The Sun.
London, England, 1848-06-29 00:00:00

SLIGO. ELECTION.

On the motion of Colonel DUNNE the evidence taken
before the Slgo Election Committee was ordered to be
printed.
ROMAN CATHOLIC RELIEF BILL.
On the motion that the [louse should resolve itself
into Committee on the Roman Catholic Relief Bill.

Mr. GORING opposed the motion. Ho could see no
object that would be obtained by the Bill, inasmuch as
the Acts which it sought to repeal were in fact obso-
lete, and virtually repealed. The Honourable Mem-
ber alluded to the various anathemas which had
been issued by the Pope against the Protestants
of this country, and which were unrepealed, and
stated that the Pope still asserted the powers which
were conferred upon him by the Church, and would
exercise them if he had the power which the Hon. Mem-
ber for Youghal endeavoured to obtain for him by the
present Bill. The Hon. Member also referred to the
" Catholic Breviary," which ho said contained doctrines
of an improper character, and entirely opposed to the
Protestant feeling in this country. In that book the
doctrine inculcated by St. Alphonsus Liguori was ap-
proved of, that servants should he at liberty to steal if
they were not paid sufficiently well by their masters.
The Roman Catholic religion had lately been declared
to be the religion of the state in Sicily to the exclusion
of all others ; the King was obliged to profess it,
and should he change his religion he was to be
considered as having forfeited his throne. What
security, therefore, had they that this would not
be the case in Ireland, supposing the Roman Catholics
were to get the Bill passed? He had attended to all
the debates on the subject, and had heard a good deal
about many grievances which were inflicted upon
Catholics by certain obsolete statutes, but he had never
discovered any real case of hardship, or any relief which
the repeal of those statutes would give to their Roman
Catholic fellow-countrymen. An argument had been
brought forward, that it the Bill were passed there
would be an end put to religious discussions in that
House, but could they suppose that the zeal and
energy of the Jesuit order would be relaxed, and that
the high spirit of the Noble Lord (Lord Arundel and
Surrey) would be sati.fied by the Bill ? On the con-
trary, he considered that the Noble Lord would continue
his agitation until all the boons had been granted by
the House. He considered that the conduct of the
Roman Catholics in Ireland had been such as not
to entitle them to any such relief as was proposed
to be given to them by the Honourable Member,
and he said so on the authority of the Noble Lord (Lord
J. Russell), who had stated that the Roman Catholics
had not been excluded from the jury upon the trial of
John Mitchel because they professed the Roman Catho-
lic religion, but because they sympathised with the acts
and views of the criminal. He drew the inference
from that circumstance that the Roman Catholics
were disaffected in Ireland. If the Bill were
passed it would be viewed as an insult
upon the loyal Protestants of Ireland, from whom they
could only look for assistance during the periods of
disturbance and rebellion, which he must say had been
encouraged in that country by the truckling legis-
lation,rs ir
ll.of postponed theuni NIL
toohbual
teGdLialyoßryfdo r
supported
unJpiohn Russell). On these
arourals h© moved that the Committee on the Bill be
GREY said,
Sir GEORGE
wgphhotre. tne d
theyt he
into
Com-
mittee he would rienadrielyersetnate the course
reason- to beeliteov got.
Government
einotretvleedr, toe take
this clause.
before
they
reached the clause his lion. and Learned eirieend the
Attorney-General would be in his place, ready to su
port it; and he, therefore, trusted the Housef
would
ne-
gative the amendment for adjourning the Committee for
a fortnight.
Mr. FORBES said he was opposed to the Bill alto-
gether, and he certainly should vote for thpeaas:nedenadnagreenatt.
Sufficient concessions had already
been made to the
bodynom Roman
nf
the Catholics,mrfst loyaland peopletf this
of j3i
thisi uwceoren t ry would have
cause to complain of the conduct of the House.
Mr. Sergeant TA LFOURD said the topics which were
urged against the Speaker leaving the chair had already
been most fairly discussed and decided upon, and it was
really too bad to raise another discussion upon the
principle of the Bill. It was unfair to obstruct the
progress of the Bill at this stage, and he re-
gretted that the Hon. Gentlemen opposite had not
deferred their opposition till they had got into Com-
mittee. He for one was opposed to many parts of the
Bill as it stood, but he felt it would be an unbecoming
course fur him to pursue had he followed the example of
Honourable Gentlemen opposite. He should, however,
strenuously oppose these objectionable parts of the Bill
in Committee; and had Honourable Gentlemen opposite
adopted the same plan, it would have been more honour-
able to themselves and more calculated to aid the object
they had in view, of modifying, if not throwing out the
Bill.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. NEWBEGATE contended that the principle of
the measure had not been efficiently discussed, while no
member of her Majesty's Government had ever yet given
an explicit explanation of their views in reference to
many clauses of the Bill, and he insisted that those with
whom he acted were perfectly justified in retarding the pro-
gress of the measure by every means in their power. The
recent policy of the Pope of Rome in reference to foreign
Powers, fully demonstrated that he was anxious to Ob-
tain an ascendancy over those Powers, and he warned
the House to be cautious how they increased the pri-
vileges of those who acknowledged the supremacy of the
Pope. It was quite clear from the recent edicts of the
Pope, that he would afford no protection to those sove-
reigns who did not acknowledge his own right to be the
representive of Christ, and the spiritual head of all nations
in the world, and if the House, by passing this Bill,
increased the power of those who upheld that doctrine,
they might depend upon it that sooner or later it would
lead to disastrous colisions between the two parties.
Why the Pope openly told all who adopted the Catholic
faith that they owed no allogiance to that authority

