The Sun.
London, England, 1849-08-04 00:00:00

To Mr. BIBNIE the insolvent said, in December, 1845,
Mr. Gregory, the previous proprietor of the paper, ap-
peared as a theatrical pertormer, and a person was de-
puted to attend on behalf of the Satirist and criticise the
performance. On Mr. Gregory's next appearance at the
Haymarket Theatre, in June, 1846, the same course was
adopted.
Mr. Coons said his Noble client sought the protection
of this Court to put an end to a course of the most vio-
lent, cruel, and malignant persecution, by means of
libels, that ever any person had been expbsed to. The
Duke had suffered an inconceivable amount of annoy-
ance, and had tried all the powers of the law to protect
himself from the vile slanders, not one part of which
had ever, in the course of the manifold proceediegs,
been even attempted to be proved, although there was
scarcely a single crime, not even murder, that had not
been at some time imputed to him, and in this case the
jury appeared to have fully appreciated the Duke's po-
sition by awarding extraordinarily heavy damages in
hopes that the vile system may be stopped. During
these proceedings his Highness had been put to enor-
mous costs, and doubtless the parties had expected that
of the 15,0001. which he had expended in defending his
character from their base attempts be would rather have
applied some part in a way more in accordance with
their wishes and interests. The jury had by their ver-
dict recorded their opinion of the enormity of the of-
fence, and he (Mr. Cooke) submitted that the case was
one meriting the application or the full penal powers of
this Court.

Mr. Biarim contended that libels were not necessarily
malicious; and, although a proprietor of a publication
was civilly liable for the acts of an indiscreet servant,
yet it was necessary to prove the existence of malice be-
fore calling on this Court to remand an insolvent. In
this case the majority of the libels imputed to the insol-
vent appeared in the Satirist long before he had any
connexion with the paper at all; and the only two which
appeared while he was exercising any control over it
were critiques written by gentlemen on the establish-
ment in the ordinary course of their duty, who, having
gone to witness the pertormance of Mr. Gregory, were
disgusted with a scene most scandalous and un-English
in its character, which, in the warmth of their indigna-
tion, they described in fervent terms. But those articles
did not mention the Duke of Brunswick, nor was there
the least allusion to him, and the verdict had been ob-
tained at the trial by an ingenious mode of fixing upon
the insolvent the liability of articles which had appeared
in the paper before his connexion with it. The Learned
Counsel submitted that this Court, having the opportu-
nity, which the jury had not, of hearing the insolvent's
own evidence, and hearing his denial of any intention to
libel the Duke, would consider this case to be one in
which there was no malice proved, and consequently no
ground for a remand.
Mr. Commissioner HARRIS deferred his judgment
until Monday.

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.
OXFORD ClRCUlT.—Hereford, Aug. 2.
CROWN COURT.—(Before Mr. Justice ERLE.)
There' were only three cases remaining for trial to-
day. The first was a charge against a farmer, John Price,
of having, on the 4th of April last, at Ma,dley, feloniously
set fire to certain farm buildings in the possession of one
John Smith. Mr. Skinner prosecuted and Mr. Cooke
defended the prisoner. The fire, which consumed several
farm buildings, and five cows and horses which were in
them, was proved beyond doubt to have been the work
of an incendiary, but the evidence was not sufficient to
affect the prisoner with more than a strong suspicion
that he was the guilty party, and he was consequently
Acquitted. _ _

