The Sun.
London, England, 1833-12-07 00:00:00

KING'S BENCH.-(THIS DAY.)

(Sittings before the LORD CHIEF Jusztcr and a special
Jury, at Westminster.)
THE KING V. GRANT AND OTHERS.
This case was fixed to come on this morning, and on
his Lordship coming into Court the following gentlemen
were sworn on the Special Jury :--
Francis Walpole, Esq., A. Carruthers Johnson, El.,
John White, merchant, William Terry, Esq.,
William Tair, Esq., Leonard Cox, Esq.,
John Nichols, merchant, J. D. Thompson, merchant,
Thomas Simmons, merchant, J. A. Droop, merchant,
James Blakesley, merchant, Thomas Nash, Esq.
Mr. FOLLETT opened the proceedings, and stated that
this was a criminal information, filed at the instance of
Alderman Winchester and Mr. Briggs, against John Bell,
Patrick Grant, and John Ager, for publishing certain
libels upon 'hem in the True Sun, and a pamphlet en .
titled, " A Narrative of the circumstances which have led
to the establishment of the True Sun," to which they
had pleaded Not Guilty, and that was the issue they had
to try.
Sir JAMES SCARLETT said that he had very little to
do beyond stating to the Jury the nature of the libel, and
the circumstances attending its publication. With its
truth or falsehood they had at present nothing to do. The
defendants had already had an opportunity of making their
own statement of the case, and if they had been able to
substantiate their assertions by facts, to the satisfaction
of the Court, they would not have been put upon their
trial. He would shortly explain the relation in which
the parties stood to each other. The prosecutors were
Mr. Alderman Winchester and Mr. Briggs. The first
was well known as a gentleman of high respectability in
the city of London, whose character had raised him to his
present eminent station in the Corporation. The second
was a solicitor of that Court—a man of integrity and edu.
cation, esteemed by all who knew him, and this was the
first time any imputation had been thrown cut, reflecting
upon his professional character, or his conduct as a gen-
tleman. The defendants were proprietors and printers of
the True Sun, in which paper some of the libels com-
plained of appeared. One of them, Mr. Patrick Grant,
being some years back proprietor of The Sun newspaper,
by sale or otherwise of a portion of the property, acquired
a partner, named /third() Young. Mr. Grant retained
three-fourths of the property, but transferred one-fourth to
Mr. Young, who was to have the management of
the paper, with its editing and superintendence. Some-
time previous to the transactions out of which the
libel arose, Mr. Grant fell into difficulties, and became
involved in debt to the amount of 15,0001. Among his
creditors was Mr. Alderman Winchester, to whom he
owed a sum of 1,000/. Mr. Grant having thought proper
to place himself out of the reach of his creditors, a com-
mission of bankruptcy was issued against him. For some
time Mr. Grant continued on perfectly good terms with
those who had been instrumental in issuing the commission.
There was no complaint of anything improper, and all
the parties concerned would no doubt have been glad to
do Mr. Grant any personal kindness. Mr. Alderman
Winchester was chosen assignee to the commission, in
conjunction with a gentleman named Thornton, Mr.
Briggs, being the solicitor. Their object was of course to
obtain as large a sum for the creditors as they could, but
they were placed in some embarrassment by the nature of
the property and the kind of interest which Mr. Grant
had in it. Mr. Young, Mr. Giant's partner, had pos-
session of the Paper, and was publishing it daily. The
assignees consulted Mr. Grant upon the best mode of
obtaining the highest price for the Paper, and found
that Mr. Young hail, by the deed of partnership, a right
of preemption over Mr. Grant's shares, should they ever
come to be sold. Of course the assignees had only the
rights which Mr. Grant would have had, had he not
been a bankrupt. They were bound by the contract lie
had made with Mr. Young, who had a right to be
the purchaser of Mr. Grant's three-fourths in the property,
as long as he was willing to give as much as any other
person, Mr. Young claimed to have a private debt due to
him from Mr. Grant, and also a claim on him for expenses
to which they were jointly liable in the conduct of the
paper. Without going into the particulars of the
bargain, it would be sufficient for him to state that
Mr. Young agreed to pay in all 5,0001., from which was
to be deducted his private debt against Mr. Grant,
and the 4,0001. to which the partnership property was
liable. It was further agreed that if, on reference to two
Counsel, Mr. Young's claims should appear less than
4,000/, then he should pay the difference between
that sum and the sum actually found good. It
appeared that Mr. Grant and Iris friends were
anxious to repurchase his shares in the paper for
him, and attempts were snide to outbid Mr.
Young. Those, however, who made these attempts
always made it a condition that they should be put into
immediate possession of the whole property. But this
the assignees could not do, for Mr. Grant himself could