which denied his own supreme spiritual power ; and
were they, on the face of this startling evidence, to de-
liberately sit qpiet and allow a Bill to pass into a law
which should facilitate the preaching of such dangerous
doctrines? Certainly not, and with the experience they
had in the fact that every Catholic Sovereign in Europe
had felt himself at one time or other compelled to resist
the aggressive encroachments of the Pope of Rome, he
had no hesitation in telling the House that if they
passed this Bill they would be jeopardizing the
Crown and institutions of the State.—(Hear, hear.)
He wished to know whether the Government considered
it consistent with their duty to their Sovereign, whom
they had sworn to serve, to recognise, as they did, any
bulls which emanated from a foreign Power which had
never denied its hostility to the Crown and established
religion of this country. He asked this question of her
Majesty's Government, whether the amendment of the
Attorney-General would guard against that, and prevent
interference in the appointment to benefices?
Sir G. GREY said the Hon. Gentleman asked him a
question which he must know it was impossible for him
to answer in that stage of the Bill. He should be happy
to give the most ample explanations in Committee.—
(Divide, divide.)
Colonel CONOLLY opposed the going into Commit-
tee, because he believed that the Catholics were not sub-
jeeted to any arbitrary restrictions in the exercise of
their religion.
The House then divided, when there appeared—
For going into Committee
Aguiust it
Maj.rity. -26
The House then went into Committee
Mr. NEWDEGATE repeated the question he had
asked before the division.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said his amendment
would render the law more stringent than it was before.
The Pope would, he apprehended, have no ecclesiastical
jurisdiction. He had no jurisdiction in law in this king-
dom, and he could not acquire it by this Bill. But if
parties thought proper to obtain directions from him, that
was a matter which, perhaps, no law could prevent.
After a few words from Sir R. H. INGLIS,
Mr. NEWDEGATE wished to say that a bull was
an authoritative document, and whether the Govern-
ment in allowing such bulls did not virtually place itself
in a subsiduary and corroborative part.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL repeated that the
Pope had no authority whatever in this country. The
Pope might have authority over the consciences of some
people in this country, but it was a fallaCy to say that
in the law he had any spiritual power. The Hon.
Gentleman then proposed a verbal amendment in one of
the early clauses of the Bill.

Mr. NAPIER objected to the amendment, contending
that if it was adopted it would encourage the issuing of
bulls from the Papal see, and not, as had been stated by
the Learned Attorney-General, act more stringently in
preventing their being issued.
Mr. C. ANSTEY said his only object in bringing in
the Bill was to have granted to his Roman Catholic
brethren the full measure of constitutional liberty which
was enjoyed by the Protestants of this country. The
clause would have the effect of enabling Roman Catholics
to enjoy that freedom of communication among them-
selves and with the head of their Church which already,
in the abstract, was afforded to them by the existing laws;
and, above all, would take away from our statute-book
several obsolete provisions, which, if they had done
nothing more, had afforded stock in trade to agitators.
Mr. NEWDEGATE said the Attorney-General's
duties appeared to be most onerous and important, for
after making a statement to the House, he had not
waited to hear the discussion upon the clause, and the
House was now lef; in doubt as to its effect. He trusted
that the House would not permit any such introduction
of a foreign power into this country as was sanctioned
by the amendment. If the Bill was passed as amended,
it would permit the exercise of bulls in this country
which were issued by the see of Rome.
Sir G. GREY said the amendment would have the
effect of limiting the introduction of bulls, as it was
originally proposed by his Learned Friend the Attorney-
General.

After a few words from Mr. Henley, Sir G. Grey, Mr.
Anstey, and Sir H. Willoughby,
Mr. WALPOLE said he was only opposed to such
repeal of the statutes as would be detrimental to the
Protestant institutions of the country, aril he would at
once give his consent to the abolition of those obsolete
enactments which had been referred to in the coarse of the
discussion. He would therefore support the amendment
introduced by the Government, because though it sanc-
tioned the admission of bulls, it would exclude those
which were decidedly objectionable. _ _

Mr. NE WDEGAiE had great respect for the opinion
of his lion. Friend (Mr. Walpole), but be considered
that it was advisable to take the opinion 'of the House
upon the matter.
After some discussion of a desultory nature,
Mr. HENLEY moved that the Chairman do report
progress and ask leave to sit again.
Sir G. GREY deprecated the waste of time that had
already taken place.
The House then divided on the motion, when there
appeared—
For reporting progress
Against it
Majority against reporting progress —4

On our re-admission to the gallery we found,
The CHARM 4N putting the question on the amend-
ment proposed by the Attorney-General, which, after
a short discussion, the House divided upon, when there
appeared—

For the amendment ll3
Against it .

Mr. BEItNAL gave his casting vot t in favour of the
amendment, and the words propcsed by the Attorney-
General were consequently added to the clause.
Sir H. H. INGLIS put it to the House, after what
had taken place, whether they would proceed further
with the Bill that day. He wuuld move that the
Chairman should report progress, and ask leave to sit
again.

