The Sun.
London, England, 1840-08-06 00:00:00

" IN TIIE NAME OF GOD OMNIPOTENT.
_ _

" Official n,ws given by me, the King of the Moors,
and beloved of the Moors, Haggi Abd-el-Kader (whom
God assist), to all those who arc under the French domi-
nion, Christians, Moors, and Jews. And this is what I
am about to tell you, to notify that it is necessary that
you look well at this news and understand it as is proper,
and you will Judge if I am, in the right in what I. am
going to say.

1. The son of the King of France began with tree-
when he passed through my lands without my
orders, and he showed forged letters in my name, and
delivered them to his subjects, that they might show
them to the Arabs. And they say in the said is tters
th•it I have given orders to the Bedouins not to fight,
and to let them pass. He also said to the Bedouins,
I have an order from the King, Abd-el-Kader, that
you should let me pass, and not molest me.' Here are
his letters. When the Bedouins saw my letters, they
did not molest him in any way, and he passed the same
as if he had been a thief ; and when he arrived at
Algiers he began to say with falsehood, The Arabs
are all in my favour from Constantina to Algiers,' and
when I found out that he was a traitor, I then began
to war with him, and I ordered my subjects, who were
mounted, that they should repair to a place called
Hairi Tebt ; and I gave an order that all they
should meet they should take, and the people were
looking on from the terraces of the houses ; and I
gave orders to all the lands where I rule to
empty them all, and not to leave a living person
in them, seeing that we do not want towns.
Let the French enter or not, it matters little to me,
the King of the Arabs. We want only horses and
camels. We have nothing to burden us, and God all
powerful has favoured me from the gate of Aida to the
territory near Tunis, and, thanks to God, all are under
my orders ; and what the son of the King of France
said, that the Arabs were in his favour,' is false, seeing
that ray Mussulmans are loyal and true, and are all
under my rule ; and I will soon be with you, and be
among the French : who says he is a mai, let him
come out with me on the -field of battle. And may
the blessed God save

.' 2. The son of the King of France said that h
Our lands, and that he ld
was coming out t against Trio with a great force, de
When he came outuu I
ttniikarttea certainly awyoumldy
thoughttakki take all
da
loiwnia; coming
if the son of the King of great force, and, having sent
to
waiting,war with. them, I left the whole- fmy troops troops
mountains
orofa rFtorfoaon:.cie.n:nypanu
at
athim-
self in the midst of the
hi; own mouth, in order that
Toza, as he had said witii
amongst
instructions thmheym
of
f have
in s
God might have assisted me, mightf have extermi-
nated them all, and not even one
escaped. And he entered into Mel
aegra, Tr
[e, n
partcHitiheeaimv
according
this is true : and n
fused, and they feared my forces aneda '
army, and ho.
did not according to
father and of the great lace
he returned fleeing. I sent
how
and many
troops after them. They killed of th
of Medea!), and hehaas
Frenchmen wrote to tne from Algiers that it'i-
there perished 6,000. You should consider strue
that
y
to my calculation, 6,000 ; apd
millions of dollars the Frenchman has lost
many troops he has lost, and. he has not gained even
not been able to get a single Bedouin under his domi-
nion, and I have spent nothing but common coscuzu .*
and I and my kingdom, and my troops, and my money,'
maravedi in his undertaking
all, thanks to God, more than what. I had before, and
every day increasin,g more, and if God favoLrs me I
hope soon to be seated and. occupy myTlacc in Algiers
with the strength of Almighty God.
3. I am a person of feeling for every living person,
I am compassionate for all, and have had news that you
are greatly straitened under the French, from the stop-
page of business and the fear you are in. And there
is no buying nor selling ; and the Bedouins do not
go to buy ; and the French make little account
of you, and are molesting you with contributions,
and forgive you nothing ; and they have no force
to assist you in anything ; and they have no means
to get the Bedouins to come in to transact their business,
hat you • might gain something by them. If you coma to,
my lands, you may come with all freedom under my word,
and you. shall live well, and you shall pay no duties, nor con-
tributions, i nor anything ; and if any of you are receiving
pay from the French I will double it, and he who is
e
working. for nothing let him come to me and I will
give. him money that he may trade and gain something
with me, and to the poor man I will give what he wants,
and during all the time .ou are under the French do-
minion I am in fear for you. You cannot live will
them, and you cannot even enjoy the gardens, because
you are afraid we shall come upon you. Your persons
are not even safe to carry a sack of flour,. or a single
head of cattle, from Bufaregh to the Belida, until there
comes out with them 5,000 or 6,0)0 French troops ;
rsc(olaoimmnnn
(ryce.i
and as to me, by the favour of God, a person may go
out alone in all my territory, from Aida to Tunis, with
a bag of gold on his head, and nobody, would even look
at him under the fear of
Almighty God. Read this
attentively and understand it well.
* A species of food in general use among the Moors of
every rank. It is composed of flour moistened, and made
into grains or balls somewhat smaller than rice.

