The Sun.
London, England, 1847-11-16 00:00:00

COAL MARKE'

Adair's Main l6s 6d
Bate's West Hartley 18s 9d
Buddle's W. Hartley 18s 9d
Davison'sWest Hartley 18s 9d
Dean's Primrose l6s 9d
Hasting's Hartley lBs 9d
Holywell Main ........ 18s 6d
New Tanfield l6s 6d
Original Tanfield
Ord's Redheugh
Tanfield Moor .....
Townley l6s 9d
West Wylam
Wall's End, &c
Acorn Close
Bell and Brown l9s 3d
Bewicke and Co l9s 3d
Bell Robson
Derwent l7s Od
Elm Park
Goaforth . 19s 3d
Hotspur lBs 9d
Medley .......... 19s Od
Northumberland
Washington
Wharncliffe
Eden Main. 2os Od
Bell
Belmont 2os Od
Braddyll's lietton
191 arrival;

VICE-CHANCERY.—(THIS DAY•)
(Before Vice-Chancellor Sir J. WIGRAM.)
PARSONS V. MUNTZ. last
This part-heard cause which was postponed on
Friday, in consequence of its being understood tilt
an arrangement was likely to be effected between II:
parties, stood in his Honour's paper to-day, but astl
was stated by counsel that there was no dal
that the plaintiff would accede to an offer that II
been made by the defendant, it was directed to ata°
over.

QUEEN'S BENCH.—(THIS DA"
(Sittings in Banco.)
THE BISHOP OF MANCHESTER. 0.
CRIMINAL INFORMATION.—TRE QUEEN V. GUTTEI{II)a

At the sitting of the Court this morning, to
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said it was his
make an application to the Court in a matter of A
greatest importance, and on behalf of the Revere;
Gentleman who had recently been appointed to
1.7,
see of Manchester. He had to apply to the C°uule
on behalf of the Rev. James Prince Lee, f°1.,,,,ta;r0n..
calling:upon a gentlemannamed Gutteridge, of 4""tion
ingham, to show cause why a criminal inf&rraa
should not be filed against him for a libel on the ,ha.,
racter of the Rev. Gentleman whom he represehLei
The libel complained of was only one of A 'age seri,/
of attacks which had been made upon the character
..
the reverend gentleman by the defendant. 11eretninry
he had allowed them to pass unnoticed and von;
tradicted ; but having recently been appointed t
the important bishopric of Manchester—to a higher
and wider sphere of labour he felt that the IA
founded aspersions of which he complained ought no
longer to remain uncontradicted, and that it was due
to his character—to his see, in which he was well
l
known—to demand the fullest investigation. lie 11
it his bounden duty to seek the interposition of tusa
court, in order to justify his character, and to aff°l'
the defendant an opportunity of coming forward m
,:
substantiate, if he could—which he contended
could not any one of the many charges wilict
he had made against him. The statenien
on which he based his application hAd ,„1/e/:
cently appeared in the columns of the John
He felt it more advisable to select the dc'euilleny
which had been so published, in preference to atm
that had appeared to the same effect in any
local newspapers, where there might be Partly ,11,0
on one side and prejudices on the other.
charges resolved themselves into the following.o:,,
Treat the Rev. Mr. Lee was guilty of 1914
drunkenness, and malignity, and that the writer red.
ready to substantiate all that he had protnnigLy
It would be necessary for him (the Atl,°'—eir
general) to enter into a brief detail of the
oe•
cumstances out of which these matters s'oo,l
Formerly the Rev. Gentleman held the post ef setwas
master of the Rugby School. He afterwards hem° in
a trustee of the Bluecoat School, at Birminghr—„ipg
which establishment he was instrumental in brallaso
about numerous salutary reforms. lie wr,,,ing-
elected to fill the office of a governor of the Bo— ding
ham hospital. There had been a misunderstan
00,
between Mr. Gutteridge, who at that time wfi:jsoo•
chilly connected with the hospital, and Mr. "
ctice'
its medical officer, with respect to a point of Pill le
In consequence of these disputes, Mr. Gutter r•
ceased to hold his office, and believing tha.tbated
Lee had materially and actively COnti.'
car
to render his withdrawal necessary, he bill),
menced the: series of gross attacks uP°llin re'
to which he had referred, imputing malignity
cad o 0
spect to this matter. The defendant cowmen' Con'
the Bth of December, 1845, addressing letters,
era'
veying these charges, to the different newglyere
Now the chargesiset forth by Mr. Gutteridge
fully investigated by the various gentlemen ennn_doet
with the hospital, and the result was that the e:erros,
of Mr. Lee was approved of in the highest tauct
whilst at the same time the proceedings and conlivg
of Mr. Gutteridge met with from them correspehu a.
censure. 'The charges were of the most serioicaitpusi
ture, especially against one filling a high sere
01'1
office. It was alleged by the defendant th being s
14th of January, 1844, that Mr. Lee,
stet, the
committeeman of the charity
l
master of the school, made an application to /nth of the
school, M
o• v I°:elt 0 atthe'
tend, as a clergyman, the sick or death-bed of 01,27... Dee
boys who was dangerously ill, and that Mr' Dee
attended in a state of intoxication.
prec,l.s,eybave
had happily an opportunity of fixing
date of the day on which this was allegedartuctios-
taken place, because after acting in his spirit
.',O the
city at the bed of the youth, he adjourned I.4.ter
sehool-room, where he delivered to the boyealLyio
supper, an address on the Collect or Gospel 5

