The Sun.
London, England, 1838-11-16 00:00:00

PERGUSSON V. NORMAN.

The question in this case, which was on a former occasion
argued at great length, and which is of considerable import.
ance as regards pawnbrokers, will be best collected from the
judgment of the Court, delivered this morning.
The COURT said this was an action brought by the assig.
nees of a bankrupt, to recover possession of a certain chattel
on which the bankrupt had obtained a loan of money from the
defendant, a pawnbroker, with whom it had been deposited,
and who claimed a lien on it. The plaintiff's case was that the
article had not been properly registered, &c., according to the
provisions of the Pawnbrokers' Act; that therefore the defen.
dant had no legal claim to retain it in his hands. The de.
fondant urged that the loan was not to be considered
as a pawnbroking transaction, but as an ordinary loan, at 5
per cent. interest, and that so he had a just lien upon the ar-
ticle, even without complying with the provisions of the Pawn
brokers' Act, because it had not been in fact, pledged, but
merely left as a common security.
The COURT, however, looking to the circumstance that the
bankrupt had numerous dealings in pledging with the defend-
ant, considered that this transaction was to be viewed in the
same light, and that the loan was granted by the defendant as
a pawnbroker. Now, a pawnbroker, who took a kind of usu-
rious interest, which was, generally speaking, unlawful, could
not claim the protection of the law to any such dealings, un-
less he strictly complied with the provisions of the Act, un-
der which alone it could be legal. The defendant, therefore,
not having in this case observed those provisions, he had no
right to retain the article referred to, for he had no legal lien
upon it—so that it must be delivered up to the assignees.

BAIL COURT.-(THIS DAY.)

THE BRIGHTON PATRIOT-CRIMINAL INFORMATION.

Sir F. POLLOCK moved for a rule to show cause why a
criminal information should not be filed against the publisher
and proprietor of the Brighton Patriot Newspaper. The
article to which he alluded, affected the character of a Gentle-
man who was formerly Member for the Borough, and who
was intimately connected with it • and as it atlected him not
by general abuse, not by vague slander, which a man might
hear with indifference, but charged hi.n with a particular act
of criminal delinquency. Mr. Wigney could hardly avoid
bringing it under the notice of the Court. The article com-
plained of, commenced as follows :—The Learned Counsel
then proceeded to read the article in question, which coupled
Mr. Wigney's name with that of a Miss Preston, and was
headed, " Mr. Wigney, the ex-Member, and Miss Preston,
the ex-Mistress."

Sir F. POLLOCK then went on to say that Mr. Wigney was
a married man, and had a family of six children, and this article
directly charged him with having had a criminal inter-
course with Miss Preston. This Mr. Wigney, by his
affidavit utterly denied, and there was every reason to
believe that Miss Preston was not quite right in her
mind. She had been in the habit of occasionally pursuing
Mr. Wigney, and making demands upon him for money, and
at last the parties got Wore the magistrates, when they both
denied having had any criminal intercourse with each other.
The newspapers, however, proceeded to argue the point, in
order to satisfy the public that a criminal intimacy did exist
between them.

Mr. Justice LITTLEDALE—Upon my word, I think
this is not a case to grant a criminal information.
It is more a laughing 'kind of thing than anything
else. If Mr. Wigney feels himself aggrieved, he
may prefer an indictment ; but it is not that
grave kind of case which should be brought before this Court.
It is a laughing kind of squib.
Sir F. POLLOCK—If your Lordships, after reading the
paragraph, can have any doubt there is an intention, through
making Mr. Wigney ridiculous to make him unhappy-
Rule refused.