The Sun.
London, England, 1851-06-17 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON,

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
BAIL COURT, June 16.
(Sittings in Banco, before Mr. Justice WIGHTMAN.)
CELL V. FOWLER.
This wa3 an action brought by an attorney to recover
the sum of 29/., being the amount of his bill of co, 8 in-
curred in an action commenced by him on behalf of the
defendant against the editor of the Daily News for libel.
The plaintiff baying obtained a verdict for his entire
claim, the defendant subsequently applied in person to set
aside that verdict on the ground of surprise. Mr. Justice
Erle having granted the rule nisi,
Mr. Lush appeared to-day on behalf of the plaintiff,
and showed cause against the rule.
The defendant was heard in support of it.
Mr. Justice IVlorirmAN discharged the rule.
THE QUEEN V. THE PRINTERS AND PUBLISHERS OF

a PUNCH."
A rule nisi for a criminal information against Messrs.
Bradbury and Evans, the printers and publishers of
Punch, for a libel upon the Rev. Peter Daly, of Galway,
having been granted a few days ago,
Mr. BADDELEY, this day, moved that the rule be made
ab3olute.
Mr. WELLS said he appeared to show cause against
the rule; and he was happy to say that it would only
be necessary for him to occupy his Lordship's attention
for a short period of time. In consequence of what
had been stated by his Learned Friend when moving for
the rule, he (Mr. Wells) was compelled to refer briefly
to one or two points in the affidavit of the reverend gen-
tleman, in order to explain satisfactorily what be was
about to say. It appeared, then, by the affidavit of the
Rev. Mr. Daly, that a dinner took place in Galway on
the 17th of March last, at which he presided as chair-
man. There were about 60 persons present. In the
course of the evening one of the toasts given was that of
" The Press," when an individual of the name of Blake
responded to it, and used language of an extraordinary
kind. The language, as set forth in the affidavit, was
this—" He proposed that there should be selected 100
men like himself; that 40 should be sent to Liverpool,
30 to Bristol, and 30 to Portsmouth, who upon a certain
day should set fire to and burn the English fleet, and so
destroy her Majesty's Government." This language was
uttered in the presence of the reverend gentleman, who
it appeared indignantly protested against the use of such
language. Mr. Blake was silenced on that occa-
sion, partly in consequence of the prhotestrhotfestthoef rev.the
gentleman and partly on account
Went on. It might have been
other persona present: and the festivities of
of tthoe
aesvk ening
thenecea
mitada the publishers
an un
Court
fot
teonnlaatreg emti
shtias
kreuhl ea;d bbuetena s
epp
beyars clearly that
of Punch as to the person who uttered these wot da, they
thought that the best course they could take was at once
to admit that mistake. It appeared that several reports
of the speeches that took place at that dinner appeared
in different newspapers in Ireland; and he might state
for the satisfaction of his Learned Friend that the report
which appeared in Punch was copied from a newspaper
published in Dublin. The speech made by Mr. Blake
was not unfortunately reported in his own newspaper,
the Galway Vindiaitor. Still there could be no doubt
but that these extraordinary words being used at
the dinner had occasioned various reports to be
circulated respecting them, not only in Galway,
but in other parts of Ireland. The mistake origin-
ally occurred by the proprietor of some other paper in
Ireland attributing the use of such language to the rev.
chairman instead of to Mr. Blake. He (Mr. Wells) had
only to say that Messrs. Bradbury and Evans, who were
very respectable gentlemen and the proprietors of
Punch, regretted much that this mistake had occurred.
It was certainly no fabrication on their part—though
this was no justification—to have attributed to this rev.
gentleman the sentiments which had been uttered by
another. It was a novel position for them to occupy in
that court, and he trusted that they would never again
be called into court to answer such a charge. Messrs.
Bradbury and Evans, as the publishers of the paper in
question, thought it their duty promptly to come before
the Court to explain the mistake which they had com-
mitted, and to express their regret that it had occurred.
Ho trusted that the statement he had made would be
deemed satisfactory.
Mr. BADDELEY, on behalf of the Rev. Peter Daly,
said that he entertained not a particle of ill-feeling
against those persons, and had certainly no wish to push
the matter further. He felt that the libel was one
which compelled him to come forward for the vindication
of his character, and openly and promptly to call for the
interference of the Court. Hui Learned Friend said that
the defendants had fallen into a mistake in respect to
this statement. They had come forward openly, man-
fully, and in a proper spirit, to express their regret for
having done so. They had tendered their apology to
the Rev. Mr. Daly, and vindicated his character. It
was, therefore, not his client's wish to press the matter
any further, having done that which in justice to his own
character and in justice to those who were under his
spiritual care and superintendence, he was bound to do.
His character Wes now openly vindicated before the world.
His Learned Friend said it was the first time the de-
fendants were before the Court. He concurred with him
in the wish that it would be the last. It was to be
hoped that charges of this sort would not be lightly and
wantonly made, but that that maxim would be constantly
kept in view:—

lodged at the station-house, he and other constables had
heen ever since o•ngegerl in se aching for the prisoner,
but unsuccessfully, until last Saturday evening, when he
succeeded in tracing him to a public-house in Boot-
street, Spitaltields, and after a desperate resistance took
him into custody. With the assistance of another
officer he forced him on for some distance in the direc-
tion of the station-house, when the prisoner, after ano-
ther strenuous attempt to escape, suldenly asked him
what good it could do to him to " settle" him, and
offered to present him with 101. if he would consent to
" square" it.

