The Sun.
London, England, 1840-04-27 00:00:00

cure this, for which he conceived he was responsible,
ler Mr. Sutton, and issues an advertisement to that
effect. It was not an advertisement to all parties who
had claims in respect of the election, but limited
to those who had claims on Mr. Sutton, in
respect of the election. The question for the
Committee was, what was the extent of the liability
of Mr. Sutton ? Mr. Twiss had not made Mr.
Sutton responsible for all bills he had received and
transmitted in consequence of this advertisement, but
simply for those for which be had advertised. Upon
its appearance bills of all descriptions flocked to him,
with ;ill of which, excepting those strictly examined by
Mr. Sutton, Mr. Twiss declined to have anything to
do, and suggested they " should be sent to those gen-
tlemen who knew anything about them," clearly show.
ing he did nit and would not incur any responsibility
respecting them for his principal. They were accord-
ingly taken to Mr. Bishop, who, hearing he had been
suggested as a fit person, intimated to Mr. Fisher his
readiness to undertake them, and accordingly did so.
Mr. Twiss had not bean called ; and, in the absence of
all evidence, it was not to be assumed that he had made
Mr. Sutton responsible for these bills ; on the contrary,
everything went to prove he refused to have anything to
do with them. With regard to the subscription fund,
Mr. Fisher said Mr. Sutton had no control whatever
over it. He could not have ; it was not commenced
until he left Cambridge. His increased contribution to
the oxpenses of the election was solely on account of
the expense for the chairing, not for the discharge
of these publicans' bills. There was another
not immaterial circumstance. How did Mr. Bishop
' have those bills, if they were Mr. Sutton's ? It was not
till the London agent went down to Cambridge they
were obtained from Mr. Bishop, and no right of pro-
perty in them was supposed to exist in Mr. Sutton.
Was it, then, to be contended, because they had not,
to avoid ill feeling, rejected the issue of the half barrel
of beer ordered by Mr. W. Swan, that Mr. Lon; was
also an agent, and that upon his acts the sitting Member
should lose his seat Then there was a bill respecting
some dinner. Did his friend mean the entry, " Dinner
Long,"—was connected with the sitting Member ? It
was not even shown this individual was the one con-
nected with this inquiry. Nor yet in Mitchell's bill,
for " Flys—Long and Hornsey.” The natural in.
ference was, the charfo the nameforewas of Lon
some pg, whoseartydri amrennbye
a
_g osts -
übtoy, as the rejoicingperson driven there. He therefore
pp
bills anything ap.
asked the - swan as the agent of the sitting
peared to connect - " As to Long's being the
Member, and still less Long c • ;I" the former
agent of Swan, it was a secondary point, ..
failed; but what were the groundsailduced in proofos .
tltis‘rwasass noaid Swan had recommended him at a meeting
of Tax Commissioners, as a collector of rates. Well,
h
proof. What further ? They were talking
I together when Long was arrested. This was so fri-

-.‘,10 left town on Satur-
The Marquis of Urrnu,... " 'f—nuil will pro-
, day for the Isle of Wight, whence the Noble .....„
ceed on an excursion to the Mediterranean.

LAW IN TELLIGENCE.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, APRIL 25.

STOCKD.LR V. HANSARD.

Mr. WIGIITMAN moved for a rule to stay the proceed-
ings in this case under the authority of the statute of the
3d Vict., entitled " An Act to protect persons employed
in publishing Papers by the order and under the authority
of the Houses of Parliament," by which it was enacted
that, upon giving a party twenty.four hours' notice of his
intention, and producing a certificate of the Speaker of
the House that the piper relative to which the action was
commenced was published by the order of the House, the
Judge should thereupon stay the proceedings,l which
should be immediately at an end. The Learned Counsel
then produced affidavits showing the state of the proceed-
ings, and also the certificate of the Speaker, certifying
that the papers complained of were published by the order
and under the authority of the House of Commons, and
the Learned Counsel then moved that the proceedings
should be stayed and be at an end.
Mr. PLATT was instructed to show cause in the first in-
stance.
After hearing him, Lord DENMAN said the act was im-
perative, and it had been complied with, as the Speaker
had certified that the action was in respect of a publica-
tion issued by order of the House of Commons. The
rule must therefore be made absolute.
Mr. WIGHTMAN said there was another similar appli-
cation relative to a case in Hertfordshire.—Rule absolute.