A short discussion then took place, in which the
Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Newdegate, and Mr.
Henley took part, after which the House divided, when
here appeared—
For reporting progvess .. llO
Against it
Majority against it

The clause was then agreed to.
Sir R. H. INGLIS again urged upon the Committee
the expediency of reporting progress in the existing
state of things.

Mr. JOHN STUART supported the suggestion.
Lord HARRY VANE trusted the suggestion would
not be adopted, particularly as Wednesday was the only
day open to the Bill of an independent Member. It was
too bad for lion. Members to come down at four o'clock,
to make speeches without having heard any of the previ-
ous discussion, and hoped in future when these important
measures came forward, lion. Members who proposed
to take part in the debate upon them would take care
to be in their places a little earlier than two hours before
the adjournment of the House.
After few words from Mr. HUDSON, who com-
plained of the latter observation of the Noble Lord,
Sir G. GREY thought at this !ate period of the day
it would be better to report pregresF.
Mr. C. ANSTEY had no objection to do so if the
Right Honourable Baronet would undertake to devote
part of a Government night for the further progress of
this Bill.

Sir GEORGE GREY could not give such an under-
talsing without consulting his colleagues.
Mr. HUME felt that, in the present state of the
House, it was useless to think of proceeding further with
the Bill to-day,
After some further discussion,
Sir 11. WILLOUGHBY proposed that the following
provisoes should be added to the clause last agreed to:—
Page 3, line 10, after the words " Roman Catholics,"
insert (the 13 Elix. cap. 2) provided always, and Ite
it declared, that nothing in this enactment relating to an
Act pissed in the first year of Queen Elizabeth, chapter
1, shall authorise or render it lawful for any person
or persons to affirm, hold, stand with, set forth,
maintain, or defend the authority, pre-eminence, power,
or jurisdiction, spiritual or ecclesiastical, of any foreign
prince, prelate, person, state, or potentate, within the
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, nor shall
the same extend further than to the repeal of the parti-
cular penalties and punishmentatherein referred to, but in
all other respects the law shall continue the same as if this
enactment had not been made. Provided always and be
it declared, that nothing in this enactment contained,
relating to an Act 13 Elm., cap. 2, shall authorise or ren-
der it lawful for any person or persona to import, bring
in, or put in execution within this realm, any bull,
writing, or instrument of the see of Rome; and that in
all respects, save as to the penalties or punishments im-
posed by the said Act, the law shall continue the same
as if this enactment had not been made.

Mr. C. ANSTEY had no objection to the insertion of
the provisions, if the Hon. Gentleman would consent to
strike out the words " therein referred to" in the first
paragraph, and to insert in their stead the words " con-
sequent thereon," and to strike out the words " by the
said Act," in the second paragraph, and to substitute the
word " therein."
Sir H. WILLOUGHBY declined to make the altera•
tion, on the ground, that if the proviso was so worded,
it would have the effect of repealing the common law as
well as the statutory penalties.
After some discussion,
Sir G. GREY expressed himself adverse to the
saevaivneg tr o e
s situ resumed,
again.
Thess,
and
Houseskhl
ad-
mission of the proposed provision.
It was agreed that the Chairman should report pro-
gress,
the clause was reported
accordingly.
The remaining ordera of the day were then disposed
of, and the House adjourned at Six o'clock.

ELECTION COMMITTEE.
DUBLIN.
The scrutiny into the validity of Mr. Reynolds'
majority was resumed yesterday, and in the course of
the day the petitioners succeeded in striking off five
additional votes.

RAILWAY COMMITTEES.
(YESTERDAY.)
HOUSE OF LORDS.
GROUP No. 2.— LEEDS CENTRAL RAILWAY STA-
TlON.—Opposition further considered.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.
GROUP No. B.—The Committee on this group met
for the last time to-day, to give their decision on the
following cases:—
EXETER AND COWLEY BRIDGE JUNCTlON.—Preamble
not proved.
TAW VALE RAILWAY AND DOCK.—Preamble not
proved.
LONDON AND SOUTH-WESTERN (Exeter and Credi-
ton, Taw Vale Railway and Dock, and Bodmin and
Wadebridge Railway Companies' Arrangements).—Pre-
amble not proved.

Thus this severe contest between the Bristol and Exe-
ter and the South• Western Companies, which has lasted
forseveral weeks, terminated in the defeat of both parties.

OPENING OF THE EXTENSION

- - - -
OF THE SOUTH-WESTERN RAILWAY.
The York-road Extension of the London and South-
Western Railway was examined yesterday afternoon by
the Government Inspector, preparatory to its opening on
Saturday next, and he expressed himself perfectly satis-
fied with the substantial and workmanlike manner in
which this important, though short line, has been con-
structed. The Inspector was accompanied in his ex-
amination by Mr. Locke, and two powerful loco-
motives were employed in testing the safety of the
various iron bridges along the line. The flight of a
locomotive across the immense bridge spanning the
Westminster-road, naturally excited a good deal of in-
terest in the neighbourhood. The construction of the
line has been most expensive, the two miles of railway
having cost no less than a millio❑ and a half of money.
It has occupied about two years and a half in its con-
struction.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, June 28.

