The Sun.
London, England, 1823-07-07 00:00:00

TN E THEATRES.

KING'S THEATIte,—.As, lh..ballet was ab-
ruptly concluded on Tuesday night, It *al al).
prehended that some discontent would belnatti-
rested on Saturday ; u ',Hoed bill wtia circu-
lated, stating that it arose from the mistake of
the StageAlunager, who conceived that it was
necessary that the performance should conclude
at twelve o'clock. Tlas-.explanation preeeot,d
all opposition, and 11,0So4t's Opera, Matilde e
Corradino, was perfOrMed .again, and fully con.
Brined in public rayons,
.Tice music is a kind of
melange, in which it,iiapparent that ROSSINI has
borrowed from himself-and qtbers, and Produced a
very agreeable ‘conlPpkiiilf 'The acting altogether
was admirable, but particularly that of RONZI ma
13EGNis, her husband, and 'GARCIA. The house
was graced with fashinnOle visitors, and the
boxes made a Splendid appearance,

. .
H R AYMAKET TII 11:ATIVE6.,i 1, ne
Comedy
of The,
Rivals was repeated here on Saturday, after the
Cowohitilecsi:, 111VsktNetrio l, :lr
tctofe:.4ntnis Believing. LISTON,
ArreaLty, and Miss
CHESTER, gave full effect to the Comedy, and the
concluding Farce of Frightened to Death was
rendered highly diverting to ft very numerous
audience by ll*tuxes Phantom, whit was a
very humourous reality.
ENGLISU OPERA 1104JSE...MiSS LOUISA DANCE,
the sister of Miss DANcr, who appeared to so
much advantage two or three seasons ago at
Covent.garden Theatre, Appeared for the first
time at this Theatre iu T Firaro.
he Marriage y
The part she performed was Swarm , and she
acquitted herself very ably. She comes from a
family of such musical eminence, that her merit
as a singer might naturally be expected, anti her
itnth)tderne perform-
ance rortm the
talents as an actress also entitle her, hi no small
degree, to critical favour. She She was very much
agitated on her entrance, but the
dki
;
i approbation. Miss
anunticeieanicteogdeilseipr iu
dissipated her t
fears,
K ELLv displayed all her excellent comic talents
in The Page, and the Opera was well supported
by the rest of the performers.

LA.W UJTETLIGENCE.

COUItT OF CHANCERY, 'Nix 3.
1/EItUVIAN LOAN.

JON'ES AND OTHERA V. KINDER AND OTHERS.
Mr. WETHERELL moved, on behalf orthe defendants, that
Vie injunction restraining Messrs. Everett and Co. bankers,
"Neu parting with a sum of money in their hands, and .Ir.
Winder from interfering with it, and Messrs. Garda del Rio
and Panda:lien, Envoys from the Peruvian Government, from
receiving the money, -should:be dissolved. The plaintiffs were,
Mi.,Jefikin Janes, Mr. Eatithope, and Mr.,Adamson. " When
the injunction was granted, he (Mr. Wetherell) was not In
Court, and therefore could 'not well tell on what equity it had
been sought.
The Loan CHANCELLOR asked if it was not worth while
to consider whether this,Court could interfere at all. lie was
kbrenwdlhaiittltihnigs Icrn ',:yt3.l'°autrtp°eacf tjelei.wKithintgheofGtohviescnremairni otof
Spain, and that thikcountry did not recognize a Peruvian Go.'
vernment. The question arose, therefore—Ought this Court
to interfere at all ? _ ' •‘
Mr. WETHERELL would confine himself to that question,
if his Lordship pleased, because certainly it seemed to over.
rule all others. •
His LoaDart tr.--. Suppose,. for instance, that money, by
some slip or other, had got into this Court, to the account of
he Peruvian Government, would it not have belonged to the
King of this country ?
Mr. WieTiti:linu.—The money-is not in this Court, my
Lord.
• His LORDSHIP.—No; it happens not to be here; but if it
had happened to have been in Court, what would have been the
consequence? •
Mr. W'ETiiivueer....,-With great deference I reply, that in
my opinion this country has no right to ask what is to be done
with this money.
His liontisitir.—The better way of putting the question
Is—" What right has any person to call upon the King's Courts
Of this country to interfere to forward or to prevent such ne-
gociations ?"
Mr. WETHERELL thought that was just what he wanted.
His Lounsit te.-t—There has been a great deal said in the
newspapers about the leivility of the subscription raising
.for
Spain, but with that I. have nothing to do. Vet supposing
those subscriptions to be legal (without committing myself
either way by saying they are or are not), I should be glad to
know whether; on a turn of money being paid into Childs shop,
or any other shop, for the purpose of being sent into that coun.
try, with •whiCh we are at this tnoment at perfect peaceohis
country's King's Court could be called upon to interfere at all ?
its far as that goes, it ix in your favour, Mr. Wetherell; for
unless the Learned Gentlemen on the other side can, on this
state of the record, say.thut this Court ought to interfere, then
there ought to be no injunction. And that will depend on
another thing—namely, whether it can be made out, that if
there had been only one subscriber to this loan, he could have
maintained an action for the recovery of the money in the Court
of King's Bench ? And that I doubt very much. In short,
ought this Court to interfere with persons who thought proper
to treat with a Government which this country knew nothing at
all of ?

