The Sun.
London, England, 1841-01-30 00:00:00

THE SUN. LONDON, SATURDAY, JAN UARY, 30, Is4l

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF CHANCERY, JAN. 29.
NEGLECT OF SOLICITORS.

Upon Mr. GIRDLESTONS mentioning a cage to the
Court this morning, in which he had obtained an order
yesterday, for the purpose of relieving his client from a
difficulty into which he had fallen, relative to the affidavit
of

The LORD CHANCELLOR said he would not assist parties
to overcome difficulties by which they had been surrounded
in consequence of their own tactics. The Court had been
treated I Atterly by its own officers, the Solicitors of the
Court, in a most improper manner, which his Lordship
would take care should nut occur again. In half the
causes that had been called on no party appeared, and
Counsel had not been instructed, in consequence of
the neglect of Solicitors, and in many of the other cares
the parties had taken such decrees as they could abide by,
the defendants not choosing to appear. This was a nit,
of things that ought not to exist, and which the Court
would take care to adopt some means to reine:!y. Ills
Lordship wished also the Bar and Solicitors :o 11%-
derstand that, with respect to applications for causes to
stand over, is future the practice of the Court would-be,
when such applications were made on the same day as the
cause was in the paper, all the Court would do, if sufficient
cause was shown, was to place the cause at the bottom of
that day's list, and, if parties were desirous of further de-
lay, the application must be made the day previous to the
cause being on the paper.
The COURT then proceeded to the hearing of original
CaLIS.CS.

ROLLS' COURT, JAx. 29.
ATTORNEY GENERAL V. DULWICII COLLEGE.

The Court %vas occupied from its sitting until two
o'clock, in hearing Mr. Kindersley's reply in this CASE,.
The MASTER Of the Roue postponed his jwigm2nt.

VICE CHANCELLOR'S COURT, JAN 29.
Unopposed petitions end short causes occupied tl.e
Court the whole morning.

COURT OF QUEEWS BEIVCII, .I,v. 29.
( Sittings in Banco.)
THE QUEEN V. INKERSLEY--LIBEL.

Mr. CRESSWELE prayed the judgment of the Court
upon the defendant in this case. It appeared that at
the Summer Assizes of York 1838, an action was brought
againSt the Rev. Mr. Gathercole, a clergynr.n of the
Established Church, fora libel upon the nuns of Dar-
lington and the nuns of Scorton, in Yorkshire, and con-
taming also imputations ti.on some Roman Catholic cler-
gymen, a hick was published in a work called the " Church-
man," and of which the defendant Inkersley was the
'minter. A verdict was had against Mr. Gathercole, who
subsequently received the, judgment of the Court, nod 11
an action for libel was then instituted against lukersley,
of which he was convicted, and the defend Ant now ap.
',eared upon tLe floor of the Court to receive judgment.
Affidavits in mitigation having been put in and read,
Mr. ALEXANDER (with whom was Mr. KNowt.Es),
addressed the Court on behalf of the defendant, and
relied chiefly upon the fact that it was mainly owing to
Mr. Inkersley's evidence that a conviction had been
obtained against Mr. Gathercole in the first instance,
and coreuded that Mr. Simpson, the prosecutrix's at-
torney, had giren a distinct pledge that no proceedings
should be instituted against Mr. Inkersley in the event
of a conviction being obtained and the costs paid, lie
submitted, under these circumstances, that there had
been a breach of good faith on the side of the prosecu-
tion, and that a nominal punishment would meet the
justice of the ease.
Mr. CRESIONELL regretted the tone that had been
adopted by the Counsel on the other side, by im-
puting improper motives in bringing forward the pre•
sent proceedings to the ladies who had been the objects
of a most abominable attack. It had been distinctly in-
timated to the defendant that if the costs of the rule
were paid, no further proceedings would be taken
against him, and having waited a year and a half, and
made repeated applications in vain, no other course was
left than to bring the defendant up for judgment.
Lord DENMAN inquired if the defendant denied in
his affidavit that he had any knowledge of the publi-
cation ?

Mr. CRESSWELL said his denial was, that he was not
aware of the libellous nature of the publication till his
attention had been called to it by the attorney fur the
prosecution.
Lord DENlVAN—Because it is so very infamous a
publication, that we should have been glad to find that
the defendant denied all knowledge of it, and it is diffi-
cult to suppose that his attention was not called to it.
The COURT having consulted together for some time,
Mr. Justice LITTLEDALE pronounced the judgment
of the Court. It was needless to expatiate upon the
extreme scandal of such a libel, but the Court consider•
ing that one party had been already punished for the
libel, and that mainly through the evidence of the pre-
sent defendant—considering also the present bad state
of the defendant's health, their sentence was th it the &-
fondant do pay a fine of 501. to the Queen, and be
imprisoned till the fi,c was paid.

