The Sun.
London, England, 1833-12-09 00:00:00

COURT OF CHANCERY, DEC. 7.

CONTEMPT OF COURT.

The LORD CHANCELLOR had read the affidavits
furnished him on the subject of the contempt of Court
committed by Mr. John Read, of Lambeth, in per-
mitting his son to marry a Miss Birkett, a ward of
the Court, and afterwards concealing that marriage
from the knowledge of the Court and the lady's re-
lations. He thought, however, it would have been
much better if some of the affidavits had not been
made, as they tended rather to mislead the Court
than to afford a means of dealing out impartial jus-
tice. On the whole, his Lordship, in the present
stage of the proceedings, declined to make any order
with respect to the matters that had been brought
before it. With respect to the young lady, he was
bound, perhaps, to add, that she did not seem to
have been guilty of the slightest indiscretion, except
in the manner of her marriage.

BATTLEY V. BLENCOWE, WINTYRE, GREEN & FROST.
This was an action of libel. The defendants had
pleaded the general is,tie of Not Guilty.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL stated that this was an
action against the defendants, as proprietors and
printers of a newspaper at Bury, to recover da-
mages from them 'for two libels published in their
paper of and concerning the plaintiff. The plaintiff
had been in the army for a period of thirty-seven
years ; lie had originally served as a private soldier,
and had risen from the ranks, and it was to be
wished that there were more instances of that kind.
He had at first served in Holland, then he went to
Gibraltar; and, in 1813, a militia regiment being
raised in West Suffolk, he was selected on account
of his military experience to be appointed to the
poit of adjutant in it; in that post he continued,
and discharged his duties to the satisfaction of all
the officers of the regiment up to 1831; in that
year the regiment was called out for the purpose of
training, as it was intended that it should be after-
wards sent to Ireland; he was then obliged, from
ill health, to retire from the service. The
plaintiff was engaged in the service of a wine-
merchant at Bury S. Edmund's, and had
taken some part in an election at that place of a
clerk to the Paving Commissioners. The libels in
question were then published. They were not
election squibs, but dull malignant statements of
what were deliberate falsehoods. They charged, in
substance, that the plaintiff, being in full health, was
guilty of the gross and scandalous fraud of obtaining
a false certificate for the purpose of procuring the
retired allowance. It also imputed to him a want
of personal courage ; declared that he had not seen
active service; that because the regiment was going
to Ireland his nerves had failed, and that for the
purpo-e of avoiding going there he had obtained the
certificate and the allowance of his retirement.
They alleged that he was a man who had never
faced the foes of his country ; who had entered the
ranks as a private, and, by good fortune, had
obtained the rank of Adjutant in a respectable
militia, but who had not only abandoned his duty
when that duty threatened to call him from the
luxury of the wine-vaults, but had managed to retire
on a plea which, it now appeared, did not subsist,
for he had marvellously recovered within a short
time, as was manifested at the election of the Pav-
ing Commissioners' clerk, when he spoke most
loudly against pensioners and sinecurists. The
Learned Counsel then went on to comment on the
letters piecemeal, and urged that they were most
decidedly libellous.

Sir J. SCARLETT, for the defendants, observed
that this was a miserable end of a case most labori-
ously and pompously opened. The plaintiff was so
anxious to clear his character, he was so uneasy
under the imputations cast upon him, that he allowed
the spring assizes of the year to pass away, and then
the summer assizes, and finally brought his action
under the consideration of a Jury not composed of
men from the neighbourhood of the place where he
resided, but from the county of Middlesex, men
strangers to him personally, and who had probably
never heard of his name before. How were the
Jury sure that these letters applied to the plaintiff?
It appeared that there had been another Adjutant
who had died lately. The witness denied what the
Solicitor-General seemed to suppose, that the ex-
pression about the wine-vaults meant to impute that
the plaintiff was a sot. He denied, too, that he
knew anything about the plaintiff having been a
bawler or roarer at public meetings against sine-
curists. But if it were supposed that the paragraphs
did allude to the plaintiff, where was the proof that
he had suffered the slightest injury from them? His
health was not injured, that was clear; for his own
witness, who had seen him recently, declared him
to be surprisingly recovered. He put these circum-
stances to the consideration of the Jury in excuse
of what the defendants had done.
Verdict for the plaintiff—Damages 40s.

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY, DEC. 7.

(Before Mr. Commissioner MEnzvALE.)
MACDONALD AND CAMPBELL'S BANKRUPTCY.

Mr. Green, the official assignee, produced the ba-
lanced accounts on the joint estate of the bankrupts,
and also on the separate estate of Mr. Macdonald,
and stated that a dividend of one shilling in the
pound could be paid on the former, and sixpence in
the pound on the latter. The debts proved on the
joint estate, on which a first dividend is now pay-
able, is 92,984/. On Mr. Macdonald's estate a
former dividend of 2s. in the pound has been
declared.