Mr. Wirritruitt.r. agreed that neutrality -ought to be the
principle in this case; consequence of that would. be, that
if parties could not get an order from this Court to send this
money to Peru, neither could an order be made that it should
,not. be sent. The Learned Counsel concluded by hoping the
injunction would be dissolved.
His Lo tumuli.' doubted considerably whether the difficulties
he felt had been properly understood. He then repeated them,
which coda in the question,..—" Ought this Court to interfere
at all with parties who thought proper to treat with a Govern.
merit unknown to this country ?” Mr. Jones's affidavit merely
went the length of saying, that at the time he subscribed to
this loan he believed Peru to be an established Oovernment
but what had the Court to do with that ?
Mr. HEALD followed Mr. WETticittmt. on the same side,
and continued to argue in favour of the motion, until the LORD
CHANCELLOR rose.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, JuLY, S.
EDWARDS V. ELT. AND OTHERS.
Mr. Sergeant PEI.t. stated the case for the plaintiff: The
action, he said, was brought by the plaintiff, a dissenting Mi.
rater, agairlit the defendants, who were the proprietors of the
Tinter newapeper,' for a libel, published in. that paper against
the. Plaintiff.: The. object of the nction was to vindicate the
character of the plaintiff in the estimation of his acquaintance
and the world. The defendants were not at all supposed to
have any malignity againtit the plaintiff ; probably they had no
knowledge of the-libel, although they were legally answerable
for hit consequencest and he was satisfied the case would be
met, on the part of the defendants, with the same liberality it
was brettwht forward on the part of the plaintiff: All would feel
that the Dissenters were a most respectable body of Christians,
and England was highly indebted to them. Mr. Edwards, had
for 16 years been the Minister of ashapel at, Marlow, in Beek,.
inghamshire, and Instrumental in establishing a school thete.
On the 211th of April, a paragraph was published in the 'Plaits,
which it could not be 411114b4d applied to the plaintiff; !viz.,
" A aerious Misunderstanding has taken place between tins in-
dependent congregation at Great Marlow, and their Mini.
ater in consequence of personal invectives used by the latter
in the pulpit, against the character of a young lady, of
guished merit and spotless reputation. We understand the
subject will be seriously taken up by the friends of the injured
young lady." At the foot of the paragraph were the words
-t Bucks Ctironick," as it' taken from that paper. This was
accusing Mr. Edwards of the basest conduct, of using his Pulpit
for the purpose of slandering the character of a lady. Mr.
Edwards had been lei years Minister of the dissenting emigre.
gation ofillarlow, from which he derives an emolument; he is
a *harried man, and has five children; he is also concerned in
a trade in lace, which is not uncommon with clergymen, whose
income is small and family large. Mr. Edwards, feeling him-
self injured, brought his action against the defendant*, who
have put in a pin ofjustifieation on the record, and say the plain-
tiff did publish the libel against Margaret Phair, by saying,
'44 T have something to say against the conduct of one of the
female preachers, whose conduct is • • • , and
who does more harm than good; and if she shall go to the
school again, she shall be turned out." The plea went on to
state, that the publication of the libel gave great offence to seve-
re! persons of the congregation, whose names were stated on
the record. By this defence the defendants adopted the libeL
and undertook tojustify, it. This proceeding plainly shewed that
there was some one behind who indemnified the defendants for
defending the cause. He would prove the publication in the
Timer newspaper, and that it applied to the plaintiff, and.
that the defendants were the proprietors of the paper, which.
would entitle him to a verdict, unless the truth of the words
were proved. The action was not brought for money, but to
vindicate the plaintiff; and unless any unworthy attempt was
made to injure the plaintiff still more, he would be satisfied
with the most moderate damges. He would now state the facts
which were so greatly misrepresented in the libel. Miss Phair,