(Before Mr. Justice WIGUTMAN and a Special Jury.)

THE DUKE OF BRUNSWICK V. PEARSON.
This was another action by the Duke of Brunswick
against the Satirist for the publication of a number of libels
upon him during the two or three years which he was
the publisher of the paper. The Duke has recovered
verdicts for the publication of the same libels during the
time other persons were the publishers.
The Duke, as usual, conducts d his case in person, and
read a long speech to the jury, in the course of which he
read nearly all the many libels that have appeared upon
him in the ,Fatirist for years.

Mr. HUNTER BROWN appeared for the defendant, and
contended that as the Duke had recovered compensation
from other persons for the publication of the same libels,
and that the vindication of his character, if that was his
object, had been as fully accomplished as it could be,
it was impossible, therefore, to avoid the inference that
the Duke was actuated by malignant motives, and such
being the case, he held that the smallest amount of
damages would be amply sufficient.
The jury fuund a verdict for the plaintiff—Damages,

THE QUEEN V. UHISLIN.

Mr. Sergeant Shee and Mr. Simon were counsel for
the proaecution, and Mr. Temple appeared for the de
fendant.

Mr. Sergeant SIIEE stated that this was a prosecu-
tion instituted by a lady of the name of Cass—a lacy
who was advanced in years, and for a length of time a
resident at Winterton douse, St. John's-wood. She had
adopted this proceeding against the proprietor of the
Satirist newspaper for two libels published in that paper.
As to part of the libels, the defendant, under a recent
Act of Parliament, had pleaded that the matter was
true, and had been published for the public benefit; as
to the other parts he had pleaded not guilty; therefore,
as to some parts of which the prosecutrix complained,
the defendant's conduct would turn out to be wholly
unjustifiable. A practised libeller who knew how to go
about his wicked work, would take care to insinuate so
much of truth as would enable the friends of the party to
identify her, and the jury would judge from the libels
whether the defendant was not a practised libeller.
The Learned Counsel then read two articles, one of
which appeared in the Satirist of the 28th of November,
and the other of the sth of December last. These articles
were headed, "Bill Stealers and Black Sheep of the
Law," and signed " A Student;" and they insinuated
that Mrs. Cass was in some way connected in a bill
transaction with those who were alleged to constitute a
gang of bill stealers, ar.d said that the parties bad com-
mitted perjury in some legal proceedings. [These
articles were very long, and contained the names of
several parties, so that we cannot re-publish the state-
ments.] The Learned Sergeant commented upon the
articles, and said, that so far from their being published
for the benefit of the public, there could be no doubt
that the object was to extort money. lie therefore called
upon the jury to convict the defendant.

Newton, you can show that this gentleman, Mr. John
Chaplin, was acting as a provisional committeeman, it
ill be of no use your wasting the time of the Court.
Yet are seeking to charge this gentleman with fraud,
and you must show some acts by ~hich it clearly ap-
pears that those who committed the frauds acted by his
authority. It is very odd that you have selected a gen-
tleman who has really so little to do with the company.
Hare we are till two o'clock -

Mr. NEWTON—The real difficulty, my Lord, is to ge!
at the real Simon Pure.

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE—But you have taken a
Simon fure who is a long way off.—(Laughter.) It is
really of no use your wasting the time of the Court,
unless you can call witnesses to fix the defendant with
having acted as a provisional committeeman. We like
to see that one is making way, especially as you made
some remarks on the very slow course of justice.—
(1.-iughtr.) The defendant's name being on the provi-
sienal Committee will not lay a foundation for this action.
Unless you can go further to connect the defendant than
by showieg his attendance at a preliminary committee
meeting, I shall tell the jury there is no evidence.
Mr. NEWTON, nothi❑g daunted, renewed the attempt,
and called and re-called several other witnesses in order
to prove the defendant's attendance at the meetings of
the company, and the allotment to him of a sufficient
number of shares to qualify him to act as a provisional
ciiamitteeinan ; but with as little success as before,
which elicited considerable merriment as each failure to
get over the difficulty became manifest and called down
repeated expressions of impatience from the Lord Chief'
Justice, who besides had frequent occasion to reprove
Mr. Newton for his disregard of the rules of evidence.
Air. ATHERTON, on behalf of Mr. Newton, submitted
to the Court that the question was, whether there was
not evidence that the plaintiff paid the money, the
amount of which was not in dispute, upon a considera-
tion which had failed, the scheme in respect of which he
subscribed it having miscarried ?
The LORD CHIEF JUSTIOE was of opinion that there
was no case to go to the jury. It seemed to him that
the plaintiff had failed to make out that he had any
locus standi i❑ the court on the present occasion. It
%. as in evidence that the defendant at one time consented
that his name should be announced as a provisional
committeeman; but they had in evidence also, that in
order to quality him to act as a provisional committee
man it was necessary that he should possess a certain
number of shares, and it did not appear that he did
possess any shares; but on the contrary, when he was
called upon to qualify as a provisional committeeman he
refused to pay, and he never, in tact, attended any other
then a preliminary meeting. It appeared to him (the
Lord Chief Justice) that he never became a member of
the company. There was no evidence that he had re-
ceived the plaintiff's money, which was the foundation
of the present action. It was the mere payment of
money into a certain banker's, having an account with
cortAin names, namely, the Direct Sheffield and Mac-
clesfield Railway Company. There was no evidence to
go to the jury, and it seemed to him (the Lord Chief
Justice) that the plaintiff must be nonsuited.
The plaintiff was nonsuited accordingly.
The trial lasted nearly eight hours.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER, June 28.
(Sittings at Nisi Prins, before the LORD CHIETb BARON
and a•Common Jury.)
GADDERER 77. lIADIE.

