The Sun.
London, England, 1846-01-31 00:00:00

COMMON PLEAS(-THIS DAY.)

COCKSHEAD V. RICHARDS.
Their LORDSHIPS delivered judgment this morning in
the present case, which was a motion applied for a few
days ago by Sir Thomas Wilde for a rule for a new
trial, on the ground of misdirection. The action was one
for libel, and was tried before the Lord Chief Justice in
the last sittings after term. It arose out of the defendant
having received a letter from the mate of the vessel, of
which the former was master, charging him with
drunkenness and other improper proceedings. The de-
fendant communicated the contents of the letter to Mr.
Ward, the owner, in order that he might take such steps
as he thcught expedient to protect the crew, the ship, and
the cargo. The plaintiff was in consequence dismissed
from the command of the vessel, and accordingly he
brought the present action. A verdict was found for the
defendant, on the ground that the letter complained of
came under the head of privileged communications, and
that he was morally bound to make such to the owner,
if he had good reason to suppose danger to the property
and crew; as otherwise the ship, and those in it, might
be placed in great danger.
Counsel showed cause against the rule, and the judg-
ment of the Court was delivered by
Lord Chief Justice TINDALL, who declared that the
letter complained of was a privileged communication, and
that the rule ought to be discharged.
Mr. Justice COLTMAN dissented from the judgment of
the rest of their Lordships, and said, that after the most
careful consideration he could not lot,k upon the letter
as a privileged communication.— Rule discharged.
CRIM. CON.—CLARKE V. DUNSFORD.
Mr. Sergeant CHANNEL was heard this morning
against a rule obtained by Sir Thomas Wilde a few days
ago (a report of which appeared in The Sun) for a new
trial or to enter a nonsuit. The point then raised by
the defendant was, that the plaintiff had engaged to pro.
duce material evidence on the trial relating to what took
place in the county of Middlesex, whereas the only evi-
dence adduced was a letter from Mrs. Weekes, of Bath,
to the defendant, relaecting the taking of lodgings in
that city, which Counsel on that side contended was not
at all material to the case, and was not at all necessary
to the verdict.
Yesterday, shortly before the rising of the Court, Mr.
Sergeant Talfourd was heard against the rule, and this
morning Mr. Sergeant Channel followed on the same
side.
Their LonDsliirs, on reviewing the whole case, were
of cpiniou that the letter formed a connecting link in the
proceedit.g, and that they had not heard sufficient to
warrant them granting the application. Their decision,
therefore, was, that the rule be discharged.—Rule dis-
charged accordingly.

F'EROGATIVE -(THIS DAY.)
(Before Sir HERBERT JENNER FUST.
ADAIR V. SWETE.

This was a proceeding to admit additional articles to
revoke a codicil to the will of the late Sir Robert Adair.
The allegation stated in 1839, at the time of the making
of the codicil, the testator was wholly incapable of execut-
ing any testamentary document, and the articles averred
that at the time the testator did not know who he left ex-
ecutors, whether he had any sons or not, and he would
get up at night and walk about and think it was day.
Sir lIERBERT JENNER FUST, in giving judgment, said,
this proceeding must be rejected, as it now came too late,
the case had been previously before the Court, and it
might have then been pleaded.