LIBEL.-THE QUEEN V. THE FROFRIETORS OF TIIE

" TIMES" NEWSPAPER.
Sir F. Poi,Loch: had been instructed, on behalf of
several gentlemen, to inov4 for a rule to show cause
why a criminal information should not be filed against
the proprietors of the Times newspaper for a libel.
It appeared that, on the 9th November last, a
trial took place in Dublin : it was a trial at bar, and
lasted several days. The newspaper published a libel-
lous attack upon the Jury who tried the ease, and that
attack appeared in the Times of the 2d December, after
last term. It commenced by stating that the Irish
were so trained by their demagogues to hatred of England,
that they would not even let her spend her money there,
and when some individual brought into that country the
thing needful—namely, capital, they not only gave him
no encouragement, but hustled him out of the pro-
tection of the law. 'Fhe article then referred at some
length to the trial, in which the parties were the
Archbishop of Dublin and the Irish Society, and
charged the Jury, five of whom were parties to
the present application, with a perversion of
justice—it was either a charge of corruption or,
in the words of the at ticle, " ill temper and wrong.
headed iniquity." The article went on to state that it
had been asserted, and was not denied, that the Arch-
bishop's solicitor, in gratitude for the verdict the Jury
had come to, had given each of them an extra guinea.
In a subsequent publication the verdict was alluded to as
a partial verdict. The affidavits which lie held in his hand
distinctly denied these allegations, and entered into an
explanation of the circumstances under which the Jury
had applied to the Court for an additional guinea. He
trusted that the respectable gentlemen whoae characters
were thus assailed in the discharge of a public duty
of that description, in appealing to their Lordships
for protection, would not make that application in vain.
The COURT, after conferring for some time together,
granted the rule.

EXCHEQUER COURT, Gurr..oirALL, J.d,v. 29.
( Before Mr. Baron ROLFE and a London Common Jury.)

WEST V. FULLER.

Mr. Platt appeared for the plaint 4, and Mr. Hemphrey,
with Mr. James, for the defendati%

This was an action for the recovery of the sum of 2501 ,
and it appeared in evidence that the petitioner, who car-
ried on business as a grocer in 47, 1-I,gh-street, Shore_
ditch, became a bankrupt in the year 1837, when his husi.
ness and stock in trade were transferred to a person named
Martin, against whom a fiat in bankruptcy was likewise
issued in February 1839. The plaintiff, who still conti-
nued to live in the upper part of the house, while the shop
was occupied by Martin, bought furniture and other goods
from Martin to the amount of 2501., which was seized upon
and sold by the defendant, as the agent for Martin'scredi-
tore, under the impression that no sale had taken place,
and that the goods were bona fide the property of Martin.
Mr. HUMPHREY, in a lengthened address, stated that he
considered the present action was brought for the purpose
of defrauding Martin's creditors. His client had paid 501.
into Court, which he considered more than covered the
value of any of the plaintiff's property which had been
taken by Martin's assignees. However, the considera-
tions for the jury were, whether the goods were bona fide
the property of Martin or West, and if of tae latter, whether
he allowed the former their use, in order to maintain a
false credit.

Mr. B Iron ROLFR having summed up, a verdict was re.
:urned fur the plaintiff for 250/.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.

MANSION-hIOUSE.

A fashionably-dressed woman, named Ann Brown, was
brought before the Lord Mayor, in the custody of John
Forrester, the officer, for fleet examination, on the charge
of having in her possession two Bank of England notes,
the one for 401. the other for 50/., which had been stolen
in the house of Mr. Jesse W. Watkins, partner in the firm
of Newton and Co., of Warwick-square, advertisement
agents.
Mr. Hobler, jun., appeared for the prisoner.
Mr. Watkins stated that he resided at No. 25, Middle.
ton-square, Pentonville, and that on the Ist of January his
house was broken into between half past six and half-past
eight, and there were stolen amongst other things two
Bank notes, the o e for 40/ ,'he other for SO/. He put a
stop at the Bank upon the notes next day. On the 15th
Instant he received a communication from the Bank to the
effect that the prisoner was in custody for presenting one
of the stolen notes, that for he/. Sub:Nu:rely he went
to the Mansion.house, where the prisoner stated that she
had received the 50/. front a gentleman in the street, who
promised to give her 101 to get it changed. Witness
could swear to the 50/ rote produced as one of those which
had been stolen from him. He also could swear to the
40/. note produced as the other stolen note.
John Killingworih, shopman to a pawnbroker, named
Perkin, in the King's road, Chelsea, deposed that on the
4th inst, the prisoner, who is a cu .tourer at the house, en-
tered the shop, and raked him whether he could change a
40/. Bank of England note for her. Heving known her
as a customer for two years, and believing that she v.as a
respectable married women, he said that he could accomo-
date her, and he gave her the full change accordingly,
She then redeemed pledges to the amount of 8/. or 91.
Ho always knew her by the name of Brown, and when he
inquired her address she said that she had removed to
York-row, West Minster. He understood her husband t•
be a carpenter, and did not think it necessary to ask her
how she became possessed of the note, but he wrote her
name and address upon it. He could not sty whether
anybody was in her company or not, but ho fancied that
while she was in the shop he saw the reflection of a man
in a looking-glass whizh was on the premises.
Mr. Joseph Spurwell, one of the ~;aEhierf., ie the Bank

of England, dcpcsed that on the 15.11 instant the prisoner
presented at the counter the 50/ note now produced, num-
bered No. 46,210, and dated, London, 6th August,
Is4o. Witness finding that it was a stopped Lott:
d sir d her to walk with into another office, and as
they were going ;Acing she asked him whether it would not
be better for him to take her to the gentleman from whom
she had had the note, to which he made no reply. The
prisoner made no objection to accompany him.
John Forrester said that he took her into custody. She
told him that a gentleman, of whom she had some know-
ledge, but whose name she did not know, gave her the
501. note to get changed, and that she was to receive 10/
from him for her trouble, and to meet him in Thread-
needle-street. Witness accompanied her to Threadneedle-
street, where, after having waited and locked about for
some time, she said she did net see the party. Wi'ness
had reason to believe that her name was not Brown.
The prisoner was committed for trial.