- „
LOVE AND SUICIDE.—At Hinckley, on Tues-
day week, the body of Catherine Cotton was found drowned in
Ithe canal. fhe deceased lived in the service of Mr. Gramshaw,
surgeon, of Hinckley, and had formed a strong attachment to a
young man named John Checkland, whose attention towards
returned to the
her had ceased, he having deserted her, and paid his addresses
to another female. About three weeks ago the unfortunate
young girl sent her faithless lover a letter, upbraiding him with
0 fwlreishurandanetri..-
his conduct, and threatening self-destruction unless he returned
that she resolved upon destro3 ing herself, and on Sunday night
to her. This letter Checkland subsequently
deceased, and paid no regard to its contents ; consequently this
7aSEconCsiOdePraPb
El
el I
.. quantity '
circumstance produced such a melancholy effect upon her mind,
stani3d
last she went into the Hinckley wharf-yard, where it is KT--
Pissed she threw herself into the canal, and terminated her ex-
istence.—lpswich Paper.
facture, in circulation in the town, and, if great vigilance be
not exercised, the amount is likely to increase very consider_
ably,
ably, from the large -
profits which are obtained by the importers.
Yesterday,o_ce Bernard Hickey was brought up at the Police_
COPPER.—There ile roef
copper
po
r already,ooio :
m ,he having been stopped at the Clarence Dock, early on
base Sunday
morning, with a box containing seven stone weight of
ase copper coin, made up. into 53. packages, which he had
brought over in the Hibernia steamer, from Dublin, and which
he admitted having purchased at less than half-pri •
ce.
pool Times. Liver.

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.

NORTHERN CIRCUIT-1 EI-ire-1 STLE-UPON- T Y NE,

Aua. 3.
THE cHARTIsTs.

ACQUITTAL or MasoN.—John Wilkinson, Andrew
Guthrie, Edward Coulson, Thomas Brown, William
t.cplienson, and John Tweedie, appeared to the recog-
nizAnces into which they had entered to take their trial
upon an indictment then found against them for offences
connected with Chartism, and severally withdrew their
former pleas, and pleaded guilty, and were permitted to
depart on entering into their own recognizances to keep
the peace for two years. _

Henry Mills, Thomas Daglish, Thomas Monaghan,
William Thomason, Thomas Devyer, and James Ayre,
indicted for similar offences, were severally called on
their recognizances, and not appearing their recognizanccs
were ordered to be estreated.

Mr. LUSH applied to the Court on the part of the
bail of Mr. Devyer to have their recognizance discharged
on the ground that Devyer, in January last, had given
them leg bail, and gone to America without their
knowledge, notwithstanding every endeavour on their
part to recover so soon as his flight was known
They at length traced him to Liverpool a day too late
the ship having sailed just as they arrived.
His LORDSIIIP said that he must estreat the recog-
nizances, and if the Treasury thought fit, on a repre-
sentation of the circumstances of the case, to forego the
forfeiture, they could do so.
Robert Blakey was also called.

Mr. Watson applied to have his trial postponed on
an affidavit of a medical gentleman in London, which
was dated the 30th of July, and stated that the de-
fendant had been suddenly attacked by a violent bowel
complaint, which would render him incompetent to
travel for some days, he being then residing in Surrey.
His LORDSHIP said he must give credit to the affi-
davit of the medical gentleman, and would postpone the
trial, and direct the recognizances to be respited till the
next assizes.

Francis Hume and Richard Marsden were then
called, and appeared.
John Mason, who, in default of bail, had been in pri-
son, was then called upon to plead to an indictment
which charged him with having uttered seditious words,
and conspired to incite the people to riot, tumult, and
disobedience of the laws, at a meeting held in Newcas-
tle on the 20th January last, and pleaded not guilty.
The defendant conducted his own case.