Ile prisoner was recognised by several constables in
attendAnca as having been repeatedly in custody for
highway robbery and other serious offences; and it was
stated by Morel!, an active detective officer of the N
division, that the prisoner had been no less than four
times convicted, and sentenced upon one of those occa-
sions to seven years' transportation, but that it was after-
wards commuted to twelve months' imprisonment.
The prisoner, by the advice of Mr. Vann, his solici-
tor, declined offering any defence, and was ordered to
be brought up in a week, for the completion of the evi-
dence against him.

LAMBETH.
DERBY-DAY ANCr4EMENTs.—Yesterday Charles James
Preedy and George Thomas Preedy, two beardless youths,
the sons of a surgeon residing in the vicinity of Gray's
Inn-road, appeared bef 're Mr. Elliott, to answer to a
' charge of assaulting Mr. Henry Dobson, a coachmaker
and livery stable keeper, in Guswell-street, by throwing
bags of fbur and seriously injuring his clothes on the
Derby-day.
Mr. Wontner attended on behalf of the complainant;
and Mr. Cooper, the barrister, appeared for the de-
fendants.
From the statement of Mr. Wontner and the testi-
mony of several witnesses, it appeared that Mr. Dob-
son, while proceeding with two friends in a phaeton to
Eprasoingemrrse-pcloeuasrusereovnantshethDe Derby-dray side aossfedTooontng.
one of
G
Mr. Dobson having on an outside coat of somewhat
p
conspicuous appearance, the defendants, one of whom
was sitting alongside Mr. Grainger, the driver of the
van, and tne other on the roof of the vehicle, commenced
" chaffing.' him about his " Moses' duffer." and not con-
tent with this. began to throw pellets of flour at the
parties, until Mr. Dobson and his friends were com-
pletely covered with Enraged et their conduct Mr.
Dobson got out of his phaeton, and laying hold of de-
fendant Charle-s by the coat, endeavoured to drag him
off the box. He did nor, however, succeed, and in his
effort he tore his coat and truu.ers. A number of the
persons inside the van here got out of the vehicle,
and with the defendant George made a fierce attack
upon the complainant, so that the consequences might
have been very serious to the latter, had he not been
assisted by some gentlemen to whom he had appealed
for protection. As it was, however, he got very
roughly handled, was struck on the face with a stick
by one of the defendants, and the same person tore
away a portion of the front of his trousers, so that,
his clothes being covered with flour, he presented a
most ridiculous appearance, and his pleasure was de-
stroyed for the day. Mr. Dobson had some know-
ledge of the defendants from their having some time
ago brought an old chaise to his place, and wished him
to take it in exchange fur a better one ; but he would
have remained in perfect ignorance as to their names
and addresses had not one of them instructed an at-
torney to bring an action against him in one of the
superior courts at Westminster for the injury done to his
clothes.
In his cross-examination Mr. Dobson denied that he
had called Mr. Preedy, sen., an old blackguard and a
horse coper ; though the witnesses called to corroborate
his testimony admitted that ho had said something like
the latter.
Mr. Cooper said he was not present to defend the mo-
dern Derby and Oaks days' amusements of throwing
pellets of flour and rotten eggs, which were as degrading
as they were vulgar, but if Be should show that one of
the defendants had not thrown anything at the complain-
ant, and that the other had been provoked to it by the
improper conduct of the complainant himself, and
making use of the most offensive language towards Mr.
Preedy, sen., he hoped his Worship would see the pro-
priety of dismissing the complaint.
Tne Learned Gentleman called a number of witnesses,
whose evidence differed considerably from that given on
the part of the complainant.
In the cross-examination of one of the witnesses, Mr.
Wontuer elicited an answer from him that Mr. Dobson
had offered to pay the damage doao to the defendant's
clothes, provided be was not further assailed.
After much discussion on both sides,
Mr. ELLIOTT remarked that it was quite clear that
the defendants were the first aggressors, and convicted
them in a penalty of 40s. each, or in default of payment
to 14 days' imprisonment.
The father of the defendants said that he would no
pay a shilling of the penalty; and the youths were sen
to prison.