not have done it, and they had it only in their
power to transfer Mr. Grant's rights. Mr. Grant, be-
coming dissatisfied, obtained partial meetings of the credi-
tors, consisting, for the most part, of his own particular
friends. At those meetings representations were made to the
creditors, highly injurious to the character of Mr. Alder.
man Winchester and Mr. Briggs. Without going into
details, he would state that Mr. Grant threw so many
impediments in the way of the performance of the agree-
ment made with Mr. Young, that the latter was obliged
to file a bill in equity to enforce his rights. In that suit
Mr. Young obtained the advantage. The assignees, on
their aide, were persuaded by Mr. Grant to file a bill in
equity against Mr. Young. Mr. Briggs, as solicitor, was
reluctant to enter into this suit, fur he foresaw its probable
termination. In order, however, that no blame might
be imputed to him (Mr. Briggs) he requested that
Mr. Thornton would choose his own solicitor and
counsel to superintend the proceedings. The result
was most disastrous to the creditors. Not only did Mr.
Young succeed in his own suit,but he defeated the assignees
in theirs, who finally obtained much less for the Paper
than they might originally have done. It was in the
course of these proceedings that the libels complained of
were published. When the Jury heard those libels read,
it would be for them to say whether they did not form a
just ground of complaint. At any rate, the defendants
would have the opportunity of examining the prosecutors
ne wall as all the other parties who had been named, for
they had nothing to conceal, and did not fear that an im-
partial Jury would find anything but matter of applause and
approval in the whole of their conduct. He would
now read the libel. He should first state that Mr. Grant,
who appeared to be a gentleman of violent temper, set up
another newspaper, called the True Sun, in which, to
the injury of his creditors, interested in The Sun, he
constantly attacked those concerned in its management.
It was one of these attacks on one of his assignees, and
the solicitor to the commission, that he was now about to
read—
" We request the earnest attention of our readers to the
report of the meeting at Basingliall-street, on Saturday, at
which it was Mr. Alderman Winchester's fate to make so
unenviable a figure.
" The subjects discussed on the occasion are, of course,
deeply interesting to us, but they are also full of matter of
reflection to all who take an interest in reforming the abuses
of our present system of law—to all who would connect re-
aponsibility with trust, whether the trust has reference to law-
making, or to the administration of law.
" We have repeatedly stated to the public that Mr. Alder-
man Winchester has,in the exercise of his functions as assignee
of The Sun newspaper, been guilty of FRAUD and FALEOHOOD.
At a meeting of creditors, called by himself, Mr Alderman Win-
chester, it will be seen, stated, in reply to the indignant cen-
sures of his constituents—censures which supplied strong con.
firniation of our charges—that he felt himself under no obliga-
tion to supply them with any explanation of his conduct—and
that he looked upon their censures with utter contempt.'
"The body of creditors whose interests Mr. Winchester
has so grossly betrayed, refused, in consequence, to recognize
him as assignee—to sanction his acts—to permit him, in short,
to take any further steps UNDER THE COMMISSION WHICH HE
urissitsr SUED OUT. In other words, the body, whom Mr.
Winchester has hitherto represented, have declared him UN-
WORTHY OF TRUST.
" Among the many remarkable incidents which signalised
this meeting, one is particularly worthy of notice.
" In order to defraud his constituents, and to enable hlurdo
Young to secure The Sun on his own terms, Mr. Winchester
and his solicitor some time ago alleged that Young had bought
that paper. The allegation was a FaLsettoon. Winchester
and his solicitor afterwards admitted it to be a FALSEHOOD.
Upon that FALsuitoon, however, Murdo Young has tra led in
Chancery for twelve months. Yet even Murdo Young, as
appeared at the meeting on Saturday, has abandoned his plea
of having bought The Sun—and has, by doing so, joined al!
the rest of the world in giving the lie to his accomplices, Win
cheater and Briggs.
" We cannot venture, at amoment like the present, when
political matters of such infinite importance engross public
attention, to enlarge farther upon this subject. We trust,
however, that it will not be denied that the public is most
deeply interested in the investigation of a case so atrocious as
this of Mr. Alderman Winchester.
" As to Mr. Briggs, we decline saying anything more at pre
sent. We understand that a motion will be made in a few
days, at the instance of some of the creditors, to have him
struck off the rolls.
" An application for Mr. Winchester's removal from the
assigneeshili, is also about to be made.
" When the result of that application shall be known, it
will remain for the Honourable Court of Aldermen to pro-
nounce an opinion on the conduct of this aspirant to the
mayoralty, We trust, however, that they will, without wait. I

