The Sun.
London, England, 1841-11-05 00:00:00

the auctioneer,really had:- a: lien, but Mr' Baron Parke
wf,a inclined to think that he had ; but, even admitting'
that he had a lien, his Lordship was of opinion that that
should have been speciallypleaded,which had not beep
done. • of
Mr. Justice COLERIDGE_How does the question
lien arise ?
Mr. Sergeant LUDLOW—W ari
C said it did not se at ell
because it had not been pleaded.
IlvileLei‘net—osrro.dtishi Taea)trtEigahweau3sinAtbNeL—eunlpini,l
eoltdwr:
setariildi it
there has
N‘,as ma actlase i (lnile.6ts.h7
ton whether denying the property does not set up the
and where it -NwVaesislbaidili
Was detained, the matter must be set out in the recur
d--;
if a party has a lawful excuse for detaining it, he 1331's
down,which that
tt pointwhere wast
econpsi..ioclpeerr,etey,

plenaThe .
COURT thought the question required some on'
sideration befOre the rule was granted.'
~v
JONES Vi THE LLANELLY RAILWAY COMPA, .•
:NTT. CHILTON moved in ths ease 41:)r a rule to Show
,01,
cause why the verdict for thenlaintiff, with,diniar,ls
should riot be increased to a verdict: for Oa 'da'n3grehs;
It was an action of debt, and upon an awar.
the
defendants -pleaded- the performance of a part •of io•
award, and the impossibilit of performing the I"i%,
der. It appeared that theyplaintiff, Harry jorte;s, '
possessed' of a piece of land, through which it.vras
pthe
posed the Llanelly. Railway should pass in
parties went before the Court of Quarter- Sss,i'9llres
order to have the case submitted to a Jury, it wislg" f a
that the case should be referred to a .ilagistrat? 4)t of
county ; and, by the rule of-referenee, the -anlain en•
compensation and damage, as Well direct 113 consequrea
dal; which would be occasioned to the land, was,l4fcl.ol
to the arbitrator. There was an exception witniAr:oll,
to inundations, upon which, however, nothing w°lll' the
The arbitrator awarded 7301. as full compensation n
of"a lly•
land, and also a further sum of 2001. conditi
He directed that there should be four arched tulle;
made at various parts of the line, by which hen 01.
of the property would be avoided, and which, when c°
pleted, would enable the defendants to avoid the 1)113,•7d;
ment of the 2001. It appeared that the Compaq
e
three tunnels, but did not make the fourth ; and the
vision in the award was, that these four tunnels of their
be made within three months, and in the event of
not being then completed, the Company were ord
iratiered and
° _g
directed to pay, within ten days from the exp
the three months, the sum of 2001. to the plaintiff' ea-
Lord DEN:ILAN—I never heard of an arbitrator 4w
ing a penalty under such circumstances. wing
Mr . C HILTON contended that the Company not ving
fulfilled the conditions of the award, and 11(4 11e thg
given any satisfactory reason why they had not 01,11--age3
fourth. tunnel, the plaintiff was entitled to the 'l4

conditionally awarded him.
The Court granted the rule. , c Mite
CRIMINAL INFORMATION—THE QUEEN V. ..• "°
RIDE.t.'
