satisfac-
torily. He had stated in his affidavit " that he never
received one sixpence of the public money, and that
not one of his brothers or any of his family have ever
had any sinecures or pensions of any sort or de-
scription from the Government, save what his
brother, Lord Fitzroy Somerset, receives in respect of
the loss of an arm in the battle of Waterloo; but
there was no part of the paragraph which said any
thing about sinecures or pensions. His Grace
stated also, " that he has three brothers in the
army,—viz., Lord Robert Somerset, Lord John
Somerset, and Lord Fitzroy Somerset ;" but he had
omitted to make mention of a fourth brother, Lord
Charles Somerset, who had been Governor of the
Cape of Good Hope for many years, and had re-
cently died. Now, there could be no question that
Lord Charles Somerset had received some of the
public money for his services as Governor; but it
was a mistake to suppose, that the paragraph com-
plained of imputed to the Noble Duke and his fami'
that they had been rioting in sinecures and pensions.
The Learned Counsel went on to observe, that
the Duke of Beaufort, after stating his belief that
the passage in the Spectator wise inserted with a
view to bring him and his family into contempt,
and excite odium against them, and to ex-
asperate the feelings of their fellow-subjects
against them, set forth in his affidavit, as cor-
roborative of such belief, a copy of the printed bill
before adverted to, which had been posted and cir-
culated in Gloucestershire; but it was not pretended
that it had been published in consequence of the
paragraph in the Spectator: on the contrary, there
was every reason to believe that it had been in cit.

" STOP AND READ.
" FreeholAs of afoucestershire,—The benefits whittle
Lord Edttard Somerset and the House of Beaufort receive
by sitting in, and *Ming a corrupt Parliament, amount
to nearly, or quite, 48,t;601. a year, payable out of the
taxes. Peace has now been estaNished fifteen years, and
luring that short period they have bt,s.n receiving out of
the public purse and the taxes 720,000!. This produces
the present unparalleled distress. Till now peace has ever
produced happiness and plenty.--Rickards, printer, ap-
praiser, auctioneer, house-agent, Dursley."
It did not, the Learned Counsel observed, appear
at what time this bill had been published, but the
supposition was that it had been circulated during
the Gloucestershire election. The proprietors of the.
Spectator hid in vain endeavoured to trace. out she
printer, but it did not appear that any thing had
been done on the part of the Doke of Beacifort to
ascertain by whom the bill had been circulated ; and
he (the Attorney-General) thought that its state
ment might have been better answered by a minter
statement at the time, than by a prosecution against
the Spectator.- The affidavit of Mr. Rintoul denied
that the placard bad any connection with the Spec-
tator, and he stated his belief that it did not originate
in the alleged libel, but that it was borrowed from a
book called the People's. Book. The Legrned Counsel
once more begged to submit to their Lordships,
that the defendants having expressed their regret
for the incorrect part of the statement,had put them-
selves in a situation to call upon the Court to dis-
charge the rule. .
Mr. M. D. HILL followed on the same aide.
Sir J. SCARLETT in support of the rule, sail that
with respect to the particular time at which this
publication had taken place, their Lordships would
remember that he (Sir James Scarlett) had stated,
when he applied for the rule, that that which might
be no libel at all at one time, might at another, and
under particular circumstances, be a libel of a very
gross 'character; and he had alluded to the opirtiott
of Lord Loughborough, that words perfectly ionic-
cent in themselves might, at particular times, be-
come libels of the very: worst description. That
opinion was illustrated by the words, "To your
tents, 0 Israel." The defendants had chosen a par
titular moment, when the public mind was pecu-
liarly excited, to strike against the Duke of Beau-
fort, and it was for the Court to say whether the
public press should be allowed to pursne such a
course. No rank, however exalted,—no formic',
however splendid,—no public service, however dis-
tinguished, could protect a man from the fury which
the press at particular times thought proper to es:Er-
cise. If the measure brought forward by the Go.
vernment had excited strong feelings in the public
mind, was that a time when newspapers were to be
excused for putting forth statements of this kind ?
Their duty was to endeavour to check, and out to
excite furious passions. It might be said of any
Minister, that he had promoted members of his own
family, and nominated them to office; but the state-
ment might be made in such a manner as, althflugh
true in point of fact, to be highly injurious to him.
The learned counsel read the paragraph complained
of, and contended that, considering the time and
season at which it had been published, it was a gross
libel. The object of the libeller, he said, was to
hold up to public odium the family of the Duke of
Beaufort, to whom the country was under great obli-
gations for their public services.
Mr. CAMPBELL addressed the Court in a few
words on the same side.
Lori TENTERDEN, after turning round to the
other Judges, said that acting upon those rules
which had been adopted by their predecessors and
followed by themselves in a variety of cases, he
thought the Court could not do otherwise than
order the rule to be made absolute.—Rule absolute.
THE KING V. TILE JUSTICES OF MIDDLESEX.
Lord TENTERDEN, at the sitting of the Court
this morning, gave judgment in this case, which
was an application for a mandanna to two Magis-
trates (Mr. Bennet and Mr. Broughton) to remove
to Ireland an illegitimate child, with its mother, an
lush woman. [We reported the. particulars of the
case last week.]. The application had been opposed
on the ground that the child having by its birth
gained a ..settlement in the parish where it was born,
in England, it could not be removed : and the
Court having taken time to consider the question,
were now of opinion that as the Act of Parliament
prohibited the removal of an infant child from this
country, they had no power to direct the azandanzus.
The rule was, therefore discharged so far us re-
lated to the removal of the child; but made abso-
lute for the removal of the mother.