taken ut on one point, for it appeared from the report
of the Ct manssioners of Woods and Forests last year.
that the expenses in Richmond Park had amounted to
not less than 5,174/.
Colonel SIBTHORP took occasion to allude to the
Exhibition, to which he continued to entertain the most
decided objection. He detested everything that robbed
the fair tradesman, He had to add that he never had
been in the Exhibition, nor had ever been even near it.
Mr. HUME said he was at a loss to account for the
sum of 1,4801 for " the department of the ranger." Ho
was also unable to understand how an outlay of 3,0001.
had been incurred in Hyde-park. He Imes./ of no recent
work in the park except the erection of the marble arch;
and he believed that the expenditure in question could
not have been incurred under that head.
Lord DUNCAN said he wished to repeat his ques-
tion—Why Richmond-park, Bushey-park, and Hampton
Court park had not been included in the vote? To that
question he had received no answer. He found that
5,1741. had been expended last year on Richmond-Park,
and 2,6991. on Bushey and Hampton Court-parks. Was
he to understand that no expense whatever was to be
incurred in those parks in the course of the present
year? And if such expense was to bo incurred why
had not the ereount been included in the vote?
Lord SEYMOUR said that these estimates had been
prepared Rota the Pell which bad been presented to
Paeliamont last year, and in which those parks bad not
been included. But when he had further considered the
eul-ject, he had da ermined on including them in the Bill
of the present year, and on placing them in the estimate
for the future. With regard to the sum of 1,4801. for
ranger's department he had to observe, that the ranger
received nothing for himself, and that sum was divided
among the gate-keepers and other persons to whom pay-
ments were made through the ranger. He had further
to state, that the expense in Hyde-park hid been )12e
curred, not for erecting the marble-arch, but for widen-
ing the road near the Serpentine, and ft r the purchase
of iron-railings. Iron was at present cheap, and as
many of the wooden railings had become old and useless,
he had thought it advisable to replace them by rsihrgs
of a more durable material.
Lord DUNCAN said that the answer be had receives
to his question was not a satisfactory one. The Bill in-
troduced last year had been abandoned towards the close
of the session; and he confessed that nothing relatingto that Bill had surprised him more than the omission
of Richmond, Bushey, and Hampton Court Parks from
its provisions. He wished to know from what quarter
his Noble Feiend intended to take the money for the ex-
penditure of those parks, if any expenditure should be
necessary. Did his Noble Friend mean to take it out of
the land revenue, which did not come under the notice
of Parliameete
Lord SEYMOUR said he proposed hat the expenditure
this year should be taken out of the land revenue; but in
future years it would be included in that vote.
Mr. WILLIAMS wished to know what was done with
the sums paid for pasturage in the parks?
Lord SEYMOUR said that those sums were paid into
the Exchequer.
Mr. HUME wished to receive some explanation with
respect to the sum of 2,347/. for improving the ground
in the neighbourhood of Chelsea Hopital.
Lord SEYMOUR said that the gardens at Chelsea.
Hospital had lately been thrown cpen to the public; and
it was thought that it would be desirable to fill up the.
canals and pools between the hospital and the river, and
i
then to improve and beautify the
ground so reclaimed,
and give the nublic free access to it.
Lord J. RUSSELL said, that after the death of the
live Governor of Che sea Hospital he heel written to the
Duke of Wellington io state that it was the opinion of
the Commissioners for the Management of the woods
and Forests that it would be desirable to throw the
gardens of the hospital open to the' public. The Noble
Duke had immediately acceded to that arrangement'
end it had since been carried into effect.
Mr. HUME expressed his approval of the arrange'

Colonel SIBTHORP said that a sum of 4,5001. 110
been granted specially for meeting the expense °,.f
whether
moving the marble arch. He wished to know lc"'
that sum had covered the cost of the removal?
Lord SEYMOUR said that all the
ex pe nse of th
removal of the marble arch had been defrayed out
;
the sum stated by the Hon. and Gallant Member. ,
Mr. HUME said he thought the Noble Lord deserve"
the highest credit for the mode in which he had ar-
ranged that matter. In his opinion the marble arch was
very ornamental in its present situation, and all the ~
sur-
rounding portion of the park had been very considerably
improved.—(Hear.)
Colonel SALW EY said that as the road from Pimlico
to the Stableyard in St. James's had been opened for
private carriages, he would suggest that it should be
opened for hackney coaches and cabs also. He believed
that many persons would find that arrangement a Tell
convenient one.
Mr. Alderman SIDNEY said it appeared that the cost
of maintaining 2 000 acres of parks
amounted to net les
than 32 5401 a year; and he certainly thought that was
an excessive expenditure.
Colonel SAL WEY said he hoped his suggestion Ivith
respect to the opening of the road between Pimlico and
the Stableyard of St. James's to the public generally
would receive the most favourable consideration.
Lord DUNCAN said that if that suggestion were
t
adopted he trusted that the additional expense
which would thereby be incurred would not be thrown upon the
hind resenue, but
,that it would be included in the 011'
mates brought be'ore the House.
Mr. HUME said he thought that what the public
generally paid fur ought to be open to the public gape'
rally.—( Hear, hear.)
Lord J. RUSSELL said ho did not think it would be
desirable to open the road in question to cabs and our
nibuses.