Mr. JERVIS had been instructed on behalf 0-r Lily to
Colonel Williamson, of the Royal Engineers' t. Ifdor
the Court for a rule to show cause why a crinuin, -04
mation 'should not be filed against the ("elder
Augustus- Collinridge, Editor of the Southall' ore
tiser newspaper. The grounds of the :m0061%101
that Mr. Collinridge had sent a challenge t° -;-,-, not
Williams, and had charged him with cowardiee''pt Olt
fighting him. The affidavit of Colonel Williaais si fie
that he had been for thirty years in the 10107 oe
gineers, and having retired from that corps itt 1:-stlle,
full pay, he took up his residence at Ilastlngs' „.a sad
time since, it being in the contemplation of that t°- At,
St. Leonard's to erect a steam-boat pier, it WaS hthit°§ll7d
in consequence of Colonel Williams' former hti"'to colt'
occupations, that he would be an .eligible Pers°ll„hiell her
suit, and he was requested to prepare plans' ‘,. vow °4;
accordingly did, and the inhabitants passed - f pis%
thanks to him, and presented him with a pie ° stile'
for his services. In consequence, however, t't. the4o4
interested in the matter being unable to raise °ten loti°,l•
funds the project of the pier was for the time au' i: lis'
Col. :Williams, like every other gentlemeihAl4swa: Parfet'
the right, entertained political opinions, anif: ;:ad, •;",,":,
sent at a dinner given to. his (Mr: Jervis's) ir'e,-os t'"
Holland, the Member for Hastings, and the defeuu•
signal for an attack upon Col: Williams, by tile . at Co,
ant, Mr. Collinridge, and the first shot fired vglil4l.t..Co'
shape of a letter headed “. the -Radical liieutlvilliaoll
lonel," and purporting to be signed by
•Col' ,s Pap
himself, which was published in _Mr. Collinridge 0. o'3
The letter stated that the Colonel did not ee reareti
shilling interest in the town, a.nd expressed bitl:shol'ulAt'
that when, rather fresh at the Radical dinner' ,"who it
have attacked a gentleman of respectability)
:how-
expended thousands for the benefit of Hastieeoprove;
fault had been found with his (the Coleners),l, pra!tj
ments. The proposed pier was described It'' the slg'
little shingle trap, and the letter 'which bore to /rout
.nature of Colonel Williams, was followed by PI o se
'the Editor, recommending • every soldier 0 wrolissioo,
up the. trade of a Radical to sell liis c °dile litl,l''
because a Radical soldier was a disgrace tar-it Itti::
Colonel 'Williams, • naturally feeling ludigTia 13rig.";•-ile
publication, addressed a letter to the editor 0;:-., 110'1;5
paper referring to it, and stating that Ito ealt°v;insert 8
the smallest pretension.to character, would ha Aing all
what was so evidently a falsehood, without I'. Itll ireci be:,
inquiry, and regretting that the love of '
trollitical Pii
nesty had been so completely-lost in the P eared in
tisan. Shortly afterwards another article ally 4i00.7
totter pr' •t, bill
the same paper, remarking upon ,'thl3' c-i ia I" I
published, and stated that there`was nothin,,a „a Co;
what. was gentlemanly and luinburable. it eh r:;;a of t
Williams with having told an impudent falsely., a 31,
respectable inhabitant, and havingrefused to 17;Lao i,„
of honour for some newspapers-sent-to hill), ~...0, tvi'4
leged that he was a travelling tinker, going "„°reastetr'd
to town to sow the seeds of dissension bet",.ee; sli°Td
and workmen, and assuring him that thetu .tvcrio-'
watch his proceedings and expose them to iiesse° -of
On the 12th of September a letter was atl"• si:,' a
Colonel Williams from the Bull Inn, Aldglite'he 114
by Mr. Collinridge, in which lie stated Oster, hef.irs
just seen in the Sussex Erpress a lett,otititillito
in.' the signature of Colonel Williams,
3- „oval.,
observations of a strongly personal nature, i
i'lifActe.ce.,
the publication which appeared in the Soatlie
_all '1
t;ser—that he exercised no control over the° Vne.;
tions, and seldom saw them until there werievolitlo,
That there being no just ground for Colonel toes thor
sweeping observations, -he-requested him, t° rg n itt/ -el
or favour him with a reference to a friend for!, oao.,uth
diate meeting. That letter was forwarcled awthe lath
Williams to his solicitors in London, .411r°0,11datbeir
September they wrote to Mr.' Collinrid o,HPltift' f-iie9s
given in his letter, 299, Strand, stating t frri thell' 0.4
intention to apply .to the QUeOU'S 130 ,I 1 potiCe
other
moment for a criminal information. 3-'4(!aerfilt,°„oo.
taken of that. letter, and on the 16th SePt,e`-ci Wil`1:1 of
letter was sent by Mr. Collinridge Gist C°',.°ll-ii6ao,°•l9l
stating that- after his (Mr. C.'s) ioe'Aaieeq °all'
any participation in the publication °toe (-49 `'holit
Colonel Williams, he was bound as . 1; e .1' 1, ' Or. °POI'
draw the observations 'he had }33acei,''olultel,, di°
them in another place. That .letter and °,,•,,0 VA
hams also sent to his soliCitbr.sf ',,,,r, to tii..he''
18th September, a third letter vitt6,s.....ing. Plvi;te.ii,
Mr. Collinridge, charging hint with utt-t•ftlie c°,,, h
id
a palpable falsehood—that as he had, 00„,iii,rge3,;,,,- oil'
to retract, or the couraee to support, toe "his sts; t".
made, he (Mr. Collinridle) roust denounce' lot tiertine
as lies, and his actions as cowardly to the colliu
ea at
Another letter having been written to gri; 80,e3telity
by. Colonel Williams's solicitors a par:41.21(110,1 Pat of
the Southern Advertiser, stating that {be the Li°-Bjer/
man, Colonel Williams, had applied , ti!),' rliei'!•,,/ corr.'
