The Sun.
London, England, 1848-09-02 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, SATURDAY EVENING-,

ARMY.

Mr. HUME postponed, in consequence of the absence
of the Secretary-at-War, the following motion, of which
he had given notice:—" That the nominal return of all
officers at present serving on the staff of the army on
home and foreign service, in the capacity of general
officers or colonels on the staff, &c. (ordered 31st of
March), be made forthwith."
RUSSIA.

In answer to a question from Lord DUDLEY
STUART,

Lord PALMERSTON said that the Russian troops
had advanced into Moldavia with the consent of the
Turkish Government, but their stay was only tempo-
rary, as they would be withdrawn when the occasion
had ceased for which they had been sent there.

BOARD OF WORKS (IRELAND).

The O'GORMON MAIION moved, pursuant to no.
Lice, for copies of any reports made to the Commis
shiners of the Board of Works in Ireland on the prac-
ticability of rendering the town of Ennis, in the county
of Clare, a seaport ; together with an estimate of the
cost of works for such purpose, and the probable amount
of time requisite for their completion.
The motion was agreed to.
ELECTION FOR CHELTENHAM.
Mr. R. PALMER, on the motion for the adjournment
of the House, drew its attention to a matter personal to
himself: He had been one of the Members elected on
the Committee to try the merits of the late Chel-
tenham election, and in constquence of the de-
cision of that Committee he had been treated
by Mr. Craven Berkeley, in a speech ut Cheltenham,
with the most venomous and personal calumnies,
and had been accused of speaking with the agents
against him, and of being closeted with them in Howard's
Robing-room. He denied the whole insinuation in tote,
and although he might found a motion upon the
subject, he declined to do so, thinking that the mere
mentioning of the subject would be sufficient. The case
of the Cheltenham Committee was a most clear one, and
the Committee were unanimous in their decision.
Mr. M. J. O'CONNELL regretted that Mr. C.
Berkeley should have been led away in the heat of
speaking to make the assertions he had done against the
Hen. and Learncd Member—assertions, he had no hesi-
tation in saying, which were most unfounded and un-
called for.

Lord G. BENTINCK could not but express his in-
dignation at the attack that had been made against
the Hon. Member for Plymouth, and trusted that the
Nobika Lord who now represented the Government in
that House would agree with him in expressing that in-
dignation.

Lord PALMERSTON had no hesitation i❑ expressing
his regret that Mr. C. Berkeley should have been led
away to make the attack he had done upon the mem-
bers of the Committee. Of this he was sure, that the
character of all the members of that Committee were
far too high in the estimation of the public to be injured
by the uncalled-for attack of his Hun. Friend the late
Member for Cheltenham.

The subject then dropped, and the House adjourned,
at Half-past Five o'clock, till Monday.

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.
NORTHERN Cll?CUlT.—Liverpool, Aug. 31.
CIVIL COURT.—(Before Mr. Justice ERLE.)
WALLEY V. G. 3I`CONNAL.
This was an action of assault and false imprisonment.
The defendant pleaded that he was not guilty, and
secondly, in justification, under process from the County
Court here. The latter plea was denied by the plaintiff
in his replication.
Mr. Sergeant WintiNs stated the case.
-- Jones said:he was an officer of the County Court.
lle had a;warrant from that Court to arrest one William
Ireland. M'Connal was the plaintiff in the action. He
directed Smith and witness where to find Ireland, and
they went to look for him, and the defendant joined
them. They went to George's Dock. The defendant's
young man also was with them, and he went down to
the dock to see if Ireland was there. He returned, and
said he was there.l They then went and he pointed out
the plaintiff. Witness said to him he perceived he
was William Ireland. He replied no, his name was
Hugh Walley. Witness pointed him out to a police-
man, and told him to keep his eye on him, and went
and told the defendant. Defendant's young man said
he was the man, and witness went to him again, and
told him he must take him. Several people about said
there was a man in the same employ of the name of
Ireland, but the name of the man they were taking was
\Valley. They took him towards the defendant, and
Smith spoke to him. They then took the plaintiff to
Kirkdale gaol. The young man's name was William
M'Connal. The defendant heard the plaintiff say he was
not Ireland.
Henry Thomas said he was present when the first
process was served. The officer said, "We have been
looking for you a long time, but we have caught you at
last." The boy APConnal said, " That is the man."
The officer said, "We have a love-letter for you. The
plaintiff said his name was " not Ireland, but Walley,"
Witness did not tell the officer Ireland was at the dock
all day, and they might servo him at any ticeN
Another witness proved that on the service of the
second and third process the plaintiff told the officer
that he was not William Ireland, and witness told him
the same.
Mr. Wilson, plaintiff's employer, said he was daily at
George's Dock, and might have been served or arrested
there any day. Witness heard of the arrest, and went
to the officers of the County Court to try to get him libe-
rated, but did not succeed. He then went to Kirkdale,
and saw the plaintiff in prison. He had on a felon's
dress, grey with yellow stripes. Plaintiff's wife went
with him, and took him some food, but the gaoler would
not let him have it. He was imprisoned 14 days.
Mr. Stone, High Bailiff; said the last witness applied
to him. An application was mad© to the Judge of the
Court. Witness afterwards saw the defendant, and told
him ho had seen a very strong affidavit, and suggested
he should discharge him. The defendant said he was,
he believed, the right man, or he had represented him-
self to be the man.
Mr. Bremner, attorney for the plaintiff, said he made
an affidavit of the plaintiff's identity, and left it with the
Judge, Mr. Lowndes, telling him he left it for thein-
spection of all parties interested. He did make the ap-
plication. The Judge declined to interfere, saying ho
had no jurisdiction.
Mr. MARTIN addressed the jury for the defendant.
He said, the question would, he thought, resolve itself
satisfaction i i
into a point of law. On the plaintiff being serrved with
t he
wrt , t
owfatisiehciso dui
Court,
t hto a
that
appearhe asa
notnd establishth edeb
td
t
he would thereon have had a judgment in his favour.ust take
If he neglected to do that he m
the consequences.
But even if his Lordship shoul I
not 'or to,
atnhde
agree with him in
that, ho would show that the def-ride t was entitled to
their verdict on the facts. lie then
called his Lordship's
attention to the County Courts Act,
and to the fraud
sec-
tion and 99th section, which authorises the Judge to
commit; and submitted that the plaintiff in that action
in the County Court had nothing to do
with the com-
mitment, it was the act of the Judge only.
Mr. Justice ERLE said, the warrant was a limited
capias ad satisfaciendum. Mr. Justice Patteson
had
had the question before him, and in consequence
of a diffi,rcnce of opinion he had lookedinto
it most elab-u-ately, and after several weeks of
consideration, ho was firmly of opinion that it wax
in the nature of a writ of execution. The Common Pleas,
however, had given a judgment after argument, totidern
verbis, that the order of the Judge of the County Court
was an order in pananz, and not a writ of execution. 110
was therefore, bound to decide for himself, and ho was
clearly of the same 1
he would give Mr. Martin leave to movo upon the point
to enter a nonsuit.

Mr. MARTIN said the case of Fisher v. Nlagney, also
decided by the Common Pleas, 5 Manning and Grainger,
was an authority for the proposition that the party
served with a summons was the real defendant in an

action, and might be taken in execution on the judg-

ment.