tor perusal during the day, which circumstance was
fresh in his recollection. He performed this office in
the presence of the master and a Mr. Swear. Mr.
Gutteridge alleged that Mr. Foster, the master, was
so disgusted with the conduct of 'Mr. Lee that he
left the room. His affidavit stated that he was soli-
cited by the master to attend the sick bed of the
b°3', that out of delicacy to the clergyman, in
whose parish the school was situated, he suggested
that he should be sent for to attend, but that
he Proceeded, from his residence, with Mrs. Foster
to the room in which the boy lay. Mr. Foster was
Present. He proceeded, he went on, to the school-
room where Mr. Foster read prayers to the boys ;
and that seeing Mr. Foster rather nervous and ex-
periencing some difficulty in addressing them in his
presence, he stood up, and addressed them for him.
Two ladies, teachers in the school, and two gentle-
men were present. One of the ladies swore distinctly
that he addressed them in hi 3 usual manner, and that
there was not the slightest indication that his conduct
differed from that which ordinarily characterised
him, and that there was not the slightest appearance
of intoxication. Mr. and Mrs. Foster, in consequence
of some inquiry, had left the school, and though they
had been applied to they had declined to make
affidavits on one side or on the other. The next
charge had reference to his conduct in the summer of
1844. It was alleged that having to attend one
of the churches of Birmingham during the
absence of the curicular bishop he did
so in a state of intoxication. Mr. Lee be-
lieved that he had only performed service in that
church twice, but he happily possessed the best means
of refuting this scandalous charge. Both the minister
and the curate were indisposed, and Mr. Lee at-
tended at the request of the curate, and performed
service during the morning and evening of that day.
It was alleged that he was intoxicated during the
evening service. Two clergymen in the neighbour.
hood, who had heard of the illness of the minister and
his curate, kindly came to the church, and offered
their services; they were in the vestry, and conversed
with him, and were also present during the perform-
ance of his sacred duties ; and they, with the curate
and clerk, distinctly stated that Mr. Lee read the
service in a nervous manner, as was his habit, but
that there was nothing in his whole conduct to induce
the slightest belief that he was intoxicated. There
was not the slightest appearance of anything of
the kind. These were the charges against
him. They were repeated in December,
1845, and in 1846, at a meeting held at
Birmingham, they were again repeated, by Mr.
Gutteridge. Feeling 'aggrieved at these repented as-
persions, Mr. Lee consulted the Bishop of his diocese,
the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Rural Dean, and
a number of clergymen and others with whom he
Was acquainted, and they agreed in thinking the
proper course for him to adopt was to take no heed
of the charges, and to rely upon his well-known
character for the best refutation of them, as any pro-
ceedings would only give them further publicity, and
perhaps perpetuate them. He (the Attorney-General)
had the affidavit of the Bishop of Worcester, and of
carious gentlemen, who concurred in this advice
whilst the matter was simply of a local character,
all of whom spoke of Mr. Lee in the highest
terms. He had also the affidavits of those who were
on terms of the utmost familiarity with him, stating
that they had visited him repeatedly with and with-
out giving any intimation of their intentions, and they
!greed in stating that instead of indulging in intoxicat-
heN drinks that he was singularly abstemious. Happily
had the affidavit of his medical attendant, who
Stated that if he had indulged in such stimulants that
he would certainly have been afflicted with inflame-
tion of the eyes, a complaint to which he was parti-
cularly subject ; and further, that his habits were
Of the most temperate kind. Looking at the whole of
the circumstances, at the importance of the matter to
lr- Lee—seeing that during a long period he had
oeen •
suojected to persecution, misrepresentation, and
stated, and that at last, for the reasons he had
leted, he bad felt bound to avail himself of the me-
rlin which this Court afforded for clearing
is.. character from the imputations cast upon it,
12:101 were utterly unfounded, he trusted the
curt would accede to his application, and thus
court
the person from whom these slanders had
emanatedtb oto come forward, and either substantiate
admit that they were devoid of truth.
Lord ERMAN—Take a rule.
The
A
hand over 7r°RNEY-GINERAL—MY
Lord, we shall
ridge.copies of the affidavits to-day to Mr. Gutte-
necessa There will, therefore, be no ground for un-
necessary delay. We trust the matter will be dis-
Poled of without delay.
Lord DENMAN bowed assent.
The Solicitor-General and Mr. Whateley, Q.C.,
were wi •
th the Attorney-General.

