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

EGAL AFFAIR IN HIGH LIFE.

(From the Age.)
In a legal affair of no ordinary import, we hear that the
irresponsible party, by whose influence and under whose
direction his brother is made a plaintiff in the suit, has de-
termined to proceed per fas aut ne fas, in opposition to the
Isdvice of persons better qualified to decide on the merits of
the case.

It is not our province or our wish to interfere with the
Judicial functions of the tribunal that must decide the ques-
tion I but we are justified in alluding to facts within our
Mit knowledge ; and, without betraying confidence, we re-
peat what we have before stated, that it is our sincere belief
that there is no case upon which the applicant can expect a
verdict in his favour. If we are right, and a very short
time will prove the fact, the consequences must be alike
disastrous to the ill-advised and his advisers.
Do not let us be misunderstood ; of course the Noble
Defendant is not the man to avail himself of any circum-
stances that honourable-minded men would spurn to shelter
themselves by ; but in defending himself from an unjust
accusation, he is by duty bound to produce any evidence
that may tend to exculpate the character of those who are
equally and even more onerously impugned. We will sup-
pose A charge of this sort to originate in personal hatred to
a lady's family, arising havingout of their studiously
chasseed, for their ill-behaviour, both her husband and
brother—what if it could be shown by a regularly con-
nected chain of evidence that revenge has prompted and
promoted a suit where the principal evidence was that of a
discarded servant, whose statement might be four or five
years old !
Ought not the defendant, in such a case, to use the most
vigorous measures to defeat his adversaries—ought he not
to show, if he can, that the lady had been subjected to a
long series 0f ill-treatment and provocations that had more
than once compelled her to leave her husband's house and
claim the protection of her relations—that the evidence
sought to be established was of the most suspicious and
questionable character—and, moreover, that the parties
themselves were conscious of their innocence? There have
been such cases—there may be again ; and it is under this
impression that we say no means ought to be left untried to
gift and scrutinize the motives and actions of the promoters
in all such suits.
If the cause is to come on, it is however, better for all
Partses that it should meet with as little delay as possible.
On 01;e point we must put some of our contemporaries
right ; at: hough the special jury list is struck, it is not yet
reduced, arm' consequently Sir Robert Peel's name cannot
have been objeeed to.
P.S. Since the above was written, we perceive that an
application was made fm Friday in the Common Pleas for a
rule to show cause why a Commission should not issue to
examine a witness in Dublin. This proves that we are
right—they have no case, and they want a fishing Com-
mission to issue to examine a witnesss, as we hear, a servant
of Lord Magrave's. Cause will be shown against this
course on Monday, and we trust effectively. The parties
ought to have had sufficient evidence to have gone into
Court with before they entered their cause for trial and
struck their jury—they are now too late in their application.