The Sun.
London, England, 1836-11-05 00:00:00

LILLY V. PRICE-LIBEL.

Sir W. FoLLETT moved in this case for a rule to show cause
why the verdict for the defendant should not be set asidc,and a
new trial had, on the ground of misdirection. It was an action
for libel, brought by Sir John Scott against an attorney
named Price, and was tried before Lord Denman at the
sittings after last term. The question was whether a cer-
tain letter, which constituted the alleged libel, could be con-
sidered a confidential communication, and it appeared to
him (Sir W. Follett) that it was written under such cir-
cumstances as deprived it of its confidential character.
Lord DENMAN—What did I leave to the Jury ?
Sir W. FOLLETT—Nothing, my Lord. Sir Frederick
Pollock was addressing- the Jury when you interrupted
him, and said it struck you that it was a confidential com-
munication, and if the Jury thought so they would find for
the defendant. The libel, which was written by the de-
fendant to the wife of one of his clients, was then read,
and the Learned Counsel proceeded to contend, that under
the new rules all words reflecting on the character of
another, being prima facie a wrongful doing, if to be justi-
fied should be pleaded specially, which had not been done
in the. present case.

The COURT took time to consider the arguments of
Counsel.—Judgment deferred.

BAIL COURT.
Mr. Justice LITTLEDALE heard motions in this Court
this morning.

THE TURF.—.WHITEHEAD, GENT. 6. COLEMAN.
Mr. WILSON applied to the Court for a rule to show
cause why the proceedings in this cause should not he set
aside, with costs. It appeared from the affidavits on
which the motion was grounded, that the plaintiff had
commenced two suits, although, if any there were, there
was but one cause of action. The facts as alleged in the
declaration were these :—On the 20th of August, 1834,
the defendant entered two horses to run for the same
plate at the Newport races, in Buckinghamshire. In Pn°
action, it was alleged that a horse called Turfcutter was
the second horse entered, and the action was to recover
the value of that horse, viz. 300/. In the other action, it
was alleged that a mare called Amadon was the second

entered, and the action was brought to recover the
amount of her value, 2001. The Court would see by this
that there was but one ground of action, if there were any
ground at all, which the defendant by no means admitted,
although the plaintiff chose to llring two actions, alleging in
the first that Turfeutter was the last horse entered, and in
the other that Amadon was.

Mr. Justice LITTLEDALE—Why do you not plead an
abatement that but one ground of action exists ?
Mr. WILSON—We cannot do that, as it is impossible to
say which action was commenced first, the process in each
being served at the same time.
Mr. Justice LITTLEDALE—YOU may take your rule to
show cause why the proceedings should not be set aside,
with costs.

DOING PENANCE.-Mr. SEWELL applied to the Court
for a writ of habeas corpus, directed to the Governor of ll-
chester Gaol, commanding him to take the body of
Gowell before the Ecclesiastical Court, at
Wells, in Sornersetshire, in order that he might do
penance before that Court, or abide such order as that
Court might make respecting him. The facts were briefly
these :—A person named Norman commenced a suit in the
Ecclesiastical Court at Wells against the defendant, and
the latter was ordered by that Court to do penance. This
he refused to do, and havinx been declared in contempt, a
writ of attachment was issued from the Court of Chancery,
under which he was arrested, and conveyed to the above
gaol, for contempt of the orders of the Ecclesiastical Court.
He (Gowell) was now anxious to purge himself of that
contempt, and had instructed him (Mr. Sewell) to apply to
that Court for a writ of habeas corpus, to take him from
Ilchester gaol to Wells, to enable him to do so, he having
no means of purging himself, of the said contempt, unless
the Court would grant the present application.
Mr. Justice LITTLEDALE-1. don't see how I can inter-
fere, as he is not in custody under process issued from this
Court.

Mr. SEWELL—The process issued from the Court of
Chancery, but it is enrolled in this Court, and that I sub-
mit gives your Lordship jurisdiction.
Mr. Justice LITTLEDALE—Supposing I grant a habeas,
it must direct that he be brought here, and I should like
to know what you will do with him when you have got him
here P—( A laugh.)
Mr. SEwELL—Your Lordship can send him to Wells.
Mr. Justice LITTLEDALE—I don't BCC my way very
clearly, and would rather that you made your application to
the full Court.

Some other motion: were disposed of, of no public interest

COMMON PLEAS.-(THIS DAY.)

LORD V. WARDELL.

Mr. Sergeant WILDE moved for ; rule to show cause
why the verdict in this case should not be set aside, and a
new trial granted, on the ground of misdirection on the part
of the Judge (Mr. Justice PARKE) in his summing up to
the Jury, and that the verdict was against evidence.
The rule was granted.