The Sun.
London, England, 1851-06-20 00:00:00

For such an occasion who wotld not assume a respectful and re-
spectable change of dress?
This will be one of the distinful,hing characteristics of the occa-
sion ; and llyam and Co. have met the requirements of the event
with their wonted promptitude of pcoaration. A revision of fashion
(so to speak) has taken place Nit); Hyam and Co.; and the result
Is a display of novelties never lbfore furnished.
The beauty of liyam and Co.s attire is apparent not only in gen-
tlemen's dress, but likewise in habiliments for the young • and as
the occasion of her Majesty's visit will be celebrated during the Mid-
summer vacation, the proprietcrs would impress upon parents and
guardians the advisability of madug selections from their Establish-
ment, where nothing is displayed that will not add an extraordinary
embellishment to the scene of her Majesty's visit.
lIYAM and Co., Tailors, Clothiers, and Manufacturers.
West-end Establishment, andel' • • • • • • .. 86, Oxford-street.
City Establishment, Londoi .... • • 36, Gracechurch-street.
Provincial Istablishments.
Manchester —26, Market-street, Ilull-17, Market-place.
Manchester-63, King-street. Bristol-42, Wine-street.
Liverpool-63 & 65, Lord-street., Glasgow-48, Argyll-street.
Birmingham-23, New-street. Dublin.--30, Dame-street.
Leeds-45, Briggate.
Observe.—No business transacted at these Establishments on Sa-
turday, until the Evening.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
COURT OF COIII.IIION PLEAS, June 19.

:Nisi Prius Sittings for Middlesex, before Mr. Justice
TALFOURD.)
COOPER V.REATIINVAITE.

This was an action for debt and detinue upon a bill of
exchange for 554 10 but it being admitted that 501.
10s. had been paid on the bill, the action in reality was
for 51. only.
Mr. Sergeant C. Jones and Mr. H. Giffard were
counsel for the plaintiff, and Mr. Sergeant Byles and
Mr. Hawkins for the defendant.
The plaintiff is an attorney at Symond's Inn, Chan-
cery-lane; the defendant a cheesemonger in New•street,
Covern-garden. In July, 1850, the defendant applied
to the plaintiff, by a clerk of the plaintiff, named Leviens,
to discount the bill in question for him. Leviens' name
is on plaintiff's chamber-door, and he carries on business
there as a collector of rents, &a., on his own
account; plaintiff has also a eopying clerk named
Gibbard. According to Leviens' evidence, the
plaintiff having given him the discount for the
bill, he took it to the defendant, and proposed
to him that as he had obtained the discount for
him, that defendant should discount a bill for 104 drawn
by himself on his mother-in-law, and that the defendant
consented to do so; the transaction being entirely be-
tween themselves, and without the plantiff's knowledge.
When the plaintiff's bill became due, the defendant
and a friend went to the plaintiff's office, and the
friend staying outside the defendant went in to take up
the bill. According to Gibbard's evidence the defend-
ant having told him his business, he went and fetched
the bill from the plaintiff and gave it to the defendant,
who put down five 10/. notes and half a sovereign, and
left the office. Gibbard took the money to the plaintiff,
who discovered that enough had not been paid by 51.,
and immediately sent Gibbard after the defendant. Gib-
bard said he overtook the defendant in Great Russell-
street, and told him of the mistake, and that the defend-
ant said, " Let Leviens bring 51. to take up his bill, and
give the other 51. to Cooper;" and refused either to re-
turn the bill or pay the 5/. remaining due upon it. The
defence was that the defendant had paid Gibbard the
whole amount of the bill, and Gibbard and Leviens were
cross-examined with severity as to this point and as to
general history and character. The defendant's friend—
an assistant cheesemonger, named Burton—was also
called, and swore positively that he walked home with
the defendant after the bill was paid, and that neither
Gibbard nor any other person accosted the defendant or
spoke to him about any deficiency in the payment.
Mr. Justice TALFOURD summed up the evidence, and
The jury, after retiring for some time, returned a ver-
dict for the defendant.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER, June 19.
;Sittings at Nisi Prins, before the LORD CHIEF BARON.)

DINES V. lIILL.

Mr. Watson and Mr. Hawkins appeared for the plain-
!if; the Attorney-General and Mr. Burehaat for the
defendant.