This case, which was partly heard on Tuesday, was
an action to recover 2001., the amount of a bill of ex-
change alleged to have been accepted by the defendant,
who pleaded 17 pleas denying the acceptance and the
several indorsements, as alleged, by James Limas, Jabt-z
Haime, Frederick Hahne, R. Shires, and John Miles,
and averring that the bill was accepted fur a special pur-
pose, which had not been carried out; that there was no
consideration for such acceptance; that it was obtained
by fraud and conspiracy; and that the plaintiff and the
various indorsees took the bill with full knowledge of
those facts and without any consideration.
This was one of those numerous actions, of whh.th the
public have heard so much, and which have arisen from
applications made by various clergymen in answer to ad-
vertisements in the Watchman newspaper, to the effect
that the advertiser had 7,0001. to advance for pious pur-
poses upon the prsonal responsibility of clergymen of
the Methodist per,uasion. Application to be made to
Mr. Lomas, 53, Mount-street, Lambeth.
Mr. Humfrey and :dr. R. B. Miller appeared for the
plaintiff.
Mr. Montague Chambers and Mr. Dowdesvrell for the
defendant.

Proof of the publication was given.
Mr. TEMPLE then required that Mrs. Cass should be
placed in the box, as her name was on the back of the
indictment. .

Mr. Sergeant SHEE objected, but
Mr. Justice \IQHTMAN held that she must be called.
Mrs. Cass was ;hen put in the witness-box and cross-
examined—l gave instructions to prevent a person from
being a rogue, as he bad commenced a proceeding on a
1,0004 bill without permission. I wish you would let
me tell the whole for the good of the public, for I are
afraid you won't ask the priper questions. I made an
affidavit. A gentleman of the name of Dukes called on
me. I did not tell him that White had given value for
that bill. I should like to tell you what I did say. I
did not say so to that gentleman (who was pointed out).
I remember a person coming to my carriage. I told him
I would tell him what value was given on the bill, and
that full value was given for it. I did not say that White
had given me full value for it.
Mr. TEMPLE, on behalf of the defendant, addressed
the jury, and complained of an indictment having
been preferred instead of enabling a jury to give their
sense of the conduct of the parties by awarding
damages. A prejudice had been introduced into the
case by the epithets used by the counsel on the part
of the prosecution. According to the old law it was
of no consequence whether or not the libel was true,
and a party obtained damages to compensate for his
wounded feelings. The law, however, was now altered,
and a party had a right, even in a criminal prosecution,
to justify the libel by proving its truth, and it therefore
was open to the defendant to adopt this course. With
regard to the intention of the defendant, it must be clear
that he did not intend to impute to Mrs. Cass that she
was guilty of bill stealing, because the articles were
headed " Bill Stealers and Black Sheep of the Law ;" it
could not be said that Mrs. Cass could be held out as a
black sheep of the law, nor did the article impute to her
that she had stolen bills. It was an imputation upon
the other parties whose names were inserted in the arti-
cles. The libels did not impute anything improper to
Mrs. Cass. The Learned Counsel then said, he should
call witnesses who would contradict Mrs. Cass as to
some part of the testimony she had given. tie then
contended that the publication was likely to be for the
public benefit—as it exposed the conduct of those who
were included in the libels. [These parties were not be-
fore the Court, and therefore had no opportunity of an-
swering the insinuations cast upon them by the de-
fendant's counsel. We do not, therefore, mention them.]
Upon the whole he urged the jury to acquit the de-
fendant.

