The Sun.
London, England, 1841-11-06 00:00:00

legt,l titni be was a travelling tink
to town :to sow the seeds of dissension between
and wnrkmen, and :assuring him that they should
watch his proceedings and expose them to the world.
On the 12th of September a letter was addressed to
Colonel !Williams from the Bull Inn, Aldgate, signed
by Mr.-,Collinridge, in which he stated that he had
just seen in the Sussex Express a letter bear-
ing the signature of Colonel Williams, containing
observations of a strongly perSonal nature, in regard to
the publication which appeared in the Southern Adver-
'it;ser—that lie exercised no control over
.these publica-
tions, and .seldom saw them until there were in type.
That there being no just ground for Colonel Williams's
sweeping observations, he requested him to retract them,
or favour him with a reference to a friend for an imme-
diate meeting. That letter was forwarded by Colonel
Williams to his solicitors in London and on the 17th
September they wrote to Mr. Collinridge at the address
iven in his letter, 299, Strand, stating that it was their
intention to apply to the Queen's Bench at the earliest
moment for a criminal information. No notice was
taken of that letter, and on the Ifith September another
letter was sent by Mr. Collinridge to Colonel Williams,
statiog.that after his (Mr. C.'s) distinct disavowal ec
any participation in the publication complateo
of by
Colonel Williams, he was bound as gentleman to with-
draw the
itnhe
motobtkseic:ivations had made, or uphold
place. That letter Colonel Wil-
liams also sent to his solicitors,
.and on the
18th September, a third letter was sent to him by
Mr. Collinridge, charging him with having published
a palpable falsehood—that as lie had not the courtesy
to retract, or the courage to support, the charges he had
made, he (Mr. Collinridge) must denounce his statements
as lies, and his actions as cowardly to the last degree.
Another letter having been written to Mr. Collinridge
by Colonel Williams's solicitors a paragraph appeared in
the Southeru Adverti,o,, stating that the %then! Gentle-
man, Colonel Williams, had applied to the Court of
Queen's Bete + • for- protection, And _that their renders
would shortly be amused bv the publication of the eor-
respondence. The Learned Counsel having commented
upon the several attempts made to provoke Colonel Wil-
liams to a breach of the peace, observed that they had
shown the letters of Mr. Collinridge to two persons in
London, and another person in Sussex, who all at once
admitted them to be his handwriting, but refused to make
affidavits to that effect, unless compelled by the Court.
There were there three gentlemen who swore that from
what they heard these three persons say, they were of
opinion that the letters were in Mr. Collinridge's hand-
writing.
Lord PENMAN--That is clearly insufficient.
Mr: JERVIS submitted that the party had given his
address as 299, Strand, and two of the persons who re-
cognised the handwriting were employed at his office
there. The Court would be doing no injustice in call-
ing upon the defendant to deny that the letters were in
his handwriting if he could do so.
Mr. Justice COLERIDGE doubted very much whether a
Grand Jury could find a bill upon such evidence.
Mr. JERVIS said if the Court thought the evidence
was insufficient, he must go further, and endeavour to
procure direct evidence of the handwriting.
Lord PENMAN did not think that .Court should exer-
cise the inquisitorial power which g'uch a rule would re-
cognise, and compel a party to come before it and clear
himself sufficient evidence.

Mr. JERVIS wished to know if bringing before the
Court the evidence of parties who knew the handwriting
would be sufficient.

Lord DEN MAN—We have sivrays said that gentlemen
should come fully prepared in these cases in the first
instance, or not at all ; and I am sure you will recol-
lect many instances in which we have so acted.—Rul•

refused.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Nor. 5.

Before the LORD CHIEF JUSTICE, Justices COLT/4AX,
MAULE, and ERSKINE.)
PUNTER V. LORD GRANTLY.

Mr Sergeant SHEA made an application of a very
peculiar nature: It appears that the defendant had
refused to pay the costs of the action to the attorney of
plaintiff, on the ground that the latter had'not taken out
his certificate during the years in which the action was
pending. Mr. Sergeant Shea's application upon affi-
davit was that the attorney, Mr. Neale, should be re-
admitted urn payment of the arrears upon his certifi-
cate, and of such nominal fine as the Court might, under
the circumstances, be pleased to impose. He founded
his application upon these facts as set forthin the affidavit,
that Mr. Neale, who resides at Guildford, was admitted an
attorney of this Court in the year 1799—that in the years
1838, 1839, and 1840, he transmitted to his son, who is
an attorney, residing in London. and is his agent here,
the money to take out his certificates, which the latter
neglected to do. • The attorney for the defence was
willing to pay, the costs if the Court assented to the pre-
sent motion.

The LOAD CIIIEF JUSTICE, having conferred with the
other Judges, said, that as there had been a great deal
of feeling in this case, and as the parties seemed, from
the latter part of the Learned Sergeant's statement, to
be disposed to come to a better understanding, the Court
would grant a rule to restore Mr. Neale, upon payment
of the arrears, and a fine of 6s. Bd.
Mr. Sergeant SHEA expressed his sense of the kind-
ness of their Lordships, and was bound to say that the
defendant's attorney had made a very handsome offer,
taking all the circdmstances into consideralim.