ing for further evidence than was supplied at the meeting on
Saturday, vindicate the character of Civic dignitaries, and show
their respect for public decency, by expelling Mr. Winchester
from their body."

Now it was easy to make charges at a meeting of credi-
tors—it was easy to make an inflammatory speech at a
private meeting, which could not he explained away with-
out a reference to documents not at hand. But before
:flaking such charges, and certainly before printing them,
their foundatio❑ should be examined into. Mr. Al-
derman Winchester was one of the largest—if not
the very largest, creditor under the commission, and
of course had the greatest interest in waking the bank-
rupt's estate productive. He had only now to lament the
false view which Mr. Grant took of his own interest. On
the 18th of April another statement appeared in the True
Sun, which was too long for him to read the whole of.
Lie would, however, read parts of it, premising that it
was in the shape of comments upon a letter from a Mr.
Merry.

" Mr. Merry observes, that his' hostility' prompted him to
do nothing more than require an ' explanation' from Mr.
Grant.

" We are far from questioning Mr. Merry's right to require
explanations of Mr. Grant—and equally far from denying
that it is Mr. Grant's duty to furnish such explanations. But
it must not be forgotten that there were other parties, from
whom, at least, as certainly as from Mr. Grant, explanations
were due to the body of creditors—and we are not aware that
Mr. Merry ever deemed it necessary to exercise his right of
asking explanations from those parties.

" Winchester, Briggs, and Young, for instance—the parties
actually in possession of the creditors' property—had been
openly, and for months, denounced as swindlers—yet Mr.
Merry never deemed it necessary to call them to account.
These individuals had been denounced, not alone by Mr. Grant
—they had been declared by their constituents, to be unwor-
thy of confidence—yet still Mr. Merry saw no reason to de-
mand an " explanation" of their conduct.

" Should we even assume for the moment, that the worthy
trio had been wrongfully accused, still their obstinate silence
under these heavy accusations might have excited Mr. Merry's
suspicions, and prompted him to exercise the right, of which,
in Mr. Grant's case, he was so prompt (and with justice) to
avail himself. But if the mere silence of Winchester and
Briggs would, in the circumstances, have warranted fears in
Mr. Merry for the interests of his client, surely the refusal—
the point-blank refusal of the Alderman and his accomplice, to
satisfy the creditors when called on to do so, might have sug-
gested to him the absolute necessity of putting to use his right
to demand "explanations." Mr. Merry, however, seems to
have thought otherwise."