The case having been opened on the part of the
plaintiff,
Thomas Clark, who was the first witness called, said
that he knew the defendant and his handwriting. The
acceptance was his writing. Upon cross-examtnination,
he said he became acquainted with the handwriting of
the defendant by going to Pengwelley under pretence of
taking lodgings for an invalid, and called upon the de-
fendant as a person recommended to minister spiritual
consolation. The witness tied his arm in a sling, and
by this means, upon application, the defendant wrote his
address as the person to whom the invalid was to be re-
commended upon arrival. He obtained the handwriting
of one of the indorsers, who kept a shop in Pengwelley,
by watching when the party was alone in his shop, and
then going in to buy a bottle of pickles, as mate to a
vessel, and requiring a receipt to be put to the bill.
Langdale, another witness, proved the handwriting of
Mr. Lomas, another of the indorsers; he had seen the
party write three letters in the office of the plaintiff, he
standing by his side and observing the signatures. The
witness had known this indorser st week only. He also
proved the handwriting of Mr. Shires, another indorser.
He knew him by having done business with him; the
business was applying for orders to the Lyceum Theatre.
He had seen Mr. Shires in Panton-square. It was at a
bill-discounting house. He did not know when it was.
He knew the handwriting of another indorser, Miles.
lie was a relation of his; but he did not know what he
was, but he was of very respectable connexion. Mr.
Shires was an elderly man, neither tall nor short, not
(lark nor fair, greyish hair, neither light nor dark; he
did not know him to a hair. Mr. Miles was neither
young nor old, and neither tall nor short. Three letters
were then put in, the signatures being turned back. He
had never seen any of those handwritings before. Upon
being re-produced to the witness, he said the signatures
were those of Mr. Lomas. He had been an attorney,
and was now clerk to the attorney for the plaintiff. The
bill of exchange was then put in and read.
Joseph William Snell—Mr. Gadderer, the plaintiff,
had several times taken the benefit of the Insolvent
Debtors' Act, and had been twice a bankrupt. He
lived in Craven-street, in the Strand, and discounted
bills very largely. The witness had a cause in the list ;
it was an action on a bill of exchange for 1851. He had
discounted it for Gadderer. He had no means of liv-
ing ;he resided at present with his daughter. The
bill upon which the action was brought was dis-
counted at the rate of 60 per cent. per annum. He
paid the money to Shires, who indorsed to the plain-
tiff. The plaintiff had lived 22 years in his present resi-
dence, and had also at one time a country house at
Streatham. his wife had a large property of her own-
-1,2501. a year.
This was the plaintiff's case.
Mr. MONTAGUE CUAMBERS having addressed the
Court on behalf of the defendant,
William Wootten was the first witness called. He
recollected Lomas calling, in January, 1847, for letters
at his house (which was the post-office) at 53, Mount-
street, Lambeth. He had no knowledge of Lomas, and
had not given him permission to have his letters directed
there. About 30 letters were received.

Mr. Do Riche—l was managing clerk to Messrs. Few
and Co., and served Mrs. Cass with a subpcena to attend
the trial. She told me if we called her she would prove
that tull value was given for the bill as she was present
at the time.

Mr. Dukes—l am a partner in the house of Few and
Co. I called upon Mrs. Cass relative to a trial then
pending. She said, all I can prove is against you. I
said, our defence is that no value was given for the bill.
She said, that full value had been given for it. She did
not say by whom.
Mr. Justice NVIGuTmAx said, then there was no con-
tradiction of Mrs. Cass'a testimony, the only question
was, whether the articles constituted a libel. If the jury
were of opinion that the articles were calculated to bring
Mrs. Cass into disrepute, discredit, and to attach dis-
grace to her, they were libellous.
The jury returned a verdict of Guilty.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, June 28.
(Sittings at Nisi Prins, at Westminster, before the LORD
CHIEF JUSTICE and a Special Jury.)
NEWTON V. CHAPLIN.
This was an action brought by Mr. Augustus Newton,
a barrister, to recover from the defendant the deposit
money paid upon certain shares allotted to the plaintiff
in the Sheffield and Macclesfield Direct Railway Com-
pany. The defendant denied his liability.
Mr. Newton (with Wilma was Mr. Atherton) conducted
his own case; and Mr. Sergeant Byles and Mr. Bovill
were counsel for the defendant.

John Hillsden knew a person of the name of Tucker;
the bill was in his handwriting, and so were the signa-
ture and the endorsement in the name of Lomas. Three
letters addressed to the defendant upon the ❑egotiation
respecting the bills of exchange, and signed " Lomas,"
were in the handwriting of Tucker. He knew a person
of the name of Sidserf; the copy for an advertisement
inserted in the Watchman on the 13th January, 1847,
was in his handwriting. It was shown to him before
insertion. He had known both the parties for some
years.
The letters from Lomas to the defendant were then
put in and read. These letters contained the terms of
the pretended negotiation, and were written in an affected
spirit of the greatest possible piety, but dealing most
freely with sacred names. The witness knew Shires;
had seen him in company with Sidserf and Tucker, at
the Bull Inn. Bishopsgate, on many occasions.
Thomas Marsden knew Richard Shires, who lodged
i❑ his house for some time at 6s. 3(1. per week. He left,
leaving a balance of 271. 10'. in arrears.
C. T. Lewis—Was an officer in the Queen's Prison.
Sidserf, Gadderer, and Shires, had been in the prison
together. Gadderer had been in the prison five times,
between the years 1829 and 1839.
John Henry Newdiman—Miles was a tenant of his
at 4s. Gd. per week. His wife went out washing.
Mary Curling—Was the housekeeper at No. 9, Pan-
ton-square. Miles had an office there at 12s. Gd. per
week. She had seen Gadderer put down the money to
pay the rent.
Six schedules of Gadderer's insolvency were then put
in, from 1826 to 1843.
This closed the defendant's case.