This was an action for libel, brought by the plaintiff,
who is a veterinary surgeon at Bedford, against the de.
fendant, the editor of the Bedford Mercury,, for an
article which appeared in his paper under the; following
circumstances:—ln the town of Bedford there exists a
charitable fund of considerable amount, derived from
property left some centuries ago by an alderman of the
city of London of the name of Parker. Of this fund,
5001 per annum is distributed directly in gifts to poor
and decayed housekeepers of Bedford, to the number of
about 400. Two parties arose in Bedford who differed as
to the best manner of applying the remainder of the in-
come, some thinking that it would be best employed in
providing more extended education for the 'children of
the poor—others desiring that it should be given di-
rectly in arms to the needy inhabitants. From some
cause or other which did not appear. the matters relating
to this charity became the subject of a suit in Chancery,
to which the Attorney-General, the master and wardens
of a college at Oxford (who had the appointment of a
schoolmaster to .he charity), and the trustees were par-
ties. The plaintiff and one Mr. Merry, who belonged to
the party who advocat. d the giving away the whole
fund in alms, presented a petition to the Lord Chancel-
lor, praying to he. admitted as parties to the suit, on be-
half of the recipients of the charity, and to attend' the
inquiry before the Master, as to how far the proposed
Bill would be advantageous to the charity. This peti-
tion was dismissed, and the applicants were advised to
pay the costs of the parties opposing, amounting to
43/. 65. Bd. Upon this Mr. Merry and one of the reci-
pients, named Haden, went round to the other persons
receiving the annual distribution, and procured from
them, or from their wives, a consent to the application of
a portion of the funds to the payment of the plaintiff's
and Mr. Merry's costs, representing to them that when
the business was settled the distribution would be in-
creased, or rather resumed, as it had been in arrears for
two years. At a meeting of the trustees, it was pro-
posed and voted that the costs of plaintiff and Merry,
in all amounting to 1001. 2s, 7d., should be paid in can-
formity with this so-called authority of the recipients.
The 1001. 2s. 7d. was accordingly paid, partly to the
plaintiff and Merry, and partly to their attorney. At
a subsequent meeting of the trustees it was proposed
that an inquiry into Mr. Dines' and Mr. Merry's
conduct in the matter should be made; but this proposi-
tion was negatived by a majority of the trustees present.
The article which formed the subject of this action ap-
peared in the Bedford Mercury on
the occasion of this
latter meeting of the trustees; and in it, after narrating
the above facts, a passage to the following effect ap-
peared :—" Now, say some of our readers, this is fraud,
dishonesty, thieving—so it is, and we have known men
transported for less offences than this."
The article
then went on to enumerate the trustees who had voted
for no inquiry, and concluded by saying that the sub-
ject was deserving of the investigation of a criminal
court.
These facts having been proved
_by the witnesses for
the plaintiff,
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL addressed the jury for the
defendant, and designated the conduct of the plaintiff
and Mr. Merry as most shabby, in going round to the
wives of these poor people, and persuading them to give
up a portion of their miserable pittance to defray the
costs which those gentlemen had incurred by their offi-
cious interference. The comments which had appeard
in the defendant's paper did not exceed the legitimate
bounds of public discussion on such an occasion.
His LORDSHIP said it was a most shabby proceeding
on the part of Merry, and it was a most gross breach of
trust on the part of the trustees to sanction such an ap-
plication of the poor people's money. It was strange
that any man calling himself a gentleman could be so
mean as to go, even had it been in a legitimate and pro-
per manner, to ask these poor people for ss. a piece out
of their pittances to payhis costs, occasioned by his being
in the wrong. But the conduct of the trustees was even
more blameable, and if the matters were brought before
the Court of Chancery, they would be made to refund.
It would be for the jury, within whose province it exclu-
sively was to determine the question, to say whether the
defendant had exceeded the bounds of fair criticism.
The liberty of the press was second only in importance
to the institution of trial by jury—second, because the
battle of the constitution was fought by juries. The
press was free, because juries were independent; juries
were not independent because the press was free. If
the jury thought that the defendant had in any degree
exceeded what was warranted by the circumstances
they would give such damages as they considered rea-

sonable.
The jury, after some deliberation, said that they were
unable to agree, as they were eleven to one, and wished
to retire.

His Lonostap said that he could not help adding that
the attorney to the plaintiff, had ha done his duty, would
have advised his client that no good could come of bring-
ing such an action as this, as nothing could bo gained by
the publicity given to the facts.
The jury immediately said tat they were now all
agtod, and found a Terdiot for thellgiatiff—.l)oxiaget, ID.