The Sun.
London, England, 1834-01-16 00:00:00

THE JUNG V. GRANT AND OTHERS.

Mr. KELLY said he was instructed to move in this
case for a rule to show cause why the verdict should
not be set aside, and a new trial had. He made
the application on the part of one of the defendants,
and the ground of it was the rejection of evidence
by the Lord Chief Justice, before whom the case
was tried at the sittings in Middlesex, after the last
term, when the three defendants were found guilty.
At the trial he (Mr. Kelly) appeared on behalf of
the defendant Ager only. He was the printer of
the newspaper the True Sun, in which the libel for
which the information was filed appeared. It was,
he believed, understood that Ager was not to be
brought up for judgment, and he was not now
instructed to move on his part. He was instructed
to make the application on the part of the de-
fendant, Mr. Patrick Grant. The information
had been filed against the three defendants, Grant,
Bell, and Ager, under an order of this Court,
at the instance of Mr. Alderman Winchester and
a Mr. Briggs, for certain matter, which was al-
leged to be libellous, published in the True Sun
newspaper, reflecting on the conduct of the
prosecutors. It would probably be in the recollec-
tion of the Court that one of the material statements
which were charged as libellous imputed to Mr. Al-
derman Winchester, who had been the assignee of
the defendant Grant, and to Mr. Briggs, the soli-
citor under the commission of bankrupt against
Grant, that both of those gentlemen had been guilty
of fraudulent conduct in the sale of shares of The
Sun newspaper, of which Grant had been proprietor
jointly with a person of the name of Murdo Young.
It charged that Mr. Alderman Winchester as the
assignee, and Mr. Briggs as the solicitor, under
Grant's bankruptcy, had colluded together to give
Young the preference in the sale of the shares of
The Sun, arid had enabled him to purchase those
shares for less money than could have been obtained
from other persons, and that they had also endea-
voured to prevent the creditors from knowing the
state of Grant's affairs. The information alleged
that a commission of bankrupt had been issued
against Grant—that Mr. Alderman Winchester had
been duly chosen assignee—that Mr. Briggs had
been the solicitor under the commission—and that
since the bankruptcy certain transactions had taken
place respecting the sale by the assignees of Grant's
interest in The Sun newspaper ; and then followed
several counts setting forth the libel, which was
charged to have been published ofand concerning these
transactions, to which a meaning was given by ex-
press inuendos. At the trial the publication was
admitted, and then Mr. Alderman Winchester and
Mr. Briggs were put into the box as witnesses, and
they gave evidence to the effect that there had been
various meetings of Grant's creditors, but the evi•
dente was very general. Mr. Alderman Winchester
was questioned, in cross-examination, by him (Mr.
Kelly) as to some of the transactions relative to the
sale of the newspaper, with a view to show the jury
what the transactions were with respect to the sale
of the shares to Munk) Young; but the Lord Chief
Justice was of opinion that an inquiry into those
matters could not be gone into. He (Mr. Kelly)
submitted to the Learned Judge, and he submitted
now to the Court, that under the averments in the
information the defendants were at liberty to inquire
into the particulars of the transactions which were
alleged upon the record to have taken place; but
it was said, that in inquiring into those transac-
tions the truth or falsehood of the statements
contained in the libel came in question. No
doubt the inquiry would, to a certain extent, involve
the truth or falsehood of the charges; but, admit-
deg that the truth or falsehood of the libel could
not be inquired into upon this information, the ques-
tion was, as the information contained distinct aver•
ments of the fact of transactions having taken