The plaintiff, Mr. Augustus Newton, resides at St.
Paul's Cottage, Cheltenham ; and the defendant, Mr.
John Chaplin, is one of the firm of the well known car-
riers of that name, and keeps the Spread Eagle Tavera,
in Gracechurch-street. It appeared that, in the autumn
of 1815, a railway scheme, designated the Direct Shef-
field and Macclesfield Railway, was projected by a Mr.
William Chaplin, a brother of the defendant, and seve-
ral other gentlemen, who, with the defendant, Mr. John
Chaplin, were registered as the provisional committee-
men. This provisional committee held their meetings
principally at the Swan with two Necks, in Lad-lane,
a house kept by Mr. William Chaplin, the brother
of the defendant, and who acted as chairman of the
meetings. In. due course of time the promoters adver-
tised their project in the Times. to which they appended
the names of both the brothers Chaplin as provisional
committeemen among others. Mr. Newton, the plaintiff,
having seen the advertisement, and amongst the pro-
moters the names of men so respectable as the brothers
Chaplin, applied to the company to have 100 shares
allotted to him. In answer to that application the
plaintiff had 40 shares allotted to him in four allotments of
10 shares each. The company proposed to raise a capital
of 80,0001. in 4,000 shares at 20/. each ; and the deposit
money was to be 21. 2s. per share. On having the 40
shares allotted to him Mr. Newton paid the deposit
money of two guineas a share, amounting to 841.
Eventually the scheme was abandoned by the projectors,
and one:half of the deposit money returned to the
allottees of shares, and to Mr. Newton amongst the
others. Ur. Newton now sought to recover the other
half of his &posit money, which the promoters had
thought fit to retain.
Mr. NEWTON, in his opening statement to the jury,
charged the promoters with not having meted out an
equal measure of justice to all the allottees of shares:
alike in the matter of the return of the deposit money.
To him and others they had only returned one-half,
while to certain favoured persons they had though fit to
return three-fourths of the deposits. lie should be ahly
to show that no regular account had been rendered
the shareholders, that the balance she it, such as it was,
was full of misrepresentations and falsehood, and that,
in some respects at least, the money subscribed for this ,
undertaking was deliberately applied by the Messrs.
Chaplin and those acting with him, to the payment al
debts for which they were liable, and not at all connec-
ted with this scheme.

Mr. Humfrey replied—He did not deny the fraud prac-
tised upon the defendant; the question was whether Mr.
Gadderer had bona fide given a consideration for this bill.
At one time it was held that a man was not justified in
caking a bill under suspicious circumstances, but that
doctrine had long been exploded in Westminster. hall,
and a man had now a perfect right to take a hill under
my circumstances, because the original doctrine was
found very much to embarrass the mercantile interests
in the circulation of bills of exchange ; but it cannot be
supposed that, under such circumstances, a bill would be
Uncounted at 5 per cent. ; the bill is bought, perhaps, for
50/., upon the faith of the names upon it, and the plaintiff
is at least entitled to recover the amount he has paid Is
the person guilty of the indiscretion of putting his name
to a negociable instrument, or the person who, upon the
faith of that name, advances money, to be the sufferer?
There was no evidence whatever of any acquaintance
netween Miles and the previous indsrsers. There was
no evidence of fraud on the part of Miles or Gadderer.
Why did not Mr. Ilaimes give some notice of the fraud
practised in obtaining the bill ? No suggestion even of
:,his was made until the pleas were put upon the record ;
and Mr. Gadderer having paid a valuable consideration
or the bill wan entitled to recover.
The LORD CHIEF BARON, in summing up, said this
was the first time in which he had ever known such evi-
knee as in this case given of handwriting. The only
knowledge the witness had of the defendant's writing
vas such as he had obtained upon a most fraudulent and
vicked representation, and he did not know whether the
jury would not have been justified in dismissing the case
'mon that evidence. There is no doubt the law of usury
in respect of bills of exchange is wholly repealed, and
hey may now be discounted at any rate of interest ; but,
hough legal, it does not follow that a conclusion may
ie drawn by the jury of the knowledge of the facts
Mder which the bill was obtained. It is true, as ob-
served by the counsel for the plaintiff, that a person is
not bound to inquire into all the facts of the bill, but it

Chaplin, the chairman of the company
Mr. Fry, the defendant's attorney, and Mr. George Fre•
&rick Eyre, the secretary, were severally called by Mr.
Newton, with the view to fix the defendant with havint
acted as a provisional committeeman in the propoaed
railway scheme, but nothing to the purpose was elicited
from any of them, except the fact from the secretary.
that the defendant had attended two of the preliminary
meetings. He had not been seen at any of the subse-
quent meetings when the company had been regularly
embodied.

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE interposed—Unless, Mr.

THURSDAY EVENING, JUNE 29, 18-18.

must have been upon a bona fide transaction. The plain-
tiff must have taken the bill honestly ; and if the jury
believed the plaintiff had so taken the bill, he was en-
titled to their verdict. He must advert to the evidence
of the handwriting of Lomas, who turned out to he
Tucker. The only evidence was that of Langdale, who
had seen him write three letters in the office of the plain
tiff's attorney. The purport of those letters, of which
the witness knew nothing, could be easily conceived ;
and he must say that he thought there was some evi-
dence to connect the plaintiff with all the other parties.
The jury immediately returned a verdict that the bill
was obtained by fraud, of which the plaintiff was cog-
nisant.

JUDGES' CHAMBERS.

THE CHARTIST LEADERS.

Yesterday, before Mr. Justice Erle, in chamber, bail
that was deemed satisfactory having been tendered on
behalf of the prisoner Vernon, his liberation was ordered
until the time appointed for his trial.

THE COLDBATH-FIELDS MURDER.
THE QUEEN V. WILLIAM JOHN HEWSON.

