The Sun.
London, England, 1840-01-13 00:00:00

LIVERPOOL

Sir WILLIAM FOLLETT moved for a _rule, calling on
the defendant to show cause by what right he exercised
the functions of a Town councillor of the borough
of Liverpool. It appeared that at the last election
for Town Councillors in that borough the numbers at the
close of the poll were, for Mr. Quail, 304 ; for Mr. Shad-
well, 303. But on examination it was discovered that one
person had voted twice for Mr. Quail, arid that it bad
been decidod by the Mayor and Assessors that a person
named John Ashley bad no right to vote.—Rule granted.
THE QUEEN V. THE PROPRIETORS OF THE MANCHFACER

T MES.—CRIMINAL INFORMATION.
Sir W. FOLLETT moved fur a rule calling upon the
Editors and proprietors of the Manchester Times to show
(nose why a criminal information should not be filed again ;t
them fbr the publication of a libel reflecting on the cha-
racter of Sir Robert Holt Leigh, Bart., a gentleman of
consid,l,bie property residing near Wigan. The publica-
tion question referred to certain transactions which had
taken place as far back as the year 1811, and the publica-
tion in substance- stated that Sir Robert Holt Leigh. and
the trustees of the public; school at Wigan, tcol at
:bat period acted collusively together in afienating
a certain portion of the property of the scliocid.
for the benefit of Sir Robert Holt Leigh. It further in-
sinuated that 1.0001. of the school property had been. ex-
pended by the trustees for the purpose of obtaining an Act
of Parliament to enable them to alienate the property•; and
they had supported their assertions by certain garbled extracts
from the Reports of the Commissioners of Charities. The
proprietors of the newspaper, on being applied to, had
published what they professed to call an apology or expla-
nation ; but this was accompanied by comments of a still
more taolsive character, and which insinuated that, the
editor still believed in the truth of the libellous matter.
The facts of the case were then stated by the Learned
Counsel. Application had been made to the editors for
the purpose of setting them right, in answer to which
they made an acknowledment of being in error on some
points, but at the same time stated that the act of
the trustees was more lor promoting the interest of
Sir R. H. Leigh than for promoting that of the school, so
that in fact they repeated the charge against Sir, R. H.
Leigh. A second letter was written by the s
citor of Sir Robert Holt Leigh detailing the whole
transaction as it had really occurred, calling' 'on
the proprietors to insert this statement as *an apology.
They had not published the letter, but had taken tbt sub-
stance of it, and at the conclusion of the article had said,
.‘ We shall make no further comment than this--if Sir
Robert Holt Leigh has paid 7,0001. for 651. a year, he
has made a bad bargain," thus insinuating that they did
not believe Sir R. H. Leigh's account of the transaction.
Rule granted.

COMMON PLEAS.-(THIS RAY.)

BRIGGS V. GLOVER.

This was an action brought by an attorney for his bill of
costs, incurred in defending several actions for the defend-
ant. The defence set up was, that there was no authority
given to the plaintiff to proceed. In the course of 'the
trial, it was agreed by both parties that the revocation of
the authority was upon the 23d July, and a verdict was
taken for the plaintiff for 211, the costs incurred up to the
time of the revocation.

Mr. CROWDER now moved for a rule to show cause why
the 23d July, in the order of the Court, should not be
altered to the 28th, relying upon an affidavit, stating that
the conversation on which the revocation took place was
on the latter day, or fur a rule for a new trial,

The COURT refused the rule, on the ground that the
plaintiff was bound by his consent at tie trial.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL then obtained a rule last term
fora new trial, on the ground of the wrongful finding of
the Jury.
Mr. Sergeant BOMPAS now showed cause against the
rule, and contended that although evidence was given of
many other vessels not being, obliged to put in, still, he
argued, that it was evident the storm only affected the de-
fendant's vessel—that it was the only one that came within
the circle of the storm.

Mr. RICHARDS in reply, in the absence of the Seticker-
General disputed the philosophy of his Learned Friend by
argument and facts, contending that the other vessels which
stArtPd, some before and some after the vessel in question
had as much cause for putting -into port. He alto urged
that, as the Captain's wife lived at Plymouth, there was
more attraction than compulsion in the case.
Their LORDSHIFS did not think sufficient grounds were
shown to induce them to disturb the verdict.—The rule
discharged.

DART V. WESTCDTT.
This was an action brought to recover the value of a
cargo of oranges sunk in Plymouth harbour. By the
charte party it was agreed that the vessel was nos so put
into any port on her voyage from St. Michael's to London,
unless compelled by stress of weather or other unavoidable
cireumstanceF,
The Jury found for the defendant.