The Sun.
London, England, 1841-11-03 00:00:00

ROLLS' COURT, .Nov, 2.

His Lordship, the MASTER of the ROLLS, took his
seat shortly before two o'clock, and proceeded to hear mo-
tions, but no case of any interest came before the Court.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, Nov, 2.

The court was opened with the usual formalities.

The following gentlemen having been appointed
Que,en's Counsel, were, at the sitting of the Court,
called within the bar :--111essrs. Wakley, Godson, Sut-
ton Sharpe, Knowles, Baines, Austin, and Stuart Wortley.
THE QUEEN 1.,...J0HN SHEEIIAN AND SIR JOHN MILLEY

DOYLE.

Mr. THESIGER had been instructed on behalf of Sir
Alexander Grant, M.P. for the town of CaMbridge, to
move for a rule to show cause why a criminal informa-
tion should not be filed against Mr. John Sheehan,
editor of the Cambridge Press, and Sir John Doyle, for
using language calculated to provoke a breach of the
peace.
It appeared that in May, 1840, Sir A. Grant became a
candidate for the town of Cambridge, and on that occa-
sion Mr. John Sheehan, who was then Editor of the
Cambridge Independent Press, inserted several articles
which were highly derogatory to the'character of Sir
A. Grant, and, as much depended upon the" tone
of these articles, he should call the attention of the Court
to some of them. The Learned Counsel then read some
passages from the articles, in which Sir A. Urapt was
called a slave-owner, a slave-driver, and' a slave-trader,
and,, as such, a respectable representative of the
Tories 'of Cambridge. He was also 'charged with
having witnessed the flogging of female slaves. The
paper was handed to Sir A. Grant when he was about
to address the electors on his return for Cambridge, and
he made some general remarks upon the charac-
ter of the paper in which they had appeared.
Between that time and the next election Mr.
John Sheehan avowed himself the author of these
most scandalous • paragraphs. At that election Sir
Alexander Grant, smarting under the feelings of
irritation and resentment, and extremely anxious, as
he was bound in justice to be, to clear himself in the
eyes of his constituents, expressed himself in warm
and strong language of the conduct of Mr: Sheehan.
He said had he known at the time the author of these
paragraphs, he might have told the electors something
of his history and life with which he was fully ac-
quainted, but if he told the truth he might
say what was libellous, and subject himself to an
action for damages. He also said that the
taper was a blackguard one, and that he would
treat the writer in future with the contempt such
a fellow merited. In consequence of Sir Alexander
Grant's observations, Mr. Sheehan wrote him a letter, de-
manding a retractation of these observations, which he
deemed prejudicial .to his character ; and in his reply
Sir A. Grant declined to hold any communication with
the person who had avowed himself the author of these
articles. On the Bth of July Sir John Milley Doyle ad-
dressed a letter from Newry to Sir A. Grant on behalf of
Mr. Sheehan, stating that he would wait upon him on
his arrival in London, and on the 17th of July Sir John
Doyle bad an interview with Lord Granville Somerset,
as the friend of Sir Alexander Grant, his Lordship hav-
ing undertaken that lace solely with a view to an ami-
cable adjustment of the matter. Sir John Doyle did not
attempt to defend the paragraphs, but maintained that
they could not be considered personalities. Lord Gran-
ville Somerset remarked that during the thirteen months
that had elapsed, Mr. Sheehan had not made any apology
or retractation, and that he could not call upon Sir A.
Grant for any explanation until that had been done. A
letter was subsequently produced by Sir John Doyle, on
the authority of Mr. Sheehan, stating that he had no in-
tention to reflect upon the personal honour or private
character of Sir A. Grant, but Lord Granville Somerset
did not think it satisfactory, and it was afterwards de-
cided to refer the whole affair to. Sir H. Hardinge. Sir
H. Hardinge entirely acquiesced in the view of Lord G.
Somerset as to the unsatisfactory nature of Mr. Sheehan's
explanation, and the impossibility of his requiring any
satisfaction from Sir A. Grant until he had retracted
these offensive paragraphs. Sir H. Hardinge's letter was
transmitted to Sir John Doyle, who returned it, stating
that he understood Sir H. Hardinge was to be applied to
merely as a friend, and not as a referee, and he wrote
another letter at the same time to Sir A. Grant request-
ing him, as Lord Granville Somerset had refused to act,
to name a friend to whom reference could be made for
the purpose of obtaining the necessary satisfaction. Sir
A. Grant, in reply, stated that he had resolved to abide
by the advice of Lord G.. Somerset and Sir H. Hardinge,
and tat if any. steps were resorted to to provoke a breach
of the peace, he should place the affair in the hands of
his legal adviser. Sir John Doyle, on the 27th of July,
again wrote to Sir A. Grant, denying that gentleman's
right to offer any opinion upon a matter in which he was
so far personally concerned, and conchided by observing,
" as you seem to mistake both your position and mine
also, for I now make the case my own, I must for the last
time request that you will, within 24 hours, refer me to
some friend on whose judgment and responsibility you
can rely for the purpose of obtaining the necessary satis-
faction." There could be no mistake as to the object of
that letter, but the reply of Sir A. Grant was that he had
placed the matter in the hands of his legal adviser, and
would move for a criminal information the first day of
the present Term. Notwithstanding that announcement,
there appeared shortly afterwards in the Cambridge Press
a long statement containing the correspondence between
the parties, and a very inaccurate account of what had
taken place at the different interviews, and closing with
a letter highly defamatory of Sir A. Grant, charging him
with having been ashamed of an apology and afraid of
the alternative. The Learned Counsel then proceeded
to argue that he was entitled to the rule prayed for,.Sir
A. Grant in his affidavits having denied the several alle-
gations urged against him by Mr. Sheehan.
Lord DENseAN—It does not appear that Sheehan knew
anything of Sir John Doyle's letter, or that Sir John
Doyle knew anything of the publications in the paper ?
Mr. THESIGER—No, my Lord.
Lord PENMAN—Then you will have separate rules
against each. I think there is foundation enough for
them.—Rules granted.
QUEEN'S COUNSEL.

