The Sun.
London, England, 1848-02-15 00:00:00

Mr. Sergeant Wrangh arz► and Mr. Sergeant Kinglake
appeared for the petitioners, and Mr. Alexander and
Mr. Edwin James for the sitting Members.
Mr. Sergeant WEANGPLAIN stated the case for the peti-
tioners. The borough of (ireat Marlow he said did not
contain more than 351 voter .s, but still it had often been
the scene of severe contest s amongst parties who were
large landed proprietors reliiding in the neighbourhood
of the borough. In 1841, iSir William Clayton, one of
these gentlemen, was returned by a majority of one, but
he was afterwards unseated upon the petition of Mr.
Hampden, who claimed the seat. At the recent election
Sir William again entered the field with every prospect
of success, but Colonel' Brownlow Knox came
forward to oppose him, and by having re-
course to bribery and other corrupt practices,
he, together with Mr. Williams, succeeded in
defeating Sir William Claytc,n. The bribery in ques-
tion occurred on the polling day, and so successfully
was it carried ou that 14 large body of Sir William
Clayton's supporters were, towards the close of the poll,
induced to turn their coats. The result was that Colonel
Knox received a majority of 17 votes over Sir William
Clayton, but in the moment of victory some of the voters
inadvertently let fall certain hints, which led to an
inquiry that placed beyond all doubt the means by which
Sir William Clayton's supporters were induced, in the
very hour of trial, to forsake their colours.
Mr. ALEXANDER obj,acted to his Learned Friend
going into proofs of bribes administered to voters, on the
ground that no list of voters who were said to have been
bribed had been delivered to the sitting Members, in
accordance with the provisions of the Bribery Act.

HOUSE OF LORDS.—(THIS DAY.)
The House met to-day to hear appeals. The peers
present were the Lord Chancellor, Lord Hatherton,
and Lord Elphinstone.

BROUGHTON V BOUGHTON.
The arguments on this appeal occupied their Lord-
s'uips the whole day.

VICE-CHANCERY.—(THIS DAY.)
(Before the VICE-CHANCELLOR Of ENGLAND.)
DAVIS V. CHANTER.
The further arguments in this part-heard case,
which came before the Court upon nine causes, were
re-argued this morning, and occupied his Honour
the whole day. The case appears likely to occupy
four or five days.
(Before the Vice• Chancellor KNIGHT BRUCE.)
THE ATTORNEY•GENERAL V. MUNBO.
The further arguments in this cause occupied his
Honour the whole morning.

QUEEN'S BENCH.—(THIS DAY.)
(Nisi Prius sittings at Westminster, before the CHIEF
JUSTICE and a Special Jury.)
CLARK V. CHALLIS AND OTHERS.

This was an action of trespass for breaking into
and entering the plaintiff's house.
From the statement of Sir F. THESIGER, it ap-
peared that the plaintiff, who is a gentleman of great
respectability, and who is secretary to the Army and
Navy Medical Board, and the Widow's Fund, resides
at a house in Tavistock-square which had been pre-
viously occupied by a person of the name of Berkely.
The defendants are the two sheriffs of Middlesex, and
Mr. Lawrence Levy, their officer. On the 10th of
August last, about seven o'clock in the evening, and
while Mr. Clark and his family were absent at
Brighton, two men knocked at the door, which was
opened by a female servant, the only person in the
house, and demanded to see Mr. Berkely. They were
told that Mr. Berkely had left there a twelvemonth
ago; but not being satisfied with that state-
ment, they forced their way into the passage,
and produced a warrant, distraining upon the
goods in the house. They refused to leave
the premises, and the servant called in two
policemen, who were, however, unable to interfere.
The plaintiff's son, it appeared, then went in search
of Mr. Levy, whom he ultimately found at the
Lyceum Theatre, for the purpose of explaining to him
the mistake of his officers, but he treated the matter
with the greatest nonchalence, and said that the man
must remain in the house during the night. On the
following day, however, Mr. Levy withdrew the
officers, having been satisfied that Mr. Berkeley did
not reside there. The Learned Counsel stated that
the plaintiff, in the discharge of his duties, had large
sums of money passing through his hands, and it was
of the utmost importance that no suspicion should
attach to bis credit, and nothing was more likely to
create that suspicion than the proceeding which was
the subject cf this action. He, therefore, sought com-
pensation at the hands of the jury for the injury he
had sustained by the conduct of the defendants.
Mr. HUMFEET, for the defence, admitted the tres-
pass, but contended that the 81. which the defendants
had paid into Court was amply sufficient to cover all
damage that the plaintiff had sustained.
The LEARNED JUDGE, in summing up, said no
malice had been shown on the part of the defendants,
but they had evidently been guilty of a great deal of
carelessness, and it would be for the jury to say what
amount of compensation the plaintiff was entitled to.
The jury almost immediately found a verdict for
the plaintiff for 1001.

DUKE OF BRUNSWICK V. MUSLIN.

This action, which is brought by the Duke of
Brunswick to recover damages for libel against
another publisher of the Satirist, stood for trial
to-day.
His Highness, who appeared very much indisposed,
applied to Lord Denman to have it postponed, as he
said he was unable, from ill health, to undergo the
fatigue of conducting his case to-day.
Mr. COCKBURN said as his Highness had not
opposed him when he made a similar application to
the Court, on precisely similar grounds, he should
consent to the postponement of the trial.
The case, therefore, stands over until the sittings
after next term.

FEI3RVARY 15, 1848.