Besides these libels in the True Sun, the defendants
had published a pamphlet, prepared by Mr. Grant, i•
which the prosecutors were grossly libelled. That it was
prepared by Mr. Grant appeared on the face of it, and he
believed he should be able to prove that it was published
at the office of the True Sun, by Grant and
Bell, and superintended in its printing by Ager. If, how-
ever, the Jury should be of opinion that all the defendants
were not concerned in the publication of this pamphlet,
he should rest his case upon the libels which had appeared
i❑ the newspaper. But what rendered the assertions con-
tained in this pamphlet particularly injurious to the prose-
cutors, was that it was distributed by thousands gratis
throughout the country, and that there was hardly a friend
of Messrs. Alderman Winchester or Briggs who did not
receive a copy of it. A libel published in a
newspaper might perhaps for once be passed over,
but every one must feel that a libel published in a pamphlet
circulated in this manner, required some notice to be
taken of it by those whose character and reputation were
attacked. He would not say that this pamphlet was filled
with falsehoods, although that was a word Mr. Grant
was fond of using, but he would say that Mr. Grant was
entirely mistaken. He would read one of the closing
sentences. "At various meetings of the creditors, Mr.
Winchester's solicitor has been convicted of falsehood—
falsehood having always for its object the furtherance of
Young's interest, at the expense of the creditors. On all
those occasions Mr. Winchester has supported Briggs."
Again, a little further on, Mr. Grant says, " Can
any one who attends to these facts, doubt that
Winchester, Briggs, and Young have leagued to
defraud my creditors and me of our interests, di-
rect and reversionary, in a most valuable property ?"
Now if this gentleman had looked at the matter with a
calm temper, he should have asked himself what motive
the parties he attacked could have for pursuing the kind
of conduct he imputed to them ? Mr. Briggs bad no
acquaintance with Mr. Young, and Mr. Winchester had
no other interest to serve but that of the creditors. To
say the least of it, it was exceedingly rash in Mr.- Grant
to impute to these gentlemen fraudulent designs, merely
because they took a different view of their own interest
and his, than he had himself taken. There were various
other statements of a libellous nature in this pamphlet,
which had made the prosecutors feel it to be their duty to
bring the case before the public. They had no ani-
mosity against Mr. Grant, but thought themselves bound
to defend their characters. They had, however, much
reason to lament his rashness ; for if the prop:tail of Mr.
Young had been accepted, the expense of two suits in
equity would have been saved, and a larger sum divided
amongst the creditors. He should now proceed to prove
the publication of the libels, and when the jury had heard
them real, the only question they would have to decide
would be, whether they were libels. But he could not
doubt that when gentlemen were charged with fraud and
conspiracy to swindle others out of their property, they
would consider it a libel.

Mr. James Fennelly produced a copy of the affidavit
filed at the Stamp Office.
It was read, and stated the defendant Ager to be
printer, and Grant and Bell to be the proprietors, of the
True Sun.

Mr. Alderman Henry Winchester examined—l am an
Alderman of the City of London, and was one of Mr.
Grant's assignees.
Cross examined by Mr. HUMFRET, for the defendant
Bell—l don't recollect the day when he was made a
bankrupt. (It was here stated it was the 4th November,
1830.) Mr. Thornton was co-assignee with me, and
Mr. Briggs was solicitor to the commission. He had
been my solicitor before. I don't know that he ever did
any business for Mr. Thornton. I introduced him as
solicitor to the commission. I don't exactly recollect
what amount of debts was proved under the commission,
but it was about 6,0001. My debt was about 1,2001.
and odd.

Mr. HUMIREY—What is that pamphlet you have ?
Witness—lt is merely a memorandum of the affidavits.
Mr. HUMFREY—Be so good as put it down for the
present. _ _ .