Mr., HAywooD said, in this case, he had to apply for
his Lordship's fiat, directing a writ of habeas corpora to
issue, directed to the keepers of the Coldbath- fields
prison to bring up the bodies of Alfred Waddilove and
Henry Young, prisoners, confined in that prison, to ap-
pear and give evidence at the next Central Criminal
Court Sessions, on the trial of William John Hewson,
who stands charged with the wilful murder of William
Woodhouse, one of the turnkeys of Coldbath-fields
prison. Mr. Hayward stated that the Secretary of
State had directed Mr. Kittle, on the part of the Crown,
to prosecute.

Mr. Justice ERLE directed the writ to issue forthwith.

POLICE INT ELLIGENCE.
MANSION-HOUSE.

Elizabeth Robinson was charged with having plun •
dered her employer, Mr. Nairn, sack maker, of Tower
Royal, Watling. street.
The prisoner, who had worked for the prosecutor for
some years, was seen by a policeman on Saturday even-
ing at the corner of Wa!brook carrying 14 new sacks
upon her head. She carried them into a public house in
Budge-row. About three quarters of an hour after-
wards she came out with them on her head, and was
taken into custody as she was going towards Cannon-
street, having made a very lame excuse about them.
She subsequently gave a wrong address, but the police-
man having ascertained where she lived searched her
lodgings, and found there six more sacks and a quantity
of twine and sackcloth, all of which property was iden-
tified as having been stolen from Mr. Nairn, who stated
that he had been. within the last 12 months, plundered
of upwards of 1501. worth of goods of a similar descrip-
tion. Part of the goods had been sent to a booking
office kept in a public-house, at the bar of which the
prisoner had been seen with a man drinking, when they
were brought in to be transmitted to Ealing by the
carrier, and soon afterwards were missed.

The prisoner said that she never for an instant con-
templated robbery; that she was in the public-house
after the sacks were brought in, and, seeing them on
the ground, took it into her head that they had been
stolen from her employer, and determined to carry
them off to his warehouse; that she accordingly got a
porter to lift them on her head, and took them to the
warehouse, but that was closed, and she was soon after-
wards taken into custody. She solemnly declared that
she had been a pattern of honesty.
The LORD MAYOR said that he had no doubt that
she knew of former robberies upon her employer as
well as that of which she was accused, and committed
her for trial.

Philip Cloug was committed for trial upon the charge
of having robbed his master, Mr. R. H. Bowen, wine
merchant, of 101, Fenchurch•street.

The prisoner said, all he could say was, that he used
to sell wine to a marine store dealer, who gave evidence
against him, for Is. 3d. per bottle.

BOW-STREET.

Alfred Grogan, the young man who has been under
remand upon the charge of forging several free admis.
sions to her Majesty's Theatre, was placed at the bar
for final examination.

The case has been already published. It appears that
the family of the prisoner had been for many years con-
nected with the Opera-house and other theatres, and
from their respectability, Mr. Lumley was anxious not
to press the present charges.
Mr. HENRY could not accede to Mr. Lumley's wishes,
as the matter was one of considerable importance to the
public, as well as to managers.
He was fully commited for trial.
CLERKENWELL.

William Shields and Mary Poole were finally ex-
amined, charged by Mr. Samuel Charles Whitbread, of
the firm of Whitbread and Co., the brewers, of Chiswell-
street, St. Luke's, with having been concerned in the
following robbery

On Thursday -last Mr. Whitbread was proceeding up
a narrow flight of stairs to one of the cash departments
when he encountered the male prisoner, for whom he
made way, and on passing by he ran away. ►Mr. Whit-
bread's suspicions were aroused, and subsequently 253 L
in notes and gold was missed from the room. Informa-
tion of the robbery was given to the police, when,
through the active exertions of Harvey, 118 G, the
prisoner was traced and apprehended, and nearly the
whole of the property recovered. The female prisoner,
it appeared, was kept by a gentleman, but allowed the
visits of the male prisoner ; and on the day after the
robbery he paid her a visit, when she intimated to her
landlady that the gentleman, her protector, was about
to send her into the country, and offered her an advance
of rent, saying she had plenty of money, and was not in
want of 501. The prisoner was formerly a waiter at the
Green-gate public house, and had been in the habit of
attending at the brewhouse.

Several witnesses identified the prisoners and part of
the notes.

Mr. Robinson attended for the prisoners, by whose
advice they reserved their defence, and were fully com-
mitted for trial.

Patrick Croley, a rufl'►anly-looking fellow, was charged
with a murderous assault, upon Mary, his wife.
The poor woman, whose head and face were shock-
ingly bruised and mutilated, and who was in so weakly
a condition that she gave her evidence with difficulty,
deposed that the prisoner was in the habit of using her
in a most brutal and savage manner. On the previous
night he returned home and quarrelled with her without
the least provocation, when he knocked her down by a
dreadful blow on the head from a broom. She became
insensible, and Wed profusely, and was covered with
bruises from kicks and blows given by the prisoner.
Policeman Ayliffe, of the G division took the prisoner
into custody.
The prosecutrix entreated the Bench to separate her
from the prisoner, as she felt satisfied that he would
eventually murder her. She had three children, and
she would endeavour to support them and herself as
well as she could, as she was unable to bear with the
prisoner any longer.
The prisoner, with cool indifference, denied the
charge.
The MAGISTRATE sentenced him to ten days' impri-
sonment with hard labour in the House of Correction,
without fine.