EXCHEQUER.—(THIS DAY.)
(Sittings in Banco.)
MONTAGU v. PAYNE.
Mr. M. CHAMBERS applied for a rule to set aside
an
por deer to by Mr. Baron Platt, calling on the
Th lainfr to m
amend the particulars of his demand.
The pl amend the particulars of his demand.
Th plaintiff in the action, it appeared, was the
set cretary of Mr. Payne, the late candidate for the
ciy of London, and was employed by the defendant
to organise the plan of
proceedin
fully before the electors of the for bringing him
city
of London.
Acting in pursuance of these
instructions
m ,
onthe plaintiff
had expended a considerable
sum ofmoney in the
printing of placards, the hire of " boardmen," and
other means of giving üblic to the fact that
the defendant was a
candidate for the suffrages
of the electors of the city of London. The
Isue of the contest
defendantproved unfavourable to the
. The plaintiff, soon after the close of the
eleoion_, made a demand for the settlement of the ex-
he had incurred on behalf the defendant. In
support of the accuracy of his charges, he gave to the
defendant a book, in which entries were made of all
the slims he had expended. Defendant did not con-
sider that the charges were sufficiently explicit in the
Matter of dates, and required further vouchers for the
annu alleged to be expended. An action was com-
menced, by the plaintiff against the defendant, who
had obtained an order from Mr. Baron Platt calling
upon the plaintiff to amend his particulars.
Mr. M. CHAMBERS now moved to have this rule
set aside, on the ground that the only book containing
dthe entries and vouchers was in the possession of the
efendant, and it was impossible for him to demand
particulars unless the book were restored to him
or he were allowed an opportunity of inspecting the
book and vouchers.—Rule granted.

COMMON PLEAS.—(THIS DAY.)
(Sittings in Banco.)
11ERAND V. LEAF.
The COURT delivered judgment in this case, which
w.a3 amotion for a new trial on the ground of mis-
direction, and also that the verdict was against the
evidence. The action was brought to recover
compensation for certain articles furnished to a
Publication called the Foreign and Colonial, and
New Quarterly Review, of which the defendant
was the proprietor. The circumstances of the
case have been repeatedly before the public.
The Court having carefully considered all the cir-
cumstances of the case, were of opinion that the di-
rection of Mr. Justice Coltman at the trial was
correct, and that the jury were fully warranted in
finding that the articles were not received under a
contract that they were to be paid for, and that if
they had there was such a fraud in suppressing the
name of the author that such contract would not
have effect. They were therefore of opinion that
there was no ground for a new trial.—Rule refused.
FIELD V. MACKENZIE.
The rule which had been obtained in this case, and
which relates to the Newcastle-upon-Tyne Joint
Stock Bank, was discharged with costs.

BANKRUPTCY.--(THIi DAY.)
(Before Mr. Corn missioner FONULANQUE.)
IN RE MAUDE AND CO.
These bankrupts had carried on business as cement
manufacturers, at Northfleet, and this was an applica-
tion for certificates.

Mr. LAWRENCE, who appeared on behalf of the
assignees, said, that the firm consisted of four per-
sons, and existed for fifteen months only ; their debts
to creditors, not holding security, 10,1341., and to
those holding security, whilst the assets were only
3001., and goods 7221. Their expenditure had been
very great, the machinery and plant having
cost the large sum of 13,3231. 7s. 4d.,
and was mortgaged, whilst their profits had
only been 4971. 10s. ld. The assignees did not com-
plaint of the amount drawn out by the partners, the
total being 7511. Gs. 7d.; out of which the working
artner, Mr. Aspdin, had drawn 140/., and Mr.
Jones, who had put in 1,500/. capital, had only drawn
out 1121. With regard to him he was entirely exempt
from all blame, and on the whole the only charge was
of improvident dealing, the result of which had been
most disastrous.
His HONOUR asked what was the cause of the
failure ?
Mr. LAWRENCE said that it arose from want of suf-
ficient capital to complete their arrangements. The
fact was, that of the capital guaranteed by the Messrs.
Maude, 4,0001., had not been paid, and the stoppage
had been mainly caused by the great excess of the
estimate for the plant, which, instead of being 6,0001.,
amounted to 13,0001.
Mr. ROBERTS appeared on the part of Aspdin, and
said that he was taken into the firm entirely as a
working partner, and had not drawn out more than
he would have earned as a superintendent of the
works.
Messrs. Maude were not represented by any pro-
fessional gentlemen.
His HONOUR: said, as far as Jones and Aspdin
were concerned no blame attached to them, and their
certificates would be granted forthwith. The case
ofthe Maudes was somewhat different, as they had
114.13ut in the capital they had agreed on, and which