EXCHEQUER COURT, Nov. 5.
FAUNTLEROY V. JONES.

This was an action of trover to recover a number of
packs of wool, which was tried before the Lord Chief
Baron at the late assizes held at Flint, when his Lord-
....

ship nonsuited the plaintiff.
The ATTORNE - GENERAL now moved for a rule nisi
to set aside the nonsuit, and enter a verdict for the plain-
tiff. He said his client was a large dealer in wool; the
defendant Jones was a flannel manufacturer, who had
very considerable business transactions with him. During
the last year he introduced a person named Howell to
the plaintiff as one who had succeeded to his business.
Howell gave an order for wool to the amount of 691. for
which cash was paid, and the money was traced to have
come from Jones. The next order was to the amount of
3671., which sum was likewise paid by Jones' money.
The third order amounted to 4601, which was partly paid
for in money, again from Jones, the remainder was
paid for by a bill from Howell. The fourth order was
for 361/, part of which was again paid for in cash, and
the remainder by bill from Howell; :and one more
transaction of a similar nature took place be-
fore the first bill was due. All the bills
were dishonoured, and upon inquiry the plaintiff
found that Howell had never been a flannel ma-
nufacturer—that all the wool had been taken to the
premises of Jones, and had been sold by him to pay off a
debt of between 4,0001. and 5,0001. owing to him by
Rowell. He (the Attorney-General) contended that
the fraud was so palpable that, according to the cases of
Abbott v. Parry and Hill v. Parrott, the property in
the goods had not passed out of the plaintiff, and there-
fore trover would lie.
Mr. Baron PARKE—Undoubtedly fraud would vitiate
the contract, but the question here is, part of the money
value of the goods having been paid could the action of
trover be maintained without a tender of repayment?
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said that was the real
question, and a most important one it was, for if the
Court held that a tender was necessary any person who
had determined upon committing a fraud would take care
to pay some part of the purchase-money. In this case
it was abundantly clear that the object of Jones was to
get payment of the debt owing • him by Rowell, out
of the property of the plaintiff. He trusted that, as the
ease was so important to the commercial world, the Court
would think it was one deserving of further consideration.
The COURT—Yes ; we think it deserves further atten-
tion, therefore you may take a:rule.—Rule nisi granted.

HARDMAN V. BELIIOUSE.

This was an action for 350/., which was tried before
Mr. Justice Wightman, at the late Liverpool Assizes,
when a verdict was found for the defendant.
Mr. KNOWLES now moved for a rule nisi to set that
verdict aside, and for a' new trial, or that the verdict
should be entered for the plaintiff. There were several
pleas, but the fourth and latter one, was the only mate-
rial one. It was as to 3501., that the defendant had de-
livered a certain bill of exchange, drawn by APLella.n
upon KLellan, which had been accepted in satis-
faction of the defendant. The evidence in the cause

showed that it was an action against one of the
partners of a house in Canada, to which the
plaintiff had made certain consignments. The defence
was, that the custom of the trade was that the
parties in Canada should purchase good bills in that
colony which were to be accepted in payment of the
goods so consigned—that at the time the bill in question
was purchased it was a good bill, as M`Lellan's house
was then in high repute, and therefore was a full pay-
ment of the debt. He contended that the Learned Judge
had not left the only question in the cause to the Jury,
which was, had the bill been received by the plaintiff
in
satisfaction of his claim. Now that was abundantly dis
proved, because as soon as it was received it was pro-
tested for non-acceptance, and the pro
test sent out to
Canada immediately. They held the bill, it was true,
but only as the agent of the defendants. Having sent
out the protest immediately, clearly proved that the
bill was not accepted in satisfaction. That he con-
ceived was the real question raised hy the issue, and
it had not been put before the Jury, which he considered
entitled him to a rule.—Rule nisi granted.
MORRIS, CLERK, V. THE DUKE Oy NORFOLK.
Mr. KELLY moved •for a new trial in this case, which
was tried before Mr. Baron Alderson, at the late Suffolk
Assizes, when a verdict was found for the plaintiff.
This was an issue directed to try the validity of a mo-
dus set up by the defendant, in respect of a farm, of
about 400 acres, situated in a parish. in Norfolk. In
IA
consequence of the form action it was the
duty of the defendant to prove the affirmative ; he
commenced, and proved that after the passing ,
of the Tithe Commutation Act, the modus was
set up and supported by the Tithe Commissioner,
but the plaintiff appealed, and the issue was directed.
It appeared that the defendant was owner of the farm in
question, as well as much other property in the parish -
that from the year 1741, up to 1820, it was distinctly
proved that 141. a year had been paid for the tithes ;
during that period there had been five rectors, who had
all received that sum as the tithes for the farm in ques-
.tion; and that from 1803, until 1820, the plaintiff himself
had received the same sum. The reverend plaintiff was in
some way connected with the family of the late Duke.
Upon his death, in that year,:some unpleasant feelings