BAIL COURT, APRIL 24.
LIBEL.--11AWDON V. LAWSON.

Mr. V. LER, on the part of the plaintiff, stated that this
action was brought to recover damages for a series of lids
that had been published in the Times Newspaper of the
12th and 14th December 1838, reflecting on the character
of the plaintiff, and which purported to be a report of cer-
tain proceedings that had taken place at Hatton-garden
police-office. The first libel stated, that on the 11th De-
cember a person named Pardy had applied to Mr. Bur-
rell, the sitting Magistrate at the above office, for a war-
rant against the plaintiff, for sending him a letter threaten-
ing to accuse him of a nameless offence. The libel stated
that the applicant handed a letter to his Worship, of which
the following is the substance :
" The proprietors of the Paul Pry beg to inform Mr.
Pardy, that if he will scud them a cheque for 501., they
will keep his name out of their paper in future ; but that
if he does not do so, they will charge him with felony, and
also with the commission of a nameless offence."
The libel went on to state that the applicant (Pardy),
after the Magistrate had read the above letter, told his
worship that the plaintiff afterwards called upon him, and
asked what he intended doing respecting it, and that he
could prove that the plaintiff was connected with the Paul
Pry, and the sending of the letter; and after giving some
statements made by Pardy, said that on his requesting the
Magistrate to grant a warrant against the plaintiff, his wor-
ship said that it was an awful case, and that he would take
time to consider of it before he granted a warrant, and di-
rected the applicant to call again in a couple of days.
That he did so, and that then Hawdon was in attendance,
and that after both parties had addressed the bench, the
Magistrates ultimately refused to interfere in the case. The
Learned Counsel having read the libels, stated that the
plaintiff was a respectable solicitor, in partnership
with a Mr. Smithson, and carrying on business in
Southampton Buildings, Chancery-lane ; and that even
if such an application as that stated in the libel
had been made to tho Magistrate at Hatton-gar-
garden, still, as it was an ex.parte statement made behind
the back of the plaintiff, and reflecting on his character,
the defendant was not justified in publishing an account of
it in his newspaper. But he should prove that no such
statement was made, and that the account published in
the Times newspaper was furnished to that journal by
Pardy himself, through the medium of a reporter, to whom
he paid two pounds for sending it to that paper. The
plantiff was in no way connected with the Paul Pry be-
yond being solicitor to the proprietors, and occasionally
calling at their office in Wellington-street. Pardy was
connected with the other Paul Pry, which was published
in Holywell-street After some further observations, the
Learned Counsel said he would call witnesses who would
prove the publication of the libel, and having done so
would leave the case in the hands of the Jury, satisfied
that they would give the plaintiff such damages as they
thought the justice of the case demanded at their hands.
Proof of the publication of the libel having been given,
Mr. Rhodes Mole, a clerk at Hatton-garden Police-
office, stated that he remembered Pardy making an appli-
cation to Mr. Burrell for a warrant against the plaintiff.
Had read the report in the Times of the proceedings on
that occasion. It was not altogether correct. Pardy's
statement was not made on oath. The letter he handed
in was privately read by the Magistrate.
Cross-examined by Mr. HUMPHREY—The report did not
contain any accusation against the plaintiff that was not
made by Pardy. In substance, it was a fair report of what
took place. The language was not so strong in the report
as that which was made use of by Pardy.
Henry Brooks was next called, and he stated that ho
knew the proprietors of both the Paul Pry newspapers.
He formerly knew a person named Adcock (lately de.
ceased), who was an amateur reporter to the newspapers,
and occasionally attended Hatton-garden Police-office in
that capacity. Witness was at the Flower-pot, Hatton-
garden (opposite the Police-office), when he heard Adcock
say that Pardy had given him two sovereigns to get his
(Pardy's) account inserted in the Times of an application
he had made to Mr. Burrell respecting the plaintiff. Wit-
ness saw that account afterwards in the Times.
Cross-examined by Mr. HUMPHREY-Pray, Sir, are
, you an amateur reporter? Witness—Yes. I was once.
Mr. Busspnititir—An amateur? Of what genus—the
penny a line? Witness—l wrote and sent occasional con-
tributions to the papers, but I have left that off. lam
a step above it now. lam regular reporter.
Mr. HUMPHREY—May I ask what establishment has the
beneft of your valuable services ? Witness—The Thoatri-
cal—(The answer of the witness was drowned in the roars
of laughter that ensued.) Witness continued—He knew
both Paul Prys. Plaintiff was the solicitor of one of
them, and transacted his business at the Paul Pry office
in Wellington-street. Plaintiff was now undergoing a
sentence in the Queen's Bench prison. When Adcock
got the two sovereigns from Pardy, he changed one to pay
witness 2s. 6d. he owed him, and immediately afterwards
they went to another public-house, and changed the other.
This was the plaintiff's case.
Mr. HUMPHREY then addressed the Jury on the part of
the defendant. After some observations, the Learned
Counsel admitted that, as there was no plea of justification
the Jury must find a verdict for the plaintiff, but said ho
was sure they would give him as damages the smallest coin
in the realm.