Cross-examination continued—l attended, from time
to time, the meetings of the creditors. I may have read
the newspaper, the True Sun, of the 9th of April ; I
can't, from recollection, say that I have read the account
of the meeting in that paper—(it was produced). I see
an account of a meeting in this paper. I was present at
that meeting. I knew Mr. Young, the part proprietor of
The Sun, as a partner of Mr. Grant's. I only knew hint
as being introduced to him by Mr. Grant, a year or two
before the bankruptcy. Mr. Grant went from this country
because he could not pay his creditors. While he was away
I was continually in communication with Mr. Young,
the resident partner, about the money owing to me from
the concern. I struck the docket against Mr. Grant ; I
was in communication with Mr. Young very shortly
before the docket was struck, not in daily communica-
tion. He was the resident partner. 1 don't recollect
seeing Mr. Young at Mr. Briggs' offie, just before I
struck the docket; Mr. Young was informed of my in-
tention to strike the docket. I don't recollect seeing Mr.
Young at Mr. Briggs' office about it. I spoke to Mr.
Briggs about it, but I don't know that Mr. Young was
present. I don't recollect whether Mr. Young was present
when the Commission was opened, but I dare say he was.
I was present. The debt due to me was for paper, sup.
plied to Mr. Grant before Mr. Young became a partner,
and was not a partnership debt. Mr. Grant was the sole
proprietor then ; and afterwards he took Mr. Young as his
partner. There were many meetings, at which there were
discussions as to the sale of The Sun Newspaper. At the
meeting of the 9th April there was an angry discussion as
to the mode of proceeding. They were not all angry;
some were very pleasant. At that meeting I don't believe
flllri
ern.
chTwh oerrne utihne
red! si
Tir,eeed re
wwa•si tah d
itstete. u,
oAn lla
at that
G .
meeting
i ng
about tny offering to sell the paper to Mr. Young at a less
sum than another person had offered. I don't know any
man that then offered 10,0001. for it ; and I don't
believe the person had the money. Ido not know that
3,000/. was paid towards it into Mr. Tbornton's hands.
The Loan CHIEF JUSTICE interposed, and said the time
of the Court was that of the public. Ile did not know
how far this examination was to go.

„.. ---
Mr. 111131 FRET 'aid, he would not go into it, but his
Learned Friend, Sir Jsmes Searlett, had gone into the
whole matter.

Slr JAMES' SCARLETT said he was not afraid to go into
;he whole matter.

Ti-ie LORD CHIEF JUSTICE said, that was the very
thing, but lie could not sit there to enter into all those
circumstances.

Cross-examination continued—Witness believes Mr.
Young gave between 4,000 and 5,000/. for the paper,
but if it had been said, as I wished, we should have had
101. in the pound dividend. We have now lost all our
money

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE again interposed, and said
be must object to this coursei although he could lee that

the Counsel for the prosecution did not think it right to
object to it.

Mr. KELLY said he appeared for the defendant Ager.
He would draw his Lordship's attention to the allegations
in the declaration, and would then ask whether it was
not competent to the defendants to enter into all the
transactions ; for, in order to ascertain whether the charges
were true or false, the Court should have all the me ins of
doing so. The Learned Counsel then read some of the
allegations of the declaration, setting out the commissions
the appointment of assignees, and certain transactions,
which took place subsequently to the commission, par,i.
cularly what related to the sale of the newspaper. It
then alleged that libels were printed and published of arm
concerning those transactions, and that those libels were
false. He therefore submitted that those transactions
were open to inquiry.
The Lortn CIIIEF JUSTICE here referred to the parts of
the declaration alluded to by the Learned Counsel.
Mr. KELLY said that the whole question was open as to
the falsehood of those libels. The prosecutors had alleg .(1
substantive matters, and were about to prove what hail
taken place concerning the libels ; they were not hound to
do so, but if they did, the whole question was ope❑ to
investigation.

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE raid certainly the terms of
the declaration did raise the question, and his answer was
that it would not justify the unravellin.; the whole
rim of the transactions, and of the conduct of all the parties
concerned.

