The Sun.
London, England, 1847-01-16 00:00:00

CROCKFORD V. LORD MAIDSTONE.

Mr. JAMES moved in this cause fur a new trial, on the
ground of misdirection of the Learned Judge who tried
the case. _ _ _

The action was brought by the executors of Mr.
Crockford to recover a considerable sum of money from
the defendant, Lord Maidstone, for entrance fees and
subscriptions to the club-rooms established by the late
Mr. Crockford.

The defendant pleaded to a portion of the declaration
that the house in question was a common gaming-house.
The Lord Chief Baron, who tried the cause, not being
of that opinion, so directed the jury, and the jury, in
consequence, returned a verdict for the plaintiff. It was
now contended that there was evidence to show that this
was a common gaming-house within the meaning of the
Act.—Rule granted.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Jan. 15.

NEWTON AND WIFE V. BOODLE AND OTHERS.-ALLEGED

TRESPASS AND FALSE IMPRISONMENT.

In this case, which has arisen out of certain proceed-
ings in Cheltenham regarding Admiral Rickett's pro-
perty, a rule was obtained by the plaintiffs last term, to
show cause why a verdict of guilty should not be en-
tered against Mr. Norman, one of the defendants ;
and why the judgment entered in last Michaelmas term
should not be set aside, a term's notice not having been
given. The plaintiff complained that the late Lord
Chief Justice had improperly withheld the evidence ad-
duced against the defendant Norman from going to the
jury, and that a bill of'exceptions, taken by the plaintiff,
had not been sealed before the death of the Learned
Judge. The action was for the alleged false imprison-
ment of Mrs. Newton, who had been taken on a writ.
The defendants are Mr. Wroe, the registered proprietor
of the Cheltenham Eaaminer ; Mr. Norman, said to be
the editor ; and their law agents, Messrs. Boodle and
Lawcott ; and the proceedings arose out of a previous
action, "Newton v. Norman," for an alleged libel in the
newspaper respecting the claims of Mrs. Newton to
Admiral Rickett's property, in which a verdict went for
the defendant. A writ for the costs was issued, on
which Mrs. Newton was arrested ; hence the present
action, which was tried on the 20th of February,
1845. To the declaration not guilty and a
justification were pleaded. A verdict of not
guilty was given on behalf of Norman, and with regard
to the other three, though the trespass was proved, a
verdict of justification was returned in their favour.
After some other proceedings fof delay on the part of
the plaintiff, judgment against him was signed on Nov.
14th last, hence the rule fixed for argument to-day.
Mr. Sergeant TALFOURD was heard at some length
against the rule, contending there was not a tittle
of evidence against Mr. Norman, and that with regard
to the other point, the regular course of practice had
been strictly adhered to. The rule should therefore be
discharged.
Mr. Sergeant CHANNELL followed on the same side.

Mr. NEWTON, who conducted his own case, replied
in a very long speech.
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE said the rule came before
the Court under peculiar circumstances. It appeared
on the trial that the Lord Chief Justice had ruled that
there was no evidence for the jury against Norman. A
bill of exceptions was tendered against the decision
of the Judge, and also for the non•produrtion
of the writ, or evidence of the writ, on which the
alledged trespass had taken place. A note of the
exceptions was handed to the Judge, and subsequently
the sealing of the bill founded on these notes was de-
layed, from the original notes having been mislaid, and
from some other circumstances that had arisen. Shortly
after this the Lord Chief Justice died, but before the bill
of exceptions had been closed. This was a matter the
present Court had not the power to remedy. On a
former occasion a motion on this head had been dis-
charged, but that substantial justice might be done the
rule in the present form was allowed. Having now gone
into the points raised by the present application, and
having gotie over the notes of the late Lord Chief Justice,
he was of opinion that there was no evidence whatever to
fix Norman, and he considered the ruling of the late Chief
Justice on that head quite correct. On this ground, as
well as on the others stated, he considered the rule
should be discharged.
The rest of their Lordships concurred.
Rule accordingly discharged.

JUDGES' CHAMBERS, Jan. 15.
(Before Mr. Justice ERLE.)
THE DUKE CHARLES OF BRUNSWICK V. VALLANCE.

This was an action brought by the Duke of Brunswick
against his former solicitor for recovery of a moiety of
the costs incurred iu the joint defence of the Duke and
his attorney to the action brought against them by
Barnard Gregory for the alleged conspiracy to hiss and
hoot him from the stage of Covent-garden Theatre in
February 1843.
' It appeared that the defendant had obtained an order
of Mr. Justice Coleridge for the plaintiff to deliver to the
dofendant the partieulara of his ohaitu iu the present
action, with dates, &c., and as is usual, restraining the
Duke from proceeding with this action until such parti-
culars were given. A vague statement claiming 6001. as
the moiety, was delivered by the Duke, and the declara-
tion in the action accompanied the statement.
Tho present was an application to set aside the decla-
ration for irregularity, the same having been delivered
in defiance of the order of Mr. Justice Coleridge, the
statement of alleged claim being insufficient.
An order was made by Mr. Justice ERLE to set aside
the declaration for irregularity with costs.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
MANSION-HOUSE.