The Learned Counsel did not call any witnesses.
Mr. Justice W Ams, after reading parts of the alleged
libel, said the question for the consideration of the Jury
was what amount of damages the plaintiff was entitled to
recover. Ile was bound, however, to tell them, that if
even (as had been proved) the account published by the
defendant was a true report in substance of what took
place, yet if he could not prove the truth of the whole of
it, the Jury were bound to find a verdict for the plaintiff.
The Jury then consulted together a short time, when
one of them addressing his Lordship, said, Are we bound,
my Lord, nolens volens, to find a verdict for the plaintiff?
Must we find a verdict for him even although we should
be of opinion that the report published in this paper is
correct, and that the publication of it was calculated to
effect a public good?
Mr. Justice Wiwasts—Gentlemen, you must find a
verdict for the plaintiff; but it is for you to settle the
amount of damages.
The Jury immediately returned a verdict for the plain-
tiff, damages one farthing.
Mr. HUMFHRICY—I hope your Lordship will certify in
this case, that the damages were less than 40s. so as to
deprive plaintiff of his costs.
Mr. Justice Wiwams—ls that necessary? Does not
Lord Denman's Act apply here? Mr. Hu►lrnnsv—That
Act has not yet passed.
Mr. Justice Wiwasis—Well, I will consider of your
application.

One of the jury here said that they were obliged by law
to return the verdict they had done. It was the law as laid
down by the Learned Judge that compelled them to do so.
Mr. kit:smuts: r said now that the case was over, he felt
bound to state that the report in question was furniAhed by
the person who attended Hatton-garden police-office for the
Timer, and that the story to the contrary was altogether a
fabrication.

INSOLVENT DEBTORS' COURT, APRIL 23.
ASSIGNEESHIP3.—An application was made at the rising
of the Court for the committal of a person who had been
an assignee of an insolvent's estate, and had kept in his
possession upwards of 8001. which money be had been or-
dered to pay into Court. Efforts had been made to
servo him with a rule to show cause why he should not
be committed, but he had evaded the order, and the
present application was for a peremptory order for his
committal. The provisional assignee made an affidavit
of the facts of the ease, which had been some time before
Mr. Commissioner Law.
Mr. Commissioner BOWEN thought the present motion
could not be granted. The party must be served with a
rule to show cause.
The CHIRP COM. MISRIONER concurred, remarking that a
very strong case indeed must be made out before the
Court could dispense with the usual proceedings.
The COURT refused the application.
It should be known that the Commissioners have laid
down a rule, in all cases where there are funds in Court,
or a sum to be set aside out of pensions or otherwise, nut
to appoint an assignee. The provisional assignee acts,
obtains the money, and divides the same without any ex-
pense. By the last Act the Court had the power. There
were before a number of instances of delinquent assignees
—persons who bad received large sums, and applied them
to their own uses, regardless of the other creditors.