ARSON.—John Jones, an awkward-looking lad, about
14 years of age, was indicted for setting fire to farm
premises at Preston-on-Wye, on the 23d of April.
Mr. Cooke and Mr. Cripps appeared for the prosecu-
tion. The prisoner was undefended.
The present was a striking instance of the terrible
amount of mischief which a revengeful child (for the
prisoner appeared little more) might perpetrate. The
premises were the property of the Dean and Chapter
of the Cathedral of Hereford, and were tenanted by
a Mr. Davis, the prosecutor. So rapid was
the conflagration that although numbers were
speedily assembled on the spot, it being not
later than eight o'clock at night, the whole premises,
consisting of two barns, several sheds, outhouses, stables;
&a., were entirely consumed, the loss amounting to above
1,2001. It appeared that on the morning of the 231 of
April, the prosecutor being dissatisfied with the prisoner,
who was in his service, had taken away from him the
care of his horses, and appointed another boy in his
place, putting the prisoner to what he considered some
lower occupation; and this prisoner, who had a few days
previously gone over with another boy to see the ruins
of the fire at Madley, for which the preceding prisoner,
John Price, ;had been tried, appeared immediately to
have conceived the design of avenging himself on his
master in the mode that had unfortunately been thus
suggested. Some expressions were used by him during
the day which were not attended to at the time, but
which were explained by what followed. It was proved
that he was among the last party of workmen who left
the premises, and after parting from them to go home
he must immediately have run round to a barn at the
other end of the buildings, and, after applying a lucifer
match, of which he was shown to have pos-
sessed himself during the day, and running
away for a little space, he himself, as so commonly
happens in the case of an incendiary, was the first to give
the alarm of fire. With the exception of some trifling
matters of little weight, there was no evidence to connect
him with the offence. But he had subsequently made a
statement, amounting to a confession, to the sister of he
prosecutor, which, it appeared he had been induced to
do by a promise made by her to endeavour to obtain
pardon for him from her brother. The Learned Judge
seemed to be of opinion, that as the sister had no au-
thority to make any such promise, the statement would
bu receivable in evidence; but as the prisoner bad sub-
sequently repeated a statement nearly similar to a po-
liceman, it became unnecessary formally to decide that
paint. The statement so made was to the effect that he
had ignited the match in a stove, and applying it to the
straw in the barn, the whole was instantly in a blaze.
The jury found him Guilty, but recommended him to
mercy on account of his youth; and
The Learned JUDGE, after commenting strongly
upon the enormity of such an offence, sentenced him to
be transported for fifteen years.
James Williams, 21, was indicted for burglary, and
his mother, Charlotte Williams, 52, for fekniously re-
ceiving a quantity of silver plate, the produce of her
son's alleged crime.

Mr. HUddieston prosecuted; and Mr. Skinner defended
the prisoners. _

It appeared that in October last, the house of two
Quaker ladies, n imed Chandler, who live together near
Hereford, was broken open and their plate stolen. Two
brothers, named Morris, and the male prisoner, were ap-
prehended for the theft; the male prisoner was discharged,
hut the Morrises were committed, and being tried for the
offence at the last assizes, were convicted and sentenced
to twelve months' imprisonment. After their conviction
they severally made statements implicating the prisoners,
who were thereupon apprehended. The Morrises, who
were brought from the gaol by a writ of habeas corpus,
now swore that the burglary was committed by the
younger Morris and James Williams, and that the elder
Morris knew nothing of it until afterwards, when he
endeavoured to dispose of some of the plate to screen
his brother. They also swore that Charlotte Williams
received the stolen property. On cross-examination the
younger Morris admitted that he had been flogged in
prison since his conviction for misconduct, and that he
hoped part of his sentence would be remitted if through
his evidence the prisoners were convicted. He be-
haved, however, with great levity in the box, and
it was evident the jury attributed no weight whatever to
his testimony. On the other hand, the elder Morris
professed great repentance, which he attributed to the
perusal of the Scriptures during his confinement, and
said he was quite willing to expiate it as far as he could,
by suffering the whole of his punishment. He, however,
admitted that he had previously taken a false oath, and
his wife, who was called as a corroborative witness, also
admitted she hoped the result of the trial would shorten
his term of imprisonment. The other witnesses called
to corroborate the Morrises spoke only to comparatively
trivial matters, while, on the other hand, some neigh-
bours of the prisoners, who were bail for Charlotte
Williams, gave both of them an excellent character.
Mr. Justice ERLE summed up the evidence with cha-
racteristic care and lucidity, and
The jury, after brief deliberation, returned a verdict
of Acquittal.
With this case (at five P.M.) the assizes at Hereford
terminated.

WESTERN ClRCUlT.—Bridgewctier, Aug. 2.
CIVIL SlDE.—(l3fore Mr. Justice WILLIA.DIS and a
Common Jury.)
MELHUIBII V. CuLLIER.
Mr. Cockburn, Mr. Sergeant ICinglake, and Mr.
Leigh. were counsel for the plaintiff; and Mr. Crowder
and Mr. Smith for the defendant.

This was an action brought to recover compensation
for an assault and battery. The plaintiff was a girl
who had lived servant to the defendant, who was a farmer
near Wellington, in this county; and it appeared that he
bad two servant girls, and that he was in the occasional
habit of kissing these girls, which made his wife jealous,
and created unpleasant feelings in her mind. Upon one
occasion, the defendant was endeavouring to push his
wife up the stairs, when the plaintiff and the other girl
went to the protection of their mistress, and the defen-
dant struck the plaintiff on her breast, which had pro-
duced a tumour which was described by three surgeons.
The first said it was as large as a bantam's egg, the se-
cond described it as being the size of a walnut, and the
third said it was not bigger than a filbert.

For the defendant, it';as urged that the tumour might
have been produced by other means, and that the matter
had been brought forward upon an expectation that the
defendant would pay some money rather than allow the
case to come into court.
The jury found a verdict for the plaintiff—Damages, 50L