The Sun.
London, England, 1847-12-04 00:00:00

COAL MARK E'

Adair's Main 16s 6dl
Hedley's Hartley
Hasting's Hartley lBs Od
New Tanfield l6s 3d
Ord's Redheugh
Original Tanfield
Ravensworth's Pelaw l6s Od
Tanfield Moor Butes l6s 6d
West NVylam
Wylam
Wall's End, &c
Acorn Close
Bell and Brown Od
Bewicke and Co 2os 04
Clennell
Clarke and Co.
Hotspur l9s 6d
lied ley
Killingworth l9s 9d
Northumberland
Wharncliffe
Eden Main, 2os 6d
Ships at market

VICE-CHANCERY.-(THIS DAY.)
(Before the VICE•CHANCELLOR of ENGLAND.)
THE GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY COMPANY V. THE BIR-
MINGHAM AND OXFORD JUNCTION RAILWAY COMPANY.
The further arguments in this part-heard motion for
an injunction occupied his Honour the whole morning.

COMMON PLEAS.-(THIS DAY.)
(Sittings at Nisi Prius, before Mr. Justice CRESWELL
and a Special Jury.)
SMITH V. COLTON.

This was an action brought by Miss Mary Elizabeth
Smith, the plaintiff in the late celebrated case of" smith
v. Earl Ferrell'," against the printer and publisher of
the 131 dannia newspaper, for an alleged libel contained
in that paper, reflecting seriously upon her character.
Mr. Sergeant Talfourd and Mr. Simmonds appeared
for the plaintiff, and Mr. Cockburn and Mr. Wordsworth
for the defendant.

Mr. Sergeant TALPOURD, in stating the case for the
plaintiff, said that she had brought the present action to
vindicate her character from the serious and foul asper-
sions cast upon it by an article which appeared in the
Britannia of the 7th Nov. 1846. The article purported
to be a review of a pamphlet which plaintiff had pub-
lished shortly after the trial, for the purpose of averting
the current of public indignation that had been roused
against her in consequence of the turn which the trial
bad taken. The Learned Sergeant then read the article
in question, which was very lengthy, containing several
extracts from the plaintiff's pamphlet, and animadverting
severely upon her conduct.
The Learned SERGEANT then said he would put the
plaintiff's father into the box, who had brought her up
from a child, to prove the application of the libel to her,
and he would challenge his Learned Friend to extract
anything in cross•examination which could justify the
accusations it contained.

The Clerk to the plaintiff's attorney proved purchas-
ing a copy of the Britannia, dated the 7th of November,
on the 14th of the same month.

Mr. Thomas N. Smith, the plaintiff's father, stated
that he was a farmer in Warwickshire, and that his
daughter was twenty-one years of age last January.
He had five other children. His daughter was plaintiff
in an action against Earl Ferrers for breach of promise
of marriage. He had read the article in the Britannia
on the 7th November, and he understood it to apply to
his daughter.
Cross-examined by Mr. CocutußN—As near as he
could recollect his daughter's pamphlet was published
about September last year. It was the production of his
daughter exclusively. The manuscript was corrected by
himself. She was not in communication with any °thyr
person when she wrote it. She was residing with her
grandfather at the time, about six miles distant from
her home. Did not know that some observations upon
the trial, contained in the pamphlet, were sent from
London.

Re-examined—The MS. of the pamphlet was entirely
in the plaintiff's handwriting.
Mr. COCXBURN then addressed the jury on the
part of the defendant, and submitted that in pub-
lishing the article complained of he had only
done his duty as a public journalist with
reference to that most extraordinary case, he
thought he was perfectly justified in saying that the case
of Miss Smith v. Earl Ferrers was one of the most re-
markable that ever was brought to trial. In September,
six months after the trial, the plaintiff came before the
public as a pamphleteer, but not so much in vindication
of herself as to attack the defendant, Earl Ferrers, and
every one clic connected with his defence. The editor
of the paper received the pamphlet, which, in fact, chal-
lenged critigism, and, in the ordinary course of his duty
as a public journalist, made his remarks upon it, and was
he to be made a party to an action, simply because he
had denounced an attempt on the part of the plaintiff to
get out of the responsibility which attached to her. The
Learned Counsel concluded by calling upon the jury to
find a verdict for the defendant.

The Learned JUDGE summed up, and left it to the
jury to say whether the article in question was calcu-
lated to bring the plaintiff into discredit ; if so, she
would be entitled to the verdict.

The jury almost immediately returned a verdict for
the plaintiff.—Damages one farthing.

WORSHIP-STREET.—(THIS DAY.)
Robert Rounce and George Crane, described as guards,
in the employment of the company of the Eastern
Counties Railway were charged with stealing from a
van belonging to the company.
Police-constable 138 H deposed that he was on duty
at about five o'clock this morning in Spitalfields, when
he perceived the prisoner get down from behind the
van in question, and presently
.he observed him lift his
apron in front of him, into which something was thrown
by a person in the van. Witness immediately took
charge of Crane, upon whom he found a large piece of
pork, which had been previously purloined from a
hamper in the van, as also his companion Bounce,
whom he led forth out of the vehicle.
A gentleman, who attended on behalf of the com-
pany, said that a vast quantity of meat, which had been
consigned to the wholesale butchers of the different
markets, had been lost in a similar way.
The prisoners were remanded until Wednesday, in
order to give time for further inquiry.

MARLBRO'-STREET—(THIS DAY.)
Mary Ward, one of the frail sisterhood, was placed
before Mr. Hardwick, charged by John Hall, a servant
out of place, with robbing him of 155., and assaulting
him and tearing his trousers.
The prosecutor stated that on Monday night last he
was walking along Oxford-street, when the prisoner
came up and accosted him. After speaking with her for
some little time, he accompanied her to No. 7, Shep-
herd-street. - While he was there the prisoner took a
half-sovereign and two half-crowns from his trousers
pocket. He accused her of the robbery. She denied it,
and collected such a ruffianly gang around him that he
was afraid to give her into custody then. Ho then left
the house and went into Oxford-street for a constable.
The prisoner followed him, and struck him in the face,
and tore his trousers. Ho ran away, and saw
her in
nothing
of the prisoner till last night, when he gave
charge.
The prisoner, who denied the charge, was committed
for trial.
Tibbin g ton-square, Isling-
Mr. William Henry Willis,
ton, was charged with assaulting Mr. Andrew Coxhead,
foreman to Mr. Banks, umbrella manufacturer, Regent
Circus.
The complainant stated that about nine o'clock last
night, the defendant came into his employer's shop, and
demanded him to give him up possession of the premises.
He ordered him to leave. Defendant refused, and said
he was determined to stop there. Witness eventually

put him out and gave him in charge. The defendan
struck him twice in the face.

The defendant said he formerly carried on business in
tho utme house, hut he had boe unfortunate., and had
lately passed through the Insolvent Court. He was not
authorised by the Commissioner to give up possession.
He therefore felt in duty bound to get possession. His
landlord had sold all his stock, and left him in a state
nearly approaching destitution. He denied using any
violence to complainant, if he did strike him it was by
accident.

Mr. HARDWICK said if defendant had any claim he
had his remedy in a court of law. Ho should discharge
him now, but if he went there again, he (Mr. Hardwick)
would send him to prison.
The defendant promised not to go nigh the house
again, and was discharged.