with other young ladles in Marlow, had undertaken to assist in
the school; It soon, however, appeared that the scholars under
her care did not attend the chapel. Mr. Edwards thought this
improper, and merely stated that he considered Miss Phair's
conduct, in taking the children to other places of worship, was
improper; and that if' children were so taken from the school,
they should not be allowed to return. This was the whole of
what had been swelled into the libel, of which the plaintiff
complained, whose cause, ,he wns satisfied, was safe in the
hands of the jury.
2111`hr.e
Sergeant
of
tiovAuatle utAlNibel submitted
bettedg
that
proved,
the plaintiff
was
bound to prove that he was a licensed preacher.
Mr. Justice Buttnoutius overruled the objection.
Mr. Serjeant VAR OMAN addressed the Jury for the defend.
ants. He hoped it would not be supposed he was instructed to
make reflections on any set of Christians ; he could never lend
himself to such a proceeding, nor was it required of him. The
plaintiff was a shoemaker, who had been raised on a pinnacle to
be irdissenting minister. It was not likely he should have the
advantage of eilucatio'n to fit him for his sacred office._ There Was
another action brought by the plaintiff against the Racks Chro.
nick : and hail the plaintiff given the defendants the opportunity
of explaining how the paragraph came to be, inserted. in their
Paper, there would have been no necessity of his bringing the
present action. But it was farcical to say that the action was not
brought in London to take advantage of the Ignorance of the
parties by whom it was to be tried, that their verdict might set an
example to the Bucks Jury. Whatever the'Minister mild in his
chapel as Minister he said uncontradicted: and the plaintiffreen..
tinning Miss Phair by name, and saying her conduct was int.
proper and a disgrace to the school, was molt grossly offensive ;
and it did justly create a serious misuridersuinding in the con.
gregation ; and he would produce a Deacon of the congrega.;
non who called on the plaintiff to give Miss Phair an:epporto.
nity of vindicating herseir. What was the plaintiff's answer—
" She is a lying: hussey." This . was the language used of an
amiable young woman, respected by all who knew her; who had
voluntarily devoted her time to the instruction of the children of
the school. An opportunity
_was, however,it length arrived cd 3liss
Plink of vindicating herself; and, it appeared, that the whole.
offence of which she had been guilty WA/allowing two of the dim
galling offence which the plaintiff could not endure. tie Wita
dmrenothwer "to ha°ftlenteuld during
tehtiiprnoefnarneovtehaeirneglis:pervil.et'lw'h4islitirasthtthier
byuo t hie answer
was, tillibeein,liabkyeileviodnelliacke:4B44ftelOr
w4l:::::tyherar
Wlorg' e"nolufgYlta" "lilt hare
nelaeikletotinjuasrif)l;gAnt was called 4
Juryiilg CfnWC:Utco4determine she_

•
then the plaintiff had any claim for damiies; and whether the
defendants were malignant libellers. •
Several witnesses proved that on Sunday the 6th of April,
immediately before Mr. Edwards gave out his test, he saki Mies
Phair was a disgrace to the school, and did more hurt than
good, and signified that he had seen the children in the street
who ought to be at their dpty in the chapel...
Mr. Sergeant Pam. replied.
Mr, Justice Thlllllolloll9 recapitulated the evidence to the
Jury, and said, if they conceived the evidence supported' the
plea of justification on the record, they would find. for the:at-
tendant; if not, the plaintiff had not proved any speciaida-
image, and did not claim much, and they would give hint-what-
ever they thought him entitled to; but as there was some
doubt whether the plea of justification on the recard-Could be
supported in law, the Jury, if they thought it
„proved in evi-
deuce, might find a verdict for the defendants ; and might also
find a verdict for the plaintiff for. the amount of damagerto
which they conceived he would be entitled in case the defend-
ant's plea ofjustitication could not be sustained in law.
The Jury retired to consider of their verdict at half-past
three, and continued in deliberation till seven o'clock, when
they returned a verdict for the defendants on the plea of
justification ; and a verdict for ' the plaintiff on the libel—
Damages., 40s.