The Sun.
London, England, 1848-05-19 00:00:00

No. 17,362.] LONDON, FRIDAY EVENING

PUBLICATIONS.

MERLE D'ALTBIGNE'S CROMWELL—THIRD EDITION.
A Third Edition is now ready of
H E PRUTECT 0 : A Vindication,
By J. H. MERLE D'AUBIGNE, D.D.
In one volume Pvo., price 9s.
Edinkirgh : Oliver aid Boyd.
London : Simpkin, Marcliall, and Co.

S CRICTURES OF THE URETHRA Prevalent and Dangerous

Errors in their Treatment.
Just published, price 55., (by post free, 65.,) Svo., in cloth,
THE PATHOL.OGY AND RATIONAL
TREATMENT of STRICTURES of the URETHRA, in all
their Varieties and Complications. With Practical Observations on
the Use and Abuse of Instruments in the Treatment of Urethral Dis-
eases, showing that tile unnecessary employment of instruments is
the frequent e , citing cause of stricture, and that a want of practical
knowledge and manual dexterity in their use, when necessary, is a
s,.urce of most of the severe, loeg-protracted, and complicated cases
of that disorder so fatady prevalent. The whole illustrated by nu-
merous cases.

QUEEN'S BENCH.—(THIS DAY-)
(Sittings at Guildhall, before Mr. Justice EaLe.)
SIMPSON V. ROBINSON.
This was an action to recover compensation for slan
der. The plaintiff was the engine-keeper of a small
town in Suffolk, named Hadleigh, for which office he
received 121. a year. The defendant is a tradesman and
ratepayer in the town. The plaintiff held the office from
1839 down to the month of August last, when he was
dismissed. A meeting was held with respect to the
matter in the vestry, at which a person named Ansell
was stated by a witness named Lamb to have said,
speaking of the plaintiff; " Simpson has received various
sums of money from the fire offices, and has misapplied
them, not accounted for them, nor settled the accounts. I
therefore consider him an improper person to hold the
office. I have seen receipts to the amount of 580/.—l
believe 600/. ; but 5801. I'll be sworn to, which Simpson
denies having ever received. I therefore consider him
an improper and unfit person to fill the office, and he
ought to have been dismissed from the office months
ago." The speaker turned to the defendant, and asked
him if these statements were true, to which he replied,
" They are true, perfectly true." It appeared that the
plaintiff had been in prison at the suit of the defendant.
Mr. Sergeant Allen appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr.
O'Malley for the defendant.
Mr. O'MALLEY dwelt upon the fact that the plaintiff
had brought his case to London, instead of having it
p
tried in the locality where he was best known, and con-
tended that the words being uttered at a
public meeting
could not be construed into express malice, but as words
which the defendant in his capacity as a ratepayer had
an undoubted right to utter.
Mr. Justice ERIE said the law held that if words
were spoken for an honest purpose that they were pri
vileged, and could not, therefore, be construed into
malice. The words having been spoken at a public
meeting, and by a ratepayer, who had a perfect right
to be present, raised the presumption that they were
privileged ; but if they thought the defendant was
actuated by malice, and not by an honest and public
purpose, they would find their verdict fbr the plaintiff ;
if not, for the defendant.
The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff, 401.

EXCHEQUER.—(THIS DAY.)
(Sittings at Nisi Prius, at Guildhall, before the CHIEF
BARON and a Common Jury).
RAY AND ANOTHER V. PETERS.
In this case the plaintiffs are wine merchants, and the
defendant is the landlord and proprietor of the George
and Blue Boar Tavern in Holborn.
It appeared that the defendant had transactions with
the plaintiffs for brandy, sherry, port wine, and other
liquors, and some ill-feeling and difference having arisen
between them, this action, which was brought to recover
in reality only 31. 12s. 10d., was allowed to be brought
into court. The original debt claimed by the plaintiffs
was 1051. 16s. 1 ld., of which the defendant had paid
1021. 4s. Id. into court, and pleaded never indebted as
to the rest. The only question upon which the case
turned was whether or not, according to the custom of
the trade and the understanniug between the parties, the
defendant was to be charged with interest upon the
duties which were paid for him by the plaintiffs before
raking the liquors in question out of bond. The de-
fendant denied that he had any right to be so charged,
and the sum at issue, therefore, was only 3/. 12s. 10d.,
the amount of the interest.

The CHIE7 BARON, in the course of his summing up,
said it had been observed by the counsel for the plain-
tiffs, on his stating from the bench that it was not right
for persons to come into court, and spend a great deal of
money, and occupy a great deal of time to recover so
small an amount, that every free-born Englishman had
a right to go to law if he liked, and that it was an in.
vasion of his constitutional right to make any comment
upon it. Now, he (his Lordship) considered that every
man who merely made the law the rnle of his duty was
a very bad citizen, and that a man might undoubtedly
be one of the worst members of society if he permitted
himself to do all that the law allowed, and did nothing
hut what the law compelled him to do. A man might
strictly keep within the law, and yet be one of the worst
persons crawling on the face of the earth; and if it was
to be made the rule of life, it was impossible in that
case that the law could reach many matters
which it was intended to control. Unless a man's
disposition and mind was governed by something like a
Christian feeling, and by proper social kindness and
benevolence towards those with whom he came in com-
munication, he could never do his duty either to God or
man. But whatever might be the character or disposi-
tion of the party, there could be no doubt that he was
entitled to the benefit of the law —and as he claimed to
have that benefit it was his duty to see that it was
granted to him. The question fur the jury to consider,
was simply whether or not the plaintiffs were entitled
to charge interest upon the monies which they paid for
duty upon the liquor supplied to the defendant.
The jury interrupted his Lordship before the conclu-
awn of his summing up to tr.Lfmate that they were
unanimously of opinion that there ought to be a verdict
tor the defendant.
Verdict for defendant.