The witness was then cross-examined by Mr. KELLY
for the defendant Ager—l knew Mr. Grant before I
knew Mr. Young. I knew nothing of Ager, and I don't
know him now. I instructed my attorney to commence
proceedings against all parties concerned in that libel,
whoever they might be.
Cross-examined by Mr. Grant—l am still an assignee.
There was a meeting called by you and your friends, and
they wished me to resign my office of assignee. There was a
meeting held by advertisement in the Gazette on the 7th
of and I attended it; it was a very noisy meeting ;
I don't know whether they ta fused to go on because I
refused to resign. I dare say I was coiled on to
resign, but I considered it my ditty to hold my office.
There was a vote of thanks to you by the creditors. I
was in the chair, but did not take any part in the vote, as
it was so informal and bad. I withheld your certificate
because I was not satisfied about your Scotch property.
Mr. Briggs had made inquiries since. I afterwards
signed your certificate, but after some hesitation I referred
it to Mr. Briggs, who, upon inquiry, advised me to sign
the certificate, as it would be improbable to make further
discoveries. I have seen printed copies of the affidavits,
but I have not read Mr. Thornton's affidavit. I recollect
the meeting at Mr. Thornton's, of the 15th of March,
when Mr. Lomax was there. I never saw 3,0001. in
notes there. I heard there were 3,000/. there, but I
did not believe it. I never saw the money, but that offer
was made and accepted by me. I was pleased we could
get such a price as 13,0001. instead of 9,0001., and we
should then have got 18s. in the pound. I swear I ac-
cepted that offer if we could have got the money.
Ile-examined—That offer was not complied with.
(Some bills of exchange handed in.) These bills were
the last I drew on laitn. His bills were always renewed,
and not one was now paid. The debt was all contracted
while Mr. Grant was sole proprietor of the paper. Mr.
Young was Mr. G.'s partner when those renewed bills
were drawn in 1829. (A list of debts produced.) That
is the list of debts Mr. Grant gave in to the assignees.
His LORDSHIP inquired why this course was being
pursued.

Mr. IIUMFREY said he hid already aired the amoun
of debts that were proved.