It appeared from the testimony of a reporter for the
T.yize Mercury, that on the 20th of January last he
went to the New Lecture Rooms, in Nelson-street,
in this town, to attend a public meeting, which
had been called upon the subject of petitioning
the Throne for a remission of the sentence of the
Welsh patriots, Frost, Jones, and Williams, who had
been convicted of high treason at Newport. About
1,500 persons were present. The place has seats
for 1,000. James Ayre and the defendant were
there. Ayre proposed that a Mr. Carlton should take
the chair, which he immediately did with-
out any regular voting of him into it, and
addressed the meeting. He said that the meeting
had been convened for the purpose of petition-
ing to save their friends, the Welsh patriots, the
nature of whose case the Chairman explained to
the meeting. Ayre next rose and spoke, and amongst
other things said, " I will tell you candidly, that, rather
than suffer Frost to be sacrificed by so base, bloody,
and detestable a set, I will see one universal blaze
from one end of the country to the other." This
was followed by cheers. He continued, " I want not
your cheers ; I have heard your cheers often enough.
I want something better than that." Speaking of the
Queen's then projected wedding, he said, " that either
Frost should be saved or the wedding should be put
off. They had only to let the Queen know that, and he
would be pardoned. If Frost was not pardoned, that
bridal day might be a melancholy one for the fate of
this country," with other expressions of a like kind.
The defendant Mason followed. He said the life of
Frost was in danger, and the death of Frost would be
the golden key to take the life of every patriot in the
country. There was one step that could be taken, and
if there were 20,000,000 times more opposed to them
than there were they could not prevent it. He then
talked about the Queen's marriage, and said he would
rather see Lord Melbourne and Prince Albert hanged
(the witness thought the word was hanged, but there was
a noise at the time, and he was not sure of it,) than Frost
should suffer. He then described the nature of the
execution of persons committed for high treason. They
were to be hung, their bodies cut into four quarters,
and which might be sent to the four quarters of the em-
pire. They might see one quarter sticking upon St.
Nicholas's Church, but they would prevent it. He re-
lated a long anecdote of some executions being pre-
vented in Jamaica by a threat to burn down the prin-
cipal street in the town. He knew he should be on his
trial for this speech within a month, but he cared not.
He would tell them what the Constitution was, and
Frost should be saved.

On cross-examination the witness said he did not
take every word of the speech. He was an unwilling
witness. He did not like, because he was in the per-
formance of his duty as a reporter, to be called as a
witness. It got him a great deal of ill-will ;at least,
he thought it was calculated to do so.
The defendant then addressed the Jury in his de-
fence, and went ably into a discussion of the consti-
tution of the country, Magna Charta, and the rights
of the subject, the condition of the poor, and read the
whole of the draft of an intended Bill which embodied
the People's Charter, the reading of which occupied
nearly two hours, and then appealed to the Jury if
there was any thing in it unconstitutional, or for which
he ought to be found guilty.
The Learned Judge, in summing up the case, said
that the question was not so much whether the Charter
was a lawful obj:ct, as whether the defendant had not
sought that object by unlawful means. He then went
through the evidence, and the Jury, after a short consi-
deration, returned a verdict of Not Guilty.
The announcement of the verdict was followed by
loud cheers in the Court, which were with difficulty
suppressed.

Nothing of interest occurred in the civil Court to-day.

HOME CIRCUIT—GUILDFORD, Aua. 5.
CIVIL SIDE.

(Before Lord ABINGER and a Common Jury.)
PUNTER V. LORD GRANTLEY AND ANOTHER.

This was an action of trespass brought by the plain-
tiff, a labouring man, who sued in forma pauperis,
against the Right Hon. Lord Grant!ey, a Magistrate for
the County of Surrey, and the circumstances connected
with it hAve created a very great sensation throughout
the whole county. The cause was commenced on
day, and after lasting several hours, was adjourned until
this morning, and was not concluded until an advanced
period of this day.
Mr. Sergeant Shea, Mr. Petersdorff, and Mr. Locke
were for the plaintiff, Mr. Thesiger, Mr. Platt, and Mr.
Chambers were engaged on behalf of the defendant.
The declaration charged that the defendant, the
Right Hon. Fletcher, Lord Grantley, with other persons,
with force and arms, broke and entered a cottage below,-
ing to the plaintiff, end caused a groat noise and
destruction, and cfterwards pulled it down and de-
stroyed the said ca.ttage and the chattels therein,
and rejected and expelled the plaintiff from the cot-
tage, with his family, and compelled them to remove
to the open highway without shelter, and exposed to
the inclemency of the weather, whereby the plaintiff
was compelled to apply for relief, and to go into the
workhouse, &c. The defendants pleaded not guilty,
and a variety of other pleas.
The damages were laid at 5001.

Mr. Sergeant SHEE addressed the Jury and said he
had to lay before them the details of what he considered
to be a most grievous outrage, committed by the defen-
dan.s upon the property of the plaintiff, and for which
he was fully entitled to ample damages at the hands
of the Jury. The plaintiff in this case was a very poor
man ; so poor, that it was only by the merciful consi-
deration of the law of England that he was enabled that
day to appear before the Jury, and he appeared
before them as a pauper. The Learned Counsel
then proceeded to detail the circumstances out of which
the proceeding arose. He said that the plaintiff and
his family had, for nearly fifty yeats, been in possession
of a cottage and some land at Wonersh, adjoining the
estate of the Noble Lord, and during the whole of that
long period they had enjoyed the possession of the pro-
perty uninterruptedly, and had never paid any rent to
any person, neither bad any been demanded from them.
Inthe commencement of the present year, the defend-
ant, from some reason or other, had assumed a title to
the cottage and land, and summoned the plantiff before
a magisti ate, and the extraordinary proceeding was
taken of granting a warrant under the Recovery of Tene-
ments Act for the delivery of the possession of the cot-
tage to the defendant ; and on April 14, by the defend-
ant's orders, several men proceeded to the cottage, and
they then, by force, removed the plaintiff, and his wife,
and family ; and in spite of their remonstrances they
threw all the furniture into the road, damaged, and de-
stroyed a great deal of it, and then demolished the
cottage entirely, and dug up the foundation
of it. in consequence of this outrageous proceeding the
plaintiff and his family were compelled to wander about
for two nights with his children, and he at length found
a refuge only in t!.e Union Workhouse. It was for
this wanton outrage that the plaintiff sought for recom-
pense at the hands of the defendant. The latter was
a nobleman of high rank and great fortune, but he was
sure that these advantages would have no weight in the
minds of the jury, but that they would deal equal jus-
tice to the rich and the poor man.
'File following evidence was then adduced
Mary Punter deposed that she was the daughter of
the plaintiff, and lived with him and the rest of the
family at the cottage in question, in Norent-lane,
in the parish of Woncrsh, prior to the 14th of
April. On that day several men, whom she
knew as being in the employ of Lord Grantley,
came to the house and knocked at the door. They did
not answer the knock, and the men then forced the door
in, and they all entered and began to pull the things
about, and told the witness and her mother that they

must go out. The men put all the furniture out into
the garden, and a tea-cup and saucer were broken. Her
fatter came home while the men were there, and the
famity were all compelled to be out during the night
upon the lawn, and when her father wanted to go into
the house they would not let him. The next morning
the men began to pull the house down, and they did not
stop until it was completely down to the ground, and they
then dug up the garden. The family had to remain in
the fields during the whole of the next night ; and the
union doctor afterwards saw her father, and the family
were all admitted to the Union Workhouse. Her father
was very ill afterwards, and did not return to his work
for two months.

Cross-examined—Witness had been in the workhouse
before. They could not have got in in the n;ght ; they
were turned out of the cottage because they had no order
of admiEsion.

Thomas Punter, a brother of the plaintiff, proved
that his father occupied the cottage in question forty-
eight years ago. He afterwards died in the workhouse.
After his death witness's mother occupied the cottage,
and she, at her death, gave it to the plaintiff. They
never paid any rent for it. The late Lord Grantley
used frequently to come to the cottage during his
father's lifetime.

Cross-examined—The old Lord Grantley was very
good to the family. He never heard that the cottage
had been sold by the parish to Lord Grantley.
Mr. John Sparkes, a farmer at Wonersh, proved that
it had always been considered that the cottage in ques-
tion was nat. on Lord Grantley's manor. He had some
conversation with Lord Grantley a short time ago, and
he told him that he was always crossing him, and that
he had advanced money to that fellow Punter to go to
law with him. Witness had never advanced any money
to the plaintiff, either directly or indirectly.
A paper was then produced and identified as having
been written by the plaintiff's mother, by which she
gave him the cottage and its contents.
Another witness proved that all the materials of the
cottage were conveyed to Lord Grantley's wood-yard.
This was the case for the plaintiff.
Mr. THESIGER then addressed the Jury, and said,
that notwithstanding the manner in which his learned
friend had opened this case, he had no doubt that he
should be able to satisfy the Jury that Lord Grantley
had done no more than he was legally authorised to do,
and that there was no pretence for accusing him of
having committed a grievous and unnecessary outrage.
Lord Grantley was a nobleman of high character and
honour, and all who knew him were aware that he was
incapable of committing an outrage against the rights
or property of any poor man. The fact was, that al-
though the plaintiff and his family had certainly lived in
the cottage, a great number of years, they had no legal
title to it whatever, and it was only through
the considerate kindness of Lord Grantley's father that
they were permitted to do so. The plaintiff, however,
had thought fit to set up a title to the cottage, and had
bearded Lord Grantley, and defied him to remove
him, and his Lordship then took the only proper
course, under such circumstances, to apply to the Bench
of Magistrates ; and the defendant was called up, under
a recent Act of Parliament, to show by what right he
claimed to hold possession of the cottage, and after a
full inquiry, and hearing the proofs produced by
Lord Grantley, the Bench decided that the plaintiff
had no right to the property, and they issued their
warrant for the expulsion of the plaintiff from the
cottage if he did not consent to give up peaceable pos-
session. Lord Grantley had acted most cautiously in
the matter, and what he did was done under the sanc-
tion of the law, and this was all that could
be fairly and calmly alleged against him.
The Learned Counsel then proceeded to enter at
some length into the circumstances of the occupation
of the cottage by the Punter family, and said that
from the very commencement it was merely a permis-
sive occupation by Lord Grantley and his father. The
defendant and his family had been in the receipt of
parochial relief, and he should show that the cottage in
question had been purchased by the late Lord Grant-
ley, of the parish of Wonersh, and that he had always
exercised control over it, by making repairs, &c., and
that rent had been demanded of the defendant by Lord
Grantley, and that he had requested the parish to pay
it for him. He submitted to the Jury that the plaintiff
under any circumstances had no right to the property,
because he was not the eldest son, and it did not there-
fore descend to him from his father and mother, supposing
their title to have been a good one. Under all the
circumstances, he had no doubt he should be
able to satisfy the Jury that the plaintiff had no right
whatever to the property, and he should also be able to
show them that the cottage in question really belonged
to Lord Grantley, and that he was justified in ejecting
the plaintiff from it.
A number of witnesses were then called ; and from
their evidence it appeared that repairs to the cottage
in qaestion had been ordered, and paid for, by the pre-
sent Lord Grantley and his father. It also ap-
peared that the latter had told the mother of the
plaintiff that he would allow her to live in the cottage
rent tree as long as she lived. It was also proved that upon
another:occasion the present Lord Grantley had cut down
a tree, and had it removed, and that the plaintiff offered
no objection to this being done. It was also shown that the
present Lord Grantley had demanded rent of the
plaintiff for the cottage, and that he did not object to
the claim, but said he was too poor to pay it, and
begged the parish to pay the rent for him ; and they
consented to do so, on account of his poverty. It was
also proved that, in the year 1792, by the parish books,
it appeared that a cottage, in the lane mentioned, had
been sold by the parish ; but this portion of the de-
fendant's case was not clearly established. Another
witness proved that the plaintiff had told him that he
thought of cutting down some trees upon the land, but
he was afraid to do so, for fear he should " burn his
fingers."
This was the case for the defendant.

Mr. Sergeant SHEA replied, and contended that the
case for the plaintiff had not been at all shaken by the
evidence adduced on behalf of Lord Grantley, and that
the Jury ought to give him compensation or damages
for the outrage that been committed upon him.
Lord ABINGER summed up, and told the Jury there
were several questions for their consideration. In the
first place, they would have to consider whether the
plaintiff had established a title to the property in ques-
tion. Secondly, they would say whether they thought
Lord Grantley had failed in making out a title. As
regarded the general issue they must find for the plain-
tiff, because it could not be denied that the premises
had been broken ; but if their considered the defendant
had a good title, in that case they would. give ne da-
mages. In his opinion the plaintiff had failed altogether
in proving any title to the premises, for supposing that
his father and mother had a legal right to them, he, as
the second son, could not claim them. If they con-
sidered the defendaat had no title to the property, then
they would find for the plaintiff, with such reasonable
damages as the justice of the case required at their
hands.

The Jury having delibetated for some time, returned
a verdict for the plaintiff—Damages, 2501.
Lord ABINGER said he hoped the Jury understood
the question which had been submitted, because, if their
verdict was founded upon an erroneous impression, it
might be set aside.

The foreman of the Jury having consulted with the
other jurymen, said, " We think the title of the plain-
tiff's family is made out ; it has run so long against
Lord Grantley's family that he has no claim to the pro-
perty."