SECONDARIES".—(THIS DAY.)
(Before Mr. Secondary Porrin.)
CROWN EXTENT.—TILE QUEEN v, NORVILLZ. •
This morning a writ of extent was executed before
Mr. Secondary Potter. to ascertain of what goods and
chattels, &c.. J. Norville, late of No. 40, Cornhill, City,
was possessed, within the bailiwick of the Sheriffs of
London, liable for the sum of 1,2501. due from him as
collector of property and assessed taxes.
Mr. Whittle, one of the officers of the city of London,
proved the seizure of furniture of the value of 301.;
book debts valued at 5001.; and the lease of the house,
held at the yearly rent of 250 guineas per annum, and
subject to claims for 5371. money lent, and 50/. costs—
exclusive of these sums, the lease was valueditt 5/.
The CROWN SOLICITOR contended that Mr. Farthing
had paid the money as security to the Commissioners of
Property Tax, who gave him notice of the deficiency,
4631., which he paid, and the bond (for 1,5001.) was
cancelled.

The Learned SECONDARY said he could not decide the
point.
A Mr. Barber, who was returned as a debtor for 50/.,
said he only owed 41. or 51.

.
The CROWN SOLICITOR said the jury wero not de-
ciding as to whether the debts were actually due, inquiry
would be made.
The jury then gave a verdict for 538/.

CRIMINAL COUR(ms DAY.)
OLD COUR7'.
(Before Mr. Commissioner BULLOCK.)
John Kiniber, 60, a sailor, was convicted of uttering a
forged order for 31. 55., with intent to defraud Elias
Benjamin, well knowing the same to be forged, and was
sentenced to eight months' imprisonment and hard
labour.

81l If:: rpea
ThEl rA..D Justicem A a
ruCIoGIT. s
sl, AE NN .7) E
THE BERK(
readers will doubtless recollect that
of this Court a person of the name at
SamueltheMarc sessionrows
was convicted upon an indictment of
d h B
NchE.-our
Births
Marriages, and Deaths Registrars' Act,un under tf
of the Births,
making a false statement for the purpose of procuringe a
i egistry of marriage between himselt dyoung lady,
of the name of Field, who wasan aen.itled to
property to the extent of 1,100/ a year. At
the time of the trial Sir F. Thesi 'er who together
with Mr. Clarkson and Mr. Ballantinegwa's counsel for the
prisoner objected to the validity of the indictments on
two grounds, and the Learned Judges who then presided
at this court postponed passing sentence upon the pri-
soner in order that the objections raised by his counsel
might be argued before, and be determined by, the
Judges. Those objections having been argued and de-
cided by the judges the prisoner was placed in the dock
this morning to receive the judgment of the Court. As it
is now some time since the ease was before the Court, it '
may not be amiss, for the information of our readers,
shortly to state the facts upon which the charge and
conviction are founded. The indictment had been pre-
ferred at the suggestion of the Vice-Chancellor Wigram.
The defendant Brown lived, in 1840, in Wmipole• street,
as a butler, and he contracted a marriage, in 1847, with
a female of the name of Esther Field, a girl only 18 years
of age. Esther Field was the daughter of a Mr. James
Field, of Berkhampstead, bOth her father and mother
were now dead, and she had been loft property to the
amount of upwards of 1,100/. a year, and the brother of
the defendant was appointed her guardian, together
with another person. Upon the death of the father of
the young lady an application was made to the Court
of Chancery to make her a ward of that
.Cuurt, she
being then only eighteen years of age. While the mat-
ter was under consideration in that Court the defendant
induced her to go with him to Trinity Church, mar
yle-
bone, where they were married, the banns having been
previously published in that church. After the celebra-
tion of the marriage the parties separadted, Esther Field
i gong to her friends at Berkhanapstea . IT
—Pon its be-
coming known that the marriage had taken place, an tip.
plication was made to the Vice-Chancellor, who ordered
the defendant to be committed for a contempt of the
Court in marrying a ward. After this the matter was
referred to the Attorney-General: upon. the desire of
the Vice-Chancellor, and upon his certificate and with
the approval of the Vice-Chancellor, proceedings Were
instituted. l'he charge against the prisoner
, was that
for the purpose of evading any detection, and for the,
purose of obtaining the celebration of the marHage
he wade a false statement to the olergynaan, to the effect
that Esther Field was of full age ; that he (the defend-
ant) resided at 31, Wimpole-street, and that Esther
Field also resided in the same street, the fact being that
Esther Field was then only eighteen years, u
of age, a.s.,
the defendant 52, and that she resided at Ering, and u
not
in Wimpole-street.
Mr. Justice COLTMAN immediately on taking
his_.. se
this morning proceeded to pass sentence. on the prisoner,
and in doing so observed, that the prisoner had been'
convicted at the sessions before the last, before the Lord
Chief Baron and himself, of an offence against the 6th
and 7th of Wtu. IV., chap. 86. The substantial part of
the charge against the prisoner. was that after the --
.cele-
bration of his marriage with his present wife, he kno
ingly and falsely made to the clergyman who
performed
the ceremony, a gentleman of the name of Hamilton,
several false Matt ments for the purpose of procuring Lt°hn,
registration of the marriage. On the behalf o the
prisoner tvro objections were taken to the indictment e