The Sun.
London, England, 1836-06-07 00:00:00

THE KING V. THE SATIRIST NEWSPAPER.

Mr. WIGHTMAN moved for a rule to shew cause why a
criminal information should not be filed against John
Pritchard Eve and Sophia Gregory Parlby, for a libel upon
Mr. Simon King in the Satirist of the 25th of May. The
libel in question described this gentleman as being skilful in
palming at the game of ecarte at Epsom Races, whereas he
denied in his affidavit that he had been at the Races since
1829—that he had lived at Brighton till 18f_13, and since
resided at Dawlish, in Devonshire. Ho had received da-
mages in an action for libel against the Satirist in 1832, at
which time he resided at Brighton.
The Court 'granted a rule nisi.

EXCHEQUER COURT.-MONDAY.

DOE ON THE DEMISE OF THE MARQUIS OF HERTFORD

V. HUNT.

This was an action of ejectment, which was tried at the
last assizes for the county of Suffolk, when a verdict passed
for the plaintiff's lessor. The farm, to recover the pos-
session of which the ejectment had been brought, had been
held by the defendant under a lease from the Marquis of
Hertfind at the rent of 5201. a year. This lease having
expired, it was agreed that the defendant should hold the
farm at the old rent for one year certain, to expire at
Michaelmas, 1834, unless Lord Hertford would consent to
reduce the rent to 4001. A notice to quit had been served
to determine the tenancy at Michaelmas, 1834. In au•
swer to the application of the defendant to reduce the rent,
Mr. Wickers, the Marquis's agent, wrote to say that the
Marquis would not consent to Mr. Hunt's keeping the
farm at the rent offered, unless in the event of his not
being able to get a tenant for it before the Ist of August,
who would give the sum which Mr. Wickers should think
it worth. Upon the construction of this letter the whole
question turned. The Marquis of Hertford brought an
ejectment, and obtained a verdict.
Mr. Sergeant STORKS, upon the part of the defendant,
last Term obtained a rule nisi to set aside the verdict and
enter a nonsuit. •

Mr. KELLY this day showed. cause 43.4 inst the
Rule discharged.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.

MANSION-HOUSE.

Yesterday an elderly man, who said that his name was
!Vllham Hale. and who looked very like a farmer, was
brought before Alderman PIItIE, charged by an undertaker
named George Thomas, who pounced upon him in the
street, with having, under pretence of being entitled to im7
mense possession, obtained the amOtint of 4 aood.for,nethng
bill of exchange.
The complainant was, some short time ago, Introduced
to the prisoner by a gentleman who representod Mr. Hale
as a man who had an undoubted claim to a prodigious for-
tune, but was in immediate necessity for the amount of a
bill of exchange for 28/. to carry on a suit, any delay in
conducting which would be attended with ruin. Witness
not having the money himself, applied to a gentleman in
Old-street-road, who cashed the bill upon his recommenda-
tion and upon his indorsing it. The bill upon becoming
due was dishon4PFo4,ll94 4149§§ Ow!) 4sperttlino tjl t thp
prisoner's name was not Hale, and that he had got money
by means before, and 1144 nn fortune either in 13*
session or expectancy; Irn filet, it wq§ acprtairlod that Op
old man was neither more nor less than a swilAter:
The prisoner said that he was an independent man; 40
that he prOgPtiktipllil hie frinn44at WalWo4lll
Alderman PutiE--,,But where is this large pr.opprty
which you are entitled ? Prisoner—,The trial
Glancotrrshirc, and T don't NNW but Tril4y WM4I
Complainant-4 64 that hp ha§ lived tipen tlw report
of 25,000/. for a long time, and its all nonsense. He is a
regular old file upon the town, and said that he expected
no less tin q ieYl gqi not
The prisoner was remanded tilt this day.