BAIL COURT.

CRI3IINAL INFORMATION.-THE KING V. BOILEAC.

Mr. JERVIS, jun., moved for a rule, calling upon.
.he defendant, who was a bailiff and magistrate of
Carnarvon, to show cause why a criminal informa-
tion should not be issued against him for sending a
letter to a gentleman, named Johnson, the object of
which was to provoke him to fight a duel. The
Le',riled Counsel read the letter, which stated, that
Mr. Johnson had raised a " horse laugh" at him
iii
the street, and, after adverting to some proceedings
in which Mr. Johnson was stated to have been con-
cerned in the Borough Court, named a friend, Mr
John William Morgan, who was instructed to ap-
point" time and place." Mr. Johnson, in his affi-
davit, denied that he had laughed at Mr. Boileau ;
but that on coming from church, his daughter, who
was following him, said something, on which he
turned round and laughed. He also denied the
proceedings in the Borough Court that had been
attributed to him, denied also that he had ever in-
sulted Mr. Boileau, and concluded by stating that
he verily believed the object of the letter was to
provoke him to fight a duel.
Mr. Justice PATTESON—Have you an affidavit
that the letter is in the defendant's hand-writing
Mr. JERVIS—I have, my Lord.
His LORDSHIP then granted a rule to show cause.
In a cause (the name of which we did not hear) in
which a gentleman of fortune sought to recover a
sum of 7,000/. from his bankers, which he had
placed in their hands, Mr. Starkie a short time ago
obtained a rule, calling on the plaintiff to show cause
why the proceedings should not be stayed, on the
ground of the plaintiff's insanity.
Mr. KELLY to-day showed cause against the rule,
which he stated to be of a most extraordinary and
unprecedented nature. It was true, that in the
course of last year the plaintiff was afflicted with an
intermittent fever, which brought on delirium, and
obliged his friends for a short time to place hen
under restraint ; but he was now perfectly recovered,
and able to manage his own affairs ; yet the de-
fendants, into whose hands lie had placed 60 large
a sum as 7,0001., refused to allow him to draw any
of it out for his own subsistence.
Mr. STARKIE said that all his clients wished was
to be safe in paying the money to some one. They
were apprehensive, for they-had been so advised,
that if they paid it to the plaintiff, and a commission
of lunacy was to be established against him, they
would have to pay it over again. They therefore
only wished to have the order of this Count that
they should pay it, by which they would be gua-
ranteed against any future claim, without the neces-
sity and expense of proceeding to a trial.
His LORDSHIP thought he had no power to inter•
fere in this case, and he therefore ordered the rule
to be discharOd.

LUKE DILLON.-ACCIDENT AT KINGS..
roww.—Several gentlemen being informed that the above
unfortunate individual was in the habit of walking on the
deck of the hulk Essex, proceeded on Sunday in the Alert
pilot boat, in the harbour of Kingstown, to catch a passing
glance of the convict, and in their endeavours to do so.
owing to their ignorance in managing the boat, they calve
in contact with the rigging of the tender attached to the
vice regal yacht, which was much damaged. The two
email vessels remained entangled in each other untilndi.eiboyo
officer of the yacht proceeded to their itc,,i_stain,
cutting away part of the rigging,
the city mariners from their a‘!ic,not ill Jorwet,rtlo
ap,pLt4:7.
AM that nts•Loti
unnecessary to • 0„„.017, Nig, •
on the clack...4)oSo