Queen's Bench for protection, and m"..,,,,e(44• eete"
would shortly he amused by the pablicafir '0;0331)01;
respondence.. The Learned Counsel baYllololle ~ 10"
upon the several ,attempts made to prell',hat,:theolos ill
hams to a breach 'of the peace, obserYt•
two' Foist oece
shown the letters of Mr. Colliuride t° bs fi 03100
London, and another person in Sussex, -,''' '?'„,at°,-.,,ect'
admitted them to be his handwriting, butt t-b' the froo.
affidavits to that effect, unless compellf ~,,Yretttere 4
There were there three gentlemen vrhel'l.,-,,topir ''holik
what they heard these three person S' stif'.riage's
opinion that the letters were in Mr: COI in .
Writing.. - . fte„, ` ill, i ire e
°
Lord DENMAN—That is clearlY rose''','f,;(l ieho re'
Mr. JERVIS submitted that the party .005 o' dice
1) at address as 299, Strand, and two of the r bis.., cll"
cognised the handwriting were einploYustice P.' ere, io
there. The Court would be doing n°liiii,tters v.
ing uponer
the defendant to deny that the
his handwriting if he could do so. - • rich 11:11et') '4
Mr. Justice COLERIDGE doubted very
°vide/ice. iyeett
Grand Jury could find a bill upon suett,.chr the e4:00 te
Mr. JERVIS said if the Court theitt•.,
a Id end"'
was insufficient, he must go. further, :-1
~. • , ear
procure direct evidence of the handwritiefi7t
sholoetati re'
Lord DENMAN did not think that Cog rule ei 1 cleot
cise the inquisitorial power which such a te its rta
cognise, and compel a party to come before tile
betbr 'OO
himself without sufficient evidence. , . ~..;rig wri
Mr. JERVIS wished to know if erinb. hole
Court the evidence of parties who knew tile . ,00
, oitte
~4t
would be sufficient. ' 'd tit° g tit° Pl'
Lord DENMAN—We have always sal .0 Om rectlia
should come fully prepared in, tbese et'„, veli:„Jlor
instance, or not at all ; and I ain...llo° Y„-: seto6l':
lea many instances in which we have S'
refused.
I
.red

COMMON
(I3eforeS
the T,___O---'--"'----iti. Pciii.,lFAJSus.—Tlc(E4-----jilusitiSce'. Pc,'
.11.0:1,1:0.
MAuLE, and Eastura.) . of
PUNTER v. LORD GRANTLI. of 101
Mr Sergeant SHEA made an apPlication
clot hot
peculiar nature. It appears that the a 'fltoraioof
refused to pay the costs of the action to tin' at own 00
plaintiff, on the ground that the latter had:no
action ',
his certificate during the years iu which the ilisoDen i'reti:
pending. Mr. Sergeant Shea's applies
davit was that the attorney, Mr. .Neale,, sh°llllis rertiaer
admitted upon payment of the arrea.rSl Urn •71 t, 11130
cate, and of such nominal line as the Citurt ilt :pan
the circumstances, be pleased to iini;4l-4e• I,C ti 11131;00
his application upon these fact 4 as set forth in tliiitt co r,
that Mr. Neale, who resides at Guildford, was. tl,t 03 leflo
attorney of this Court in the year 1799----411:"r 'l4) o'tfore.
1838, 1839, and 1840, he transmitte".l to I".' saiiiibt her
an attorney, residing in London. and is ? I.,"thc Ititiof
the money to take out his certificates, vo,'-i!,:fenec re,
neglected to do. The attorney' ' for the A tOthe P
willing to pay the costs if the Court assenteis tio
sent motion. ' t red ``'iti'tlei'l
The LOAD CHIEF JUSTICE, having con:cr
_rot
..00
other Judges, said, that as there' had beet!_nelied, tl to
of feeling in this case, and as the rurtic l'eoll,t!tirt
the latter part of the Learned Sergeant's statetbe tiveo
be, disposed to come to a better undcrtand,il.46lg:, oli)
i;,oula grant a rule to restore 7111t.'';fteis.„1,1inuiftell ~., 3'
of the arrears, and a fine of 60:8dV9'1''''' the J)10
Mr. Sergeant SHEA. expressed hie tare Q*ht h a tffter,
ness of their Lordships; and was "a , ' °
it cl
defendant's attorney had made a LA. , . i
1 taking all the cireutnstances into- •cori • u•-• -31°1'4:4