Sir J. ScaaLxrr—Yes, but that is a fallacy; for by
that list it appeared he owed 15,7001.
Re-examination continued—The meeting of creditors
was very noisy, and I think some of the persons were
not creditors. (Some papers put in.) Those pipers
state the proceedings of the 7th and 9th April. There
were only five creditors there on the 7th, though the room
was full of persons who were very noisy. It was a private
meeting on the 9th, summoned by Mr. Grant. I had no
friendship or interest towards Mr. Young. He was a
perfect stranger to me until Mr. Grant introduced him
to me. He was in communication with me, as Mr. Grant
was abroad, and Mr. Young recommended me not to take
hostile measures towards Mr. G., and I refrained for some
time. He returned, and the docket was struck at the
suggestion of Mr. Grant's family, for he could not other-
wise extricate himself. (A letter produced.) That is
Mr. Thornton's hand-writing.
Mr. Briggs examined by Sir J. Scatturrre—Was the
solicitor to the commission ; remembered negotiations for
the sale of the Newspaper. Never saw or knew Mr.
Young by name, even till after the docket was struck
against Mr. Grant. Attended the meeting of the 7th of
April, the account of which published in the newspaper
was overcharged in every respect.
Cross•exantined by Mr. IIiSIIMEY—A sum of 10,000/.
was offered for the paper by a person named Sutton. At
the meeting of the 7th of April, a man named Sutton
offered 10,000/. down. The first offer by Bell and
Lomax was 11,000/, 3,0001. deposit, 3,000/. more in
14 days, the rest by acceptances at three mrinths, or a
shorter period if required. There was no offer of
10,000 down at that meeting. Mr. Sutton attended
for Lomax, and said he had 3,0001., which he would put
down. Witness hoped he would be called into the box
and compelled to state, if lie really had that money, where
lie got it from. Sutton did not produce the 3,0001. at
all. Thornton said he was in possession of it, but witness
did not believe it was deposited with him for the purpose
of the part-purchase of the paper. He did not produce
the note, but said he had it. He did not say it was
deposited by Lomax. It was not stated that no assign-
ment of the paper was required before the money was
paid. Mr. Winchester accepted the offer of Lomax,
because it was better than Young's, but he desired wit-
ness to make strict inquiries with respect to him; and
the result of these inquiries caused witness to advise
Mr. Alderman Winchester not to accept that offer.
Told Mr. Bell he would not advise Mr. Alderman
Winchester to take their bills. Probably did say that
he would not advise his client to take the bills of any
person for so large an amount. Young was to pay in
bills ; but he was not to have an assignment till they were
paid. Mr. Young proposed to pay down a fourth of
the money, and the rest in bills, and have an immediate
assignment ; but this was not agreed to by the assignees. At
the time Lomax made the offer witness told the parties
they could not have the assignment till the bills were paid;
that they could not have possession, as that was in Sir.
Young. The paper was originally to be sold to Young
for 9,000/., 5,000/. to be given in any event to the credi.
tore, the demand against the estate of 4,0001. odd
to be investigated. Witness told the assignees that that
offer was better than Lomax's, which it had turned out to
be upo❑ investigation of the account having undergone
the ordeal of the Court of Chancery.
By Mr. Grant—Was now solicitor to the Commis-
sion. At the tumultuous meeting of Mr. Grant's
friends was called upon to resign his office of solicitor, but
did not believe it was the wish of the majority of the
creditors he should do so. Received a letter from Mr.
Grant's solicitor, but not signed by the creditors, to the
same effect. Mr. Logan, who was a creditor for 300/.,
was at the meeting, but since then, as a lawyer, he had
reason to believe he was no creditor. Did not think
Mr. Hill signed the resolution. Mr. Merry, his so-
lictor, refused to sign the resolution, and in consequence
of that his name had been mixed up in that libel. Was
present at the meeting of the Ist of December, when a
vote of thanks was given to Grant. It was possible that
he was accompanied by Mr. Young, when the meeting
took place at the counting-house of Mr. Thornton. Had
a deed ready prepared for Mr. Young's signature, at the
request of both the assignees.

By Mr. KELLY—Had no communications through
the transactions with Mr. Ager. Witness never had seen
him himself. Had no feeling against him whatever.
By Sir JAMES SCA RLETT—The first proposal was by
Mr. Wesley, but he never made good his offer. Week after
week passed away, but he did nothing. There were a
great number of offers. The assignees always expressed
themselves desirous to sell the paper to the best bidder.
It was at the meeting just before witness went to York
that Lomax's offer was accepted. The preparation of that
contract was left to Mr. Lotnax's solicitor. One of the
provisions of that contract wa., that the parties should
have inamedi ate possession, which could not be given by
the assignees in consequence of Mr. Young's possession,
which had been subsequently decided in Mr. Young's
favour by the Lord Chancellor. The newspaper was
afterwards sold by public auction by the Court of Chan-
cery, and none of the parties who had made off:rs were in
attendance. Mr. Logan proved under the commission to
the extent of 1,0001., while his debt, according to Mr.
Grant's own statement, was only 3001. Mr. Hill's debt
witness believed was upwards of 1,000!.
(The libels were then put in and read.)
Mr. Young sworn and examined by Mr. FoLLETE-1
became partner with Mr. Grant in June, 1828. I became
acquainted with Mr. Winchester in May, 1826. I wa-
left in management of the paper when Mr. Grant was
abroad. I had frequent communications with Mr. Alder-
man Winchester. I became acquainted with Mr. Briggs
in November after striking the docket.
Sir JAMES SCARLErT then stated that he would no