The Sun.
London, England, 1847-02-19 00:00:00

It appeared, from the evidence of another witness
(Mrs. Arnold), that great excitement existed in the
village about this gossip, and that the plaintiff had put
it to the vote to expel Mrs. Burfield from the congrega-
tion till the statements against him were withdrawn.
John Carter, jun., deposed to being present at the
meeting at Thatcham chapel on the 18th of March,
when Mr. Hopwood said,—" Where are my accusers ?"
To which Mr. Thorn replied,—" I am your ac-
cuser." Mr. Hopwood said,—" I hear that you have
been calling me a rogue in the village." To which
Mr. Thorn replied,—" Stay a while and I will prove
you one." Mr. Thorn then read many letters and
a long statement of figures. After this, Mr. Hopwood
said, " Now you have made my character look so black,
if you can prove what you have stated I will be 1001. to
any charity ; and, if not, you shall be 1001." Mr. Thorn
refused ; as also to go to Southampton to examine the
books, "as it had taken him a week to examine them
already." At this period of the meeting some one said,
"We want our dinners ; look at the time !" and the
meeting broke up.
The Rev. Mr. Ainslie, a Dissenting minister, residing
near the Regent's Park, was then called—He had known
the plaintiff and his character for many years. He knew
of his being in business at Southampton. He had heard
of these reports, and went down to Thatcham in 1845,
and called on the defendant with a view of inquiring
into the matter. He entered into a correspondence with
Mr. Thorn. [Various letters were then put in, and
proved by the witness, some of them containing the
libellous matter complained of.]
On his cross-examination, it appeared that he had
gone to see Mr. Pinhorn, and that Mr. Pinhorn said,
"He had no charge to mako against Mr. Hopwood ;"
but he admitted that he had made statements of com-
plaint to Mr. Thorn against Mr. Hopwood.
The Learned JUDGE thought statements made regard-
ing the plaintiff, relating to his former trade, and not re-
lating to his present calling as a minister, not actionable.
Mr. Sergeant TALYOURD then addressed the jury for
the defendant. He regretted that the present charge
should have been brought. He regretted that those
whose profession it was to compose differences should
have resorted to such a course. He thought it a cir-
cumstance to be regretted when persona were brought
up in trade, and lived to man's estate before entering a
profession, and bad a background of life to look upon
which unfitted them for their profession. There might
be exceptions in instances of great talent or enthusiasm;
but the plaintiff was not such an instance. The results
of the present trial, if against his client, must be
lamentable, and he could not, therefore, but regret that
a more private tribunal had not been resorted to for
settling this difference. The Learned Sergeant than
went at great length, and with much eloquence, through
the evidence.

His LORDSHIP summed up, and the jury found a ver-
dict for the plaintiff—Damages, 250/.
The cause occupied the whole day, and was not over
until nearly 7 o'clock in the evening.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER, Feb. 18.
(Sittings at Nisi Prius, before Sir F. PoLLocs, Chief
Baron.)
PELL v. JONES.
Mr. llumfrey and Mr. Mellor were counsel for th•
plaintiff ; Mr. Sergeant Allen and Mr. Gray appeared
for the defendant.

This was an action brought to recover damages from
the defendant for the breach of a contract alleged to
have been entered into by him to transfer his interest in
certain shares in the Leicester and Bedford Railway
Company, which had not been ratified by any legisla-
tive enactment. It appears that 40 shares having been
allotted to the defendant in the above company, he was
not able to pay the deposit thereon, and being about to
quit England, he authorised Mr. George Pell, the
nephew of the plaintiff, who had advanced the money to
pay the deposit, to sell the shares when he could
realise a small sum by them. The shares were after-
wards sold to the plaintiff at a premium of IL; but when
the defendant was called on to ratify the transaction by
handing over the scrip certificates, he repudiated the
transaction, the shares being then at a premium
of 41. The action was afterwards brought by the
plaintiff, who contended now that he was entitled to re-
cover the highest value of the shares after the sale and
before the action was brought. On the part of the de-
fendant it was argued that the action could not be sus-
tained, as the authority ought to have been in writing,
and no shares had ever issued, but only scrip; and by
the Joint-Stock Companies Act no legal transfer could
be made of any interest in any such scheme till after the
act of incorporation had been obtained, which had not
been done.

The CHIEF BARON reserved the points raised by the
Learned Sergeant ou the part of the defendant, and left
the question of damages contingently to the jury, by
whom they were assessed at 501.

ARCHES' COURT. Feb. 18.
(Before Sir 11. J. FUST.)
THE OFFICE OF THE JUDGE PROMOTED Br TROWER v.
HURST, CLERK.
This was originally a cause of office, promoted under
the directions of the Lord Bishop of Chichester, against
the Rev. Mr. Hurst, rector of Thackham, Sussex, for
highly immoral conduct. The usual proceedings having
been taken, the Court pronounced the articles brought in
against the reverend gentleman proved, and sus-
pended him ab officio et beseficio for the space of three
years, condemned him in the costs, and directed
that the suspension should continue until the customary
certificate of good conduct was lodged in the court.
That decree was duly. transmitted to
se
Consistory
Court of Chichester, to impound the profits of the bene-
fice. Sequestration issued to Mr. Butler, who entered
into an arrangement with Mr. Hurst, by which he was
allowed to continue in possession of the glebe land, on
condition that he paid a rent-charge. The rev. gentle-
man also occupied other land, on which there was a
sum of 791. due for tithes under the Commutation Act.
Repeated applications had been made to him for the
payment of the moneys due, but he had failed to comply
with them.
Dr. HAGGARD (with whom Was Dr. Myron]) con
tended that the non-payment of these sums, inasmuch
as they constituted a part of the emolumonts of the living,
was adisobedienee of the sentence of the Court, and he
now prayed the Court to issue a monition against Mr.
Hurst to show cause why he should not be pronounced
in contmipt. In other cases where there had tren a
disobedience of the sentence, not as regarded the profits
of the living, but in continuing to discharge ministerial
duties, that had been the course pursued;