The Sun.
London, England, 1836-07-04 00:00:00

GLASSINGTON V. TIINVAITES.

Mr. TEMPLE appeared in support of a petition of ap-
peal from an order of this Court made in further directions
in the cause on the 15th of July, 1834. It appeared that
the plaintiff filed his bill in 1822, for an account of the
dealings and profits of the Morning Herald newspaper, in
which he had a share. An order was made by the Master
of the Rolls in 1831, referring it to the Master to take the
accounts between the parties. The Master proceeded with
the accounts, and was preparing his report, when the plain-
tiff sent in certain objections. The plaintiff was anxious
now to cancel all that was done since he brought in the
objections to the report, so as to be at liberty to take ex-
ceptions to it or otherwise do as he may be advised.
Mr. STUART was going to address the Court for Mr.
Fynmore, who principally attended to this case, and whose
conduct was brought into question by the petition of appeal,
when

The LORD CHANCELLOR said,
it was not necessary to
hear him. He was not disposed to set aside arrangements
made by parties' Counsel or solicitors. He ordered the
petition to be dismissed with costs.
After further conversation, the costs of all the parties
opposing this petition were ordered to be paid out of the
petitioner's share of the fund, the subject of the suit. The
party not being in Court, the costs could not be otherwise
ordered.

VICE-CHANCERY COURT..

SHERRIFF V. BERNARD.

Mr. JACOB, on Saturday, moved to dissolve an injunction
restraining the defendant from removing some erections
on a piece of land, of which he took a lease from the plain-
tiff, to carry on his business as a ship-builder. The erec-
tions were made of timber sunk into mortar, upon the
walls of sawpits, which the defendant made for the purpose
of his trade. The case occupied the Court almost the
whole day, the question being whether these erections were
fixed to the freehold.

His HONOUR said, the injunction must be dissolved as to
the erections over the saw-pits, but should be continued as
to the boundaries of the saw-pits.

KING'S BENCH.-SATURDAY.

MOSCATI V. LONGMAN AND OTHERS.

This was an action brought by the plaintiff', who sued in
forma pauperis, to recover from the defendants, the eminent
booksellers, damages for a libel inserted in the Medical
Gazette, of which they are the publishers and printers. The
defendants had put upon the record a justification, stating
that the article complained of was true, and therefore they
were not guilty.

Sir F. PoLiocic stated the plaintiff's case at great length,
and contended there was nothing which could justify the
libel in question. It appeared in the Medical Gazelle of
the 26th of April, 1834, in the shape of a letter, and pur-
ported to be an answer to a pamphlet published by the
plaintiff. .

The libel was then read, which charged the plaintiff
with being an imposter, a notorious liar, and incapable of
speaking the truth upon the most trivial occasion, and the
only excuse which could be offered was that the propensity
for lying arose froth a species of monomania.
The publication being admitted, the ATTORNEY-GENE-
RAL said lie should be able to prove every word con-
tained in the publication which was the cause of the pre-
sent action.

Mr. S. Simes, a surgeon, became acquainted with the
plaintiff in 1832. Heard him say he was a Marquis, and
had accompanied Napoleon in all his wars. Plaintiff said
he was a Knight Grand Cross—a Member of the Legion
of Honour ; that he had protected the Queen of France
in his chateau for many years. Heard him say he was
the author of " Pelham" and " Asmodeus in London ;" that
he had written several works for Mr. Bulwer ; that he
used to carry a real Toledo blade which would tie round
his body. On one occasion he heard the Russians break
up their camp although they were 24 hours' march off ;
that he gave Napoleon notice of it at the time, but he
would not believe him—( A laugh)—that he could see in
the dark ' • that he was acquainted with Prince Talleyrand
and the Duke of Sussex ; that he knew 34, and could
speak fluently 24 languages, and also thaf nature had given
him the power of ruminating his food like an animal.
Cross-examined by Sir F. Vouocx—The plaintiff made
statements as having actually occurred.
Edward L. Bulwer, M.P., was the author of " Pelham,"
and the plaintiff had never assisted him in the writing of
the work.

Cross-examined by Sir F. PoLLocx—Was acquainted
with the plaintiff, who had written three or four papers,
which witness corrected, and inserted in the Ncw Monthly.
A part of a letter from a physician in Paris was read ;
it stated that Moscati was a perfect phenomenon ; that he
could not speak the truth, but that otherwise he never
knew any thing bad of him.

Dr. Elliotson—l became acquainted with the plaintiff in
1832. I first remonstrated with him on his habit of speak-
ing untruths. In 1833 I said, " Marquis, a lie is a thing
an Englishman detests more than anything, so do give up
this foolish practice." He started up, said he never would
tell another, rushed out, and never came into my house
again. He had always said be was a Marquis, the son of
Marquis, and the grandson of a Count Moscati.

. _
Mr. William Jerdan, editor of the Literary Gazette—
The plaintiff cannot command a review in my publication.
Cross-examined—l have known plaintiff several years.
Ile is a person of considerable talent.

Lord DENMAN said the Jury would, if they concurred
with him, give their verdict for the plaintiff on the general
issue, for the mere publication was not disputed, and for the
defendants on the plea of justification.
The Jury intimated their concurrence with his Lordship,
and returned a verdict accordingly.

COMMON PLEAS.-SATURDAY.