We believe we may state, with little probability of
misrepresentation, that the following arrangement has
been made among the Queen's Counsel at the Equity
Bar as to the different Courts in which they intend to
practice :
Roki.s' CounT..--Mr. Pemberton, Mr. Kindersley, Mr.
Tinney, and Mr. Turner.
BEFORE VICE-CHANCELLOR SHADWELL AND THE
LORD CHANCELLOR.—Mr. Wakefield, Mr. Stuart, Mr,
Richards, Mr. Girdlestone, and Mr. Bethel'.
BEFORE VICE-CHANCELLOR KNIGHT BRUCE.—Mr.
Spence (and also before the Lord Chancellor), Mr.
Simpkinson, Mr. Boteler, Mr. Swanston, and Mr.
Cooper.

BEFORE VICE-CHANCELLOR WIGRABI.--Mr. Temple,
Mr. Skirrow, Mr.Whitmarsli, Mr. Sharpe, and Mr. Burge.
NEW QUEEN'S COUNSEL.
It is generally understood among the profor4loll, that
in the course of the present Term the following gen'„le.
men, all of whom have been for some veal:l;m emisider.
able practice behind the Bar - s
- -miter Mr. Koe, Mr. J. Tedd,
Mr. Purvis, and
bownues.
svill DA matte Queen'
Counsel:—Mr. Kenyon s

DAIL COURT, Nov. 2.
tlis Lerdshio did not take his seat on the Bench until
halt-past title o'clock.
THE QUEEN V. GREEN...4filli WARRANTO.
Mr. COLE applied Mr 5, rule calling upon Mr. Richard
Green, a tsitthker; to shew cause why a writ of quo war-
r ratsi mould not issue, calling upon him to show caitSe
Why he exercised the office of a Towti-councillor of the
city of Lichfield. It appeared from the affidavit of
Mr. Brassington, the relator, that the defendant had
been elected a Town-councillor of Lichfield on
the 2d day of XoVeinber last, and that he had
accepted offiee oh the 6th of November following, at
which time he was incapable of being elected or of perk
forming the duties ;of :a Town-councillor, inasmuch
as, holding a place of profit under the C'orporatiot4 he
was disqualified under the 28th section of the Muni-
cipal Corporation Act. The office he held was that. of
treasurer and bahker to the corporation, to which office
he had been elected on 20th April, 1838.
Mr. Justice PATTESON—Does the affidavit state the
amount of his salary ?
Mr. Cole—No, my Lord, the profits depend on the
amount of business transacted,
Mr. Justice PAITEsoti--Take h rule nisi.—Application
granted,
CUICTION FOR BRIDGE-NASTER.—THE QUEEN V. LANG-

LEY AND °vino,.
Mr. GURNEY moved that the:defentlants in this case,
W. Langley, ,Toini tall; Robert Salmon,and
J. Snow, should be brought tits j)ita ttl an
indictment, charging than With Conspiracy and perjury
at the late election tor Bridge-master in the city of Lon-
glom Lank refused. to plead, on the ground that he
was wrongly named in the indictment. Tht ntliel• de-
fendants pleaded not guilty.
THE QUEEN t'. COMi.
In this case a rule nisi had been cbtained by ;lit, ttle;
calling on the defendant to show cause by what right
he exercised the functions of Coroner for the county of
Oxford. The rule was 'enlarged to next Willi by the
consent of all parties.
His Lordship rose at three o'clock.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Nob. 2.
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE, Mr. Justice COTAMIN,
Mr. Justice ERSKINE,
and 111 r. Justice MAuLE, took
their seats upon the bench at half-past one o'clock.

rule !tisi cci.Lis u. BROOME.
In this case, which was tried before the tinder-
Sheriff of Warwick, Sir THOMAS WYLDE obtained a
plaintiff and to grant a new trial, on the ground
to set aside the verdict given for the
that the cause of action was not within the ju-
risdiction of the Sheriff ; and secondly, that
the verdict was against evidence. The Learned Sergeant
contended that the defendant was entitled to a nonsuit,
as the ground of action was an alleged breach of con.
tract arising out of the hiring of a Court, the jurisdic-
tion of the Sheriff extending only to cases of debt or
demand.

EXCHEQUER COURT, Nov, 2.
The Judges of this Court did not take their sons on
the Bench till near two o'clock.
Messrs. Whateley, Godson, Sharpe, Knowlep,