Yesterday, being the first Sunday in Easter
Term, the Learned Judges, according to long-established cus-
tom, attended afternoon service in St. Paul's Cathedral. On
their arrival their Lordships were received by the Lord
Mayor, Sheriffs, and Aldermen, and by the Ili,hop of Llan-
daff (Dean of St. Paul's), and the clergy of the, Cathedral
in residence. A few minutes afterwards a procession was
formed, and proceeded to that part of the Cathedral set
apart for public worship. Long before the time appointed
for the commencement of Divine service, large crowds of well-
dressed persons had assembled in the Cathedral, anxious to get
within the choir, or at least to obtain a sight of the procession.
As soon as the Judges and Corporation functionaries had
taken their places, the public were admitted. In the course of
a few minutes the church was crowded to excess, and it is be-
lieved that some hundreds of persons must have been unable to
obtain admission.
BRITISH QUEEN.—We have been favoured
with a sight of the accounts of one of the shareholders in this
nob le vessel, and find that 5 per cent. has been paid on every
Instalment from the date of payment. If this has been taken
out of her earnings in the three voyages from July to January,
as we uncbrstand it has, it would amount to 9 per cent., on the
half-vicar. We have been informed that a balance of 8,0001.,
or above
5 per cent. on her cost (90,0001.) was also in hand
on Ist January; and that she had never made a single trip
without a profit.—Railway Magazine.
The Right
Hon. Sir Robert Peel, Bart., M.P.,
comes to town from Drayton Manor at the close of the week.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.

MANSION-HOUSE.

A COAL-HEAVER TURNED SHAVER AND HAIR-
DRESSER.—The Lord Mayor received a letter, of
which the following is a copy, complaining of a gross in-
novation by foreigners upon the trade of London. The
subject has very frequently been reprobated both in the
Court of Aldermen and Court of Common Council,
but it has not yet appeared before the public in the
shape in which it was represented to his Lordship.
Ludicrous as the affair may be, several respectable,
well-conducted individuals are injured by the practice
to which the letter alludes :
" To THE RIGHT HONOURABLE THE LORD MAYOR.

" May it please your Lordship, I will point out to
you a very serious evil existing in the city, which is that
of allowing strangers from all parts to follow their
calling, to the great injury of your fellow-citizens. Those
to whom I wish to call your Lordship's attention are in
the hair-dressing line, and entire strangers, one being
a coal-heaver from Hereford, and the other being a
run-away apprentice from Wales. The former keeps a
shop near Farringdon•street. I needn't tell your Lordship
that such a wretch is incapable of transacting the profes-
sion of a hair-dresser, or of anyrespectable trade, for such
persons never Oven practice upon themselves ; because
why, they don't get shaved more than once a week, and
then it is by what we call scrapers, that leaves more
than half the beard upon the face. The other indivi-
dual was only a year in the profession, and in course he
can't know anything more than putting the head of a
customer straight for me or such as me to shave. He
lives in a court in Fleet-street, but there is no name
whatever over the door.

" Now, my Lord, the business is well known to be
going down altogether, for it is fashionable for many
people to go without shaving at all, so that the loss to
the honest citizen who takes up his freedom is doubled
upon him by the admission of such vermin. If they
were to follow their calling, and not lower the charges
(which are, the Lord knows, low enough already, for
we charge no more than a penny the half bust), I should
not trouble myself about it, but these fellows advertise
to go over the whole face for the money, and myself is
robbed and my family want, whatever they exact by
cheap shaving and hair-cutting. It is enough to make
any fair person run mad into the streets, when he sees
his old customers go by his shop and he idle, and they
with their faces ready for the coalheaver or the dis-
honest apprentice that run away from his master.
" I hope your Lordship will take our case into your
consideration, and be kind enough to relieve us from
these encroachments. It will be gratefully felt by your
honourable and devoted servant.—A CITIZEN OF LON-
DON, and a Hairdresser in the neighbourhood of Shoe-
lane."

The LORD MAYOR said that he felt for the poor fel-
low who described the distress to which he was sub-
jected by the competition of the two rival hairdressers,
and he should be very happy to afford relief in such a
case, but he could not, as Lord Mayor, do any more
than recommend that the parties should be reported to
the Chamberlain, whose duty it was to prosecute all
parties who transacted retail business in the city without
taking out their freedom. He knew that there was an
objection upon the part of inquest juries to advise the
prosecution of poor persons who were not able to take
up their freedom, but the privileges of the citizens
should, in his opinion, be always maintained.
A hair-dresser, who had been summoned for the pay-
ment of poor-rates, here assured his Lordship that the
business was going down every day ; shaving was now
SJ little in use, that a crack person of the trade was
actually taking out a patent for making wigs out of
beards.—(Laughter.)
His LORDSHIP hoped that the ladies would correct
the prevailing taste for dirty faces, and that the cus-
tomers of the complainant would oblige the coal-heaver
to betake himself to his own trade.