The Sun.
London, England, 1841-04-23 00:00:00

HERALD,

Mr. HUMPHREYS said in this case a rule had been ob.
tamed by his Learned Friend Sir Frederick Pollock, calling
upon the defendants, the proprietors of the Northamptw,
Herald newspaper, to show cause why a criminal information
should not be filed against them for an alleged libel upon the
Midland Counties Railway Company. The article complained
of %las on the subject of an accident attended with fatal eonse •
quences, which occurred upon that railway, and the proprietors
of the paper in question, which was one of great circulation and
respectability, having paid considerable attention to the
accidents which had occurred about that period, had noticed it
in their pkier, and the grievance of the charge was that the
defendants alleged that the accident arose from the neglect of
the Railway Proprietors, and a desire on their part to save ex-
pense, and that if there had been a more liberal exponditure
the accident would not have occurred. He believed that wa:-
the part of the article complained of, and on the part of the ea-
fendants he hail no he.itatioa in stating as fully, fairly, an(
plainly as language could express it, that as regarded that par'
of the article beyond all doubt the information they had r?-
ceived was not correct, and he desired on their part to ex-
press their regret that such a statement should have been made
because unquestionably the: e was no evidence to show that
either avarice or neglect was the cause of the accident. The
accident was a very serious one, more thanone life having beau
lost, and at the time several similar ones had taken place 0..
other ra.lways, and the proprietors regretted that they had been
led into such a publication without due investigation. He
hoped that apology would mitet the views of the Railway Corn•
parry, and that the rule would be discharged, the defendants
paving all the costs.
Sir F. PoLLocK, on behalf of the Railway Company, was
quite willing to accept his Learned Friend's apology, and it
should be recollected that when these accidents occurred, per-
haps the parties who of all the Queen's subjects most deeply
regretted them, were those most frequently mixed up with
them. In the present case there was no pretence for saying
that there had been any neglect on the part of the Railway
Company, for in fact it occurred under circumstances in which
the Railway Company had no control, because at the time the
carriages were under the control of another Company, which.
generally speaking, was most properly and efficiently con-
ducted—he meant the London and Birmingham Railway Com-
pany. Some of the observations were undoubtedly calculates
to hold up the Company as destitute of every feeling of huma-
nity; but it was right that he should state, that the only ob-
ject they had in view was to show that neither Newspaper pro-
prietors nor any other persons, should indulge in assertion! ct
that sort, unless they were satisfied that they were substanti-
ally true.—The rule was then ordered to be discharged.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, APRIL 22.
TINE BRIGHTON RAILWAY COMPANY V. FAIRCROFT.

This was an action brought by the plaintiffs to compel the
defendant to pay up the calls upon 45 -hares which had been
transferred to him by the original shareholder.
The defence was that the memorial of transfer was defective.
the name of the first holder not having been rightly entered.
A verdict was taken for the plaintiffs in 2901. damages, subject
to a nonsait.

Mr. Sergeant POMPAS last term obtained a rule nisi on the
point reserved--the irregularity of the instrument.
Mr. KELLY and Mr. BRAMWELL this day showed cause
against the rule, and Mr. Sergeant BOMPAS replied.
The COURT took time to consider judgment.
SOIREE V. WALKER, CLERK.

Mr. Sergeant Tatsounn, on the pert of the defendant
in this case, moved for a rule to rescind an order of Mr.
Baron Alderson, granted under the following circum-
stanc .9 :—Mr. Walker is a clergyman, and proprietor of a
boa-ding-school near Cheltenham ; and the plaintiff, who is
a tradesman in that town, furnished him with goods to the
amount of 1221. for which he took in payment two bills of
exchange, one of 601., and the other of 621., being of six
months and twelve months date. The first bill was duly
paid, but the date of the second w ill not expire until May
next. The plaintiff, however, having learned that Mr.
Walker was about to go to the Continent during the list
vacation, procured affidavits to that effect ; upon which the
Judge granted a writ of summons, and eventually an order
for the payment of the debt, and, the cost; of the pro-
ceedings, amounting to 6/. The defendant had
no alternative but to vay the whole sum, and now applied
Er the rescinding of the order, whereby he would recover
the costs and the interest of the money up to the time of
the bill becoming due.—Rule nisi granted.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER, APRIL 22.
POE DEM.-LEGII V. ROE.

This was an action of ejectment, brought to recover some
portion of the beach around Hurst Castle.

Tee SOLICITOR-GENIERAL had obtained a rule for a stay of
proceedings, cause against which was shown by Mr. Erie and
Mr. Sere, who ci mended that the property was not in the
Crown, but in the officers of the Board of Ordnance, against
whom a writ of ejectment would lie. If they were stopped in
their attempt to try their right it would be a denial of justice to the
subject. They were anxious to try the right in the easiest
manner possible—they did not want to he driven to the neces-
sity of bringing upon themselves the expense and delay oft
writ of intru:ion.

The ATTORNEY-GENEftAL appeared in defence of the Pre-.
regatives of the Crown. The Crown was in possession of the
property through its servants belonging to the Ordnanre—that
was admitted by the service of the declaration in ejectment
being served upon the Master Gunner, who was in possession.
and that being so, the action could not Le.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL followed, hut was stopped by
The COURT, who said the rule must be made absolute.
was clear the property was in possession of the Crown ; how,
then, could the Crown turn itself out of that possession
Ejectment could not lie against the Crown; but there were
other modes of proceeding which would as effectually try the
right, and to them the plaintiff must have recourse.—The rule
was made absolute.