The Sun.
London, England, 1847-11-16 00:00:00

tor perusal during- the day, which circumstance was
fresh in his recollection. lie nerfortned this office in
the presence of the ina,,ter and a Mr. Swear. Mr.
Gutteridge alleged that Mr. Foste:. the master, was
so disgusted with the conduct of kr. Lee that he
left the room. His affidavit stated that he was soli-
Cited by the master to attend the sick bed of the
boy, that out of delicacy to the clergyman, in
whose parish the school was situated, he suggested
that he should be sent for to attend, but that
he proceeded, from his residence, with Mrs. Foster
to the room in which the boy lay. Mr. Foster was
present. He proceeded, he went on, to the school-
room where Mr. Foster read prayers to the boys ;
and that seeing Mr. Foster rather nervous and ex-
periencing some difficulty in addressing them in his
presence, he stood up, and addressed them for him.
Two ladies, teachers in the school, and two gentle-
men were present. One of the ladies swore distinctly
that he addressed them in hi 3 usual manner, and that
there was not the slightest indication that his conduct
differed from that which ordinarily characterised
him, and that there was not the slightest appearance
of intoxication. Mr. and Mrs. Foster, in consequence
of some inquiry, had left the school, and though they
bad been applied to they had declined to make
affidavits on one side or on the other. The next
charge had reference to his conduct in the summer of
1844. It was alleged that having to attend one
of the churches of Birmingham during the
absence of the curicular bishop he did
so in a state of intoxication. Mr. Lee be-
lieved that he had only performed service in that
church twice, but he happily possessed the best means
of refuting this scandalous charge. Both the minister
and the curate were indisposed, and Mr. Lee at-
tended at the request of the curate, and performed
service during the morning and evening of that day.
It was alleged that he was intoxicated during the
evening service. Two clergymen in the neighbour-
hood, who had heard of the illness of the minister and
his curate, kindly came to the church, and offered
their services ; they were in the vestry, and conversed
with him, and were also present during the perform-
ance of his sacred duties ; and they, with the curate
and clerk, distinctly stated that Mr. Lee read the
service in a nervous manner, as was his habit, but
that there was nothing in his whole conduct to induce
the slightest belief that he was intoxicated. There
was not the slightest appearance of anything of
the kind. These were the charges against
him. They were repeated in December,
1845, and in 1846, at a meeting held at
Birmingham, they were again repeated, by Mr.
Gutteridge. Feeling aggrieved at these repeated as-
persions, Mr. Lee consulted the Bishop of his diocese,
the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Rural Dean, and
a number of clergymen and others with whom he
Was acquainted, and they agreed in thinking the
proper course for him to adopt was to take no heed
of the charges, and to rely upon his v.ell-known
character for the best refutation of them, as any pro-
ceedings would only give them further publicity, and
perhaps perpetuate them. He (the Attorney-General)
had the affidavit of the Bishop of 'Worcester, and of
various gentlemen, who concurred in this advice
whilst the matter was simply of a local character,
all of whom spoke of Mr. Lee in the highest
terms. He had also the affidavits of those who were
on terms of the utmost familiarity with him, stating
that they had visited him repeatedly with and with-
out giving any intimation of their intentions, and they
agreed in stating that instead of indulging in intoxicat-
log drinks that he was singularly abstemious. Happily
he had the affidavit of his medical attendant, who
be that if he had indulged in such stimulants that
ne Would certainly have been afflicted with inflama-
ticn of the eyes, a complaint to which he was parti-
cularly subject; and further, that his habits were
Of the most temperate kind. Looking at the whole of
the circumstances, at the importance of the matter to
‘l?ttr- Lee—seeing that during a long period he had
°ee,..21 subjected to persecution, misrepresentation, and
a'ader, and that at last, for the reasons he had
itt.ated, he had felt bound to avail himself of the me-.
111.!_lm which this Court afforded for clearing
_44 character from the imputations cast upon it,
which were utterly unfounded, he trusted the
Court weuld accede to his application, and thus
compel the person from whom these slanders had
emanated to come forward, and either substantiate
them or admit that they were devoid of truth.
Lord DENMAN—Take a rule.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL-My Lord, we shall
hand„ over copies of the affidavits to-day to Mr. Gutte-
tuge• There will, therefore, be no ground for un-
necessary delay. We trust the matter will be dis-
-1)°"d of without delay.
Lord DENMAN bowed assent.
The Solicitor-General and Mr. Whateley, Q.C.,
were with the Attorney-General.

EXCHEQUER.—(THIS DAY.)
(Sittings in Banco.)