THE RAILWAY CASE.—Mr. P. Scanlan, Mr. W.
Killick, Mr. H. Flight, again appeared before the Lord
Mayor for further examination upon the charge of having
conspired to defraud Mr. Margetson, of Aldermanbury,
of 100 L, by borrowing that sum of him upon the security
of Direct Lincoln, East Retford, and Sheffield Junction
Railway Shares. Mr. Humphrey appeared upon the part
of Mr. Margetson, the complainant; Mr. Duncan, the
barrister, upon the part of Mr. Scanlan, and Mr. Ballan-
tine for Mr. Killick and Mr. Knight.
Before the case was proceeded with, Mr. J. B. Shuttle-
worth, of No. 33, East Cheap, one of the provisional com
mittee, who had been summoned, and examined as a wit-
ness on the preceding examination, appeared before his
Lordship to complain, he said, of a false and libellous
imputation made upon that occasion. After he had left
the justice-room against his character.
Mr. Duncan (for Mr. Scanlan) objected to allow any
innovation upon the usual course of proceeding, to be
made by one person.
The LORD MAYOR said he understood that Mr. Shut-
tleworth's object was to defend himself against a false
accusation brought against him in his absence, and
which he felt bound, in common justice to himself, to
contradict.
Mr. Duncan said he considered the application of Mr.
Shuttleworth to be heard was entirely against the com-
mon practice, and submitted that what that gentleman
had to say might in some degree prejudice the defen-
dants. He, therefore, should persevere in opposing the
interruption to the case, which after havin° been once
called upon, ought to be allowed to proceed without
being at all interfered with.
The LORD MAYOR said he certainly should take the
liberty to exercise his discretion upon such an occasion,
and could not see how the natural desire to correct a
calumnious misrepresentation could prejudice person s
by whom it had not been made.
Mr. Shuttleworth thanked the Lord Mayor, and said
the gross calumny of which he complained was, that
Mr. Bevan, the secretary to the company, had said in
the justice-room, that he (Mr. Shuttleworth) had
" fraudulently drawn cheques to defraud the committee of
the Stock Exchange. " Here Mr. Shuttleworth pro.
duced before his Lordship five cheques, which he had
signed in conjunction with two other members
of the committee, dated in January and February
1846, and solemnly assured his Lordship that
ho had never signed any other cheques for, or
in connexion with, the company ; that application
was not made to the Stock Exchange to fix a
settling day until in the month of June following ; that
the charge made by Mr. Bevan was entirely false ; and
that the false imputation having appeared in the news-
papers, he felt it absolutely necessary to put himself
right with his friends and the public by as publicly
giving the most unqualified denial to the statement, con.
vinced that however inconsiderate he had been in con-
necting himself with the company, no imputation could
justly be fastened upon his honour or integrity during
the period of 32 years in which he had carried on busi-
ness in the city of London.
The LORD MAYOR said he believed at the moment the
secretary made the statement that there was no truth
whatever in it, and he expressed his disapprobation of
the conduct of the secretary in speaking so injuriously
of Mr. Shuttleworth after that gentleman had left the
Justice-room. His Lordship added that Mr. Shuttle.
worth was known to him to be a man of high respecta-
bility, and he was care that the press would be glad to
remove the impression which this false statement was
calculated to make.
Mr. Ballantine then addressed the Lord Mayor.
The Learned Council stated, that he believed the case
was about to be closed agreeable to all parties. It would
be admitted by Mr. Margetson, that the defendants had
shown every willingness to return the money which had
been borrowed upon the shares, and that gentleman was,
he believed, ready to accept the offer and abandon all
further proceedings. Mr. Humphrey, the solicitor to Mr.
Margetson, was aware that there were legal difficulties in
this case, hich, it there were grounds of charging moral
offences against the defendants, would be likely to
be insurmountable. If, under these circumstances, the
Lord Mayor presented no obstacle, the complainant
would not proceed further, and the immediate restitution
to which his clients considered Mr. Margetson entitled,
should be made. His Lordship had, no doubt, performed
his duty in investigating the subject of dispute, and had
executed the task in a manner which placed both parties
under obligations to him. In all probability it would be
considered a failure of justice that all parties should be
released from further responsibility of attendance, and
that the defendants should be relieved from the charge.
Mr. Duncan said he fully agreed with the Learned
Counsel in what had been stated as to the performance
of the part which the Lord Mayor had found it neces-
sary to take upon himself, in the course of the painful
transactions. All he would say as to Doctor Scanlan,
his client, was, that that gentleman felt himself alto.