The Sun.
London, England, 1841-12-14 00:00:00

TREASURY.

This was a petition to confirm the Master's report ;
and the question at issue was whether, under the provi-
sionS of various Acts of Parliament, the Company, who
were the trustees for a charity, were entitled to the costs
of re-investment in respect to the amount of certain lllCS-
suages situate in Thames-street, which had been pur-
chased by the Lords of the Treasury for the purpose of
erecting on their site the new Custom House.
The case was merely opened to-day. and the further
.arguments were ordered to be heard to-morrow.
(Before Vic::-Chancellor WIGRAM.)
MEUX V. BELL.

This was a bill of interpleader_filed by Sir Henry
Meux and his partners. The case has already been
heard before the Vice• Chancellor of England, from whom
it was appealed to Lord Cottenham. The question in
dispute was the title to a bond securing to Mrs. Jordan
the sum of 8,000/. before her marriage. The husband
of the lady, for whose benefit it was executed, borrowed
of Mr. Bell the sum of 7,000/. upon the security of the bond.
Mr. Jordan become embarrassed in his circumstances
and absconded, and Mr. Bell sought to obtain payment
of- the 7,0001. by means of the bond. Lord Cottenham
directed an inquiry before the Master, to ascertain who
was entitled to the bond, and the money secured thereon,
on the 23d of July, 1835; and the proceedings in the
Master's office were read at great length to the Court.
The cause came before the Court on further directions.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, Dec. 13.
(Sittings at Guildhall, before Mr. Justice W. touTmAw
and a Common Juy.
SLANDER.—THOMAS V. DEIs.INEnY.

Mr. PLATT (with whom was Mr. Ball) stated the case.
It- was an action fur slanderous words used by the de-
fendant of the plaintiff, and calculated to injure him in
hid business and character. The plaintiff was master of
the Sovereign transport, which had been chartered by
the Admiralty in the month of June last, to convey Go-
vernment stores from England to Malta. The de-
fendant, Lieutenant Dennehy, was the Government agent
put on board the vessel to take charge of the stores, and
the slanderous words were used by the defendant during
the voyage, and on the return of the vessel to England,
and ascribed to the plaintiff negligent and improper con-
duct, bylwhich the vessel was endangered, and on three
several occasions had been nearly ashore. The result of
these charges was, that the plaintiff had been removed
by the owners from the command of the Sovereign, and
had lost the advantages which he would have derived
from being employed. The Learned Counsel contended
that the defendant had most unreasonably and impro-
perly insisted on having the command of the vessel—
that he was actuated by malicious motives—that the
charges were wholly unfounded, and that he was enti-
tled to heavy damages for the injury he had sustained.
Mr. Soames, one of the owners of the vessel, was
examined as to the statements made by the defendant to
him regarding the conduct of the master on the voyage
to Malta and back. The defendant, who was .a Lieute-
nant in the Navy, went out as super-cargo, and to look
after the Government stores. The vessel left
Deptford in the month of June last and re-
turned in Ndvember. It was on the return of the vessel
that Lieutenant Dennehy reported to him that the vessel
had nearly gone down, and he ascribed that to the mis-
conduct and ignorance of the plaintiff. The first
occasion was when the vesssel was near Hastings ;
the second was when she was in the Mediter-
ranean ; and the third was when she was off
the coast of Spain. The witness added, "In
consequence of the statements made to me by
Mr. Dennehy I discharged the plaintiff. The defendant
told me that Thomas was totally unfit to command the
vessel. She was nearly 400 tons burden. Previously
to hearing the statement of Lieutenant Dennehy I had
determined, in consequence of a letter received from the
defendant, to discharge the plaintiff. I believe the plain-
tiff has not since been employed. The defendant
complained that the plaintiff did not obey his orders.
I think the loss he would sustain for not having gone the
voyage would be 151 per month. The vessel brought
home troops from Malta. In consequence of the repre-
sentations made to me by Lieutenant Dennehy, I dis-
charged the plaintiff. Mr. Thomas admitted
that the
vessel was nearly on shore off Worthing. I have com-
manded a ship fur nine years, and think it would de-
pend upon circumstances whether a stream anchor
should be got out or not. Lieutenant Dennehy
said an anchor should have be©n sent out, and
Mr. Thomas said it was not necessary. I heard that the
vessel was nearly on the rocks
roffCape Breton Point,
in the bay of Gibraltar. Mr, Thomas denied thatt
wassbe
was in the position. Lieut. Dennehy said there was a con-
stant disobedience to his orders on. the voyage. i
the opinion of Captain Sheriff and Lieut. Wentworth,
from the statement of Lieut. Dennehy, that Mr. Thomas
was unfit to command the vessel. I don't know how long the
inquiry lasted. The pilot and chief mate were examined,
and put Mr. Thomas on board the Asia, but did not
send him on the voyage,
as I (lid not think him fit to
command a vessel to India. My partner, Mr. Lus-
_
cornbe, told me that Lieut. Dennehy had recommended
Thomas as captain of another of our vessels, a schooner
called the Valley, bound for New Zealand, and he also
told me that Lieut. Dennehy expressed his sorrow for
what he had done. Lieut. Dennehy is the Govern-
ment agent for transports, and it is his business
has
no see that the master does his duty, but he
no right to interfere with the navigation of the vessel._
The deposition of Staff Assistant-Surgeon Michael
APBride was then put in and read. It appeared that he
was a passenger in the Sovereign from Malta to
England. They sailed on the sth October, with about
100 soldiers, 35 women, and 80 children. He heard
the defendant repeatedly tell the plaintiff that he would
report him, and take care that he should never command
a vessel again. The witness thought the plaintiff did
every thing he could to keep the vessel out of danger.
He heard the defendant frequently say that he would
report the plaintiff—that he would put a spoke in his
wheel, and that he would do for him. There was no
complaint from any ether party. The plaintiff and de-
fendant had several differences of opinion about the
navigation of the vessel. The defendant applied to wit-
ness to ask Captain Warburton and his wife to mess
with them, and thereby exclude the plaintiff, who was
notm ar fit person to be associated with.
addressed the Jury for the de-
fendae. tilEtBl°En
appeared that Lieutenant Dennehy had
been put on board the vessel by the Government
te perform a
angst important. and onerous duty, and
had a right authority to give him orders as to
. .
the navigation and course of the vessel whenever
there appeared to •
him any danew. Lieut. Dennehy
was clearly the superior • d -
in command on board tnat vessel, and it was of the
greatest importance that there
should be due subordination and obedience by every per-
son on board. He thought an action for slander under
such circumstances was most . .
unjustifiable and improper.
Lieut. Dennehy, as
uindidciuot
Lbocound, reported. what. he be-
lieved to be the inj
n duct and inefficiency of
the plaintiff to the Admiralty.
It was his duty to
the service to do so, and the Admiralty having ordered
an investigation, the result was, that Captain Sheriff,
Superintendent of the Dock-yard, and Lieut. Wentworth
who had no interest whatever in the matter, inquired
into the matter, and were of opinion that the charges