MONTAGU V. PAYNE.
Air. M. CHAMBERS applied for a rule to set aside
an order made by Mr. Baron Platt, calling on the
Plaintiff; to amend the particulars of his demand.
The plaintiff in the action, it appeared, was the
seeretary of Mr. Payne, the late candidate for the
City of London, and was employed by the defendant
full organise the plan of proceeding for bringing him
Y before the electors of the city of London.
Acting in pursuance of these instructions, the plaintiff
had expended a considerable sum of money in the
13„r,inting of placards, the hire of " boardmen," and
teer means of giving publicity to the fact that
defendant was a candidate for the suffrages
r 8 the electors of the city of London. The
-2,11 e of the contest proved unfavourable to the
dJtendant. The plaintiff, soon after the close of the
"4)11_, made a demand for the settlement of the ex-
'lenses he had incurred on behalf the defendant. In
Support, of the accuracy of his charges, he gave to the
defendant a book, in which entries were made of all
the gulps he had expended. Defendant did not con-
lSider that the charges were sufficiently explicit in the
natter of dates, and required further vouchers for the
*erns alleged to be expended. An action was corn-
tleeeed by the plaintiff against the defendant, who
had obtained an order from Mr. Baron Platt calling
Pori the plaintiff to amend his particulars.
Set M. CHAMBERS now moved to have this rule
aside, on the ground that the only book containing
e entries and vouchers was in the possession of the
'_?fendant, and it was impossible for him to demand
Ina particulars unless the book were restored to him
he were allowed an opportunity of inspecting the
book and vouchers.—P,ule granted.
COMMON PLEAS.—(THIS DAY.)

(Sittings in Banco.)

HERAND V. LEAF.
The COURT delivered judgment in this case, which
Nva3 a motion for a new trial on the ground of mis-
dir.ection, and also that the verdict was against the
evidence. The action was brought to recover
compensation for certain articles furnished to a
publication called the Foreign and Colonial, and
New Quarterly Review, of which the defendant
WaS the proprietor. The circumstances of the
case have been repeatedly before the public.
The Court having carefully considered all the cir-
euialstances of the case, were of opinion that the di-
rection of Mr. Justice Coltman at the trial was
correct, and that the jury were fully warranted in
finding that the articles were not received under a
contract that they were to be paid for, and that if
they had there was such a fraud in suppressing the
;lame of the author that such contract would not
have effect. They were therefore of opinion that
there was no ground for a new trial.—Rule refused.

FIELD IL
MACKENZIE.
The Tule which had been obtained in this case, and
Which relates to the Newcastle-upon-Tyne Joint
Stock Bank, was discharged with costs.

BANKRUPTCY.—(THI6 DAY.)
(Before Mr. Commissioner FONBLANQUE.)
IN RE MAUDE AND co.
These bankrupts had carried on business as cement
manufacturers, at Northfleet, and this was an applica-
tion for certificates.
Mr. LAWRENCE, who appeared on behalf of the
assignees, said, that the firm consisted of four per-
sons, and existed for fifteen months only ; their debts
to creditors, not holding security, 10,1341., and to
those holding security, whilst the assets were only
3001., and goods 722/. Their expenditure had been
very great,
the machinery and plant having
cost the large sum of 13,3231. 7s. 4d.,
and was mortgaged, whilst their
didprofits had
only been 4971. 10s. ld.
The assigneesno., com-
plaint of the amount drawn out by the p. artners, the
total being 751/. 6s. 7d.; out of which theworking
partner, Mr. Aspdin, had drawn
hadcapital,l" anddrawnonlyAir.
out 1121. With regard to him he was entirely exempt
from all blame, and on the whole the only
charge was
been
most improvident dealing, the result of which had
most disastrous.
His HONOUR, asked what was the cause of the
failure ?
Mr. LAWRENCE said that it arose from want of suf-
ficient capital to complete their arrangements. The
fact was, that of the capital guaranteed by the Messrs.
Maude, 4,0001., had not been paid, and the stoppage
htid been mainly caused by the great excess of the
estimate for the plant, which, instead of being 6,0001.,
amounted to 13,0001.
Mr. ROBERTS appeared on the part of Aspdin, and
said that he was taken into the firm entirely as a
working partner, and had not drawn out more than
he would have earned as a superintendent of the
works.
Messrs. Maude were not represented by any pr.)-
fessional gentlemen.
His lloNoun said, as., far as Jones and Aspdin
were concert-id no blame attached to them, and their
certificates would be granted forthwith. The case
of the Maudes was somewhat different, as they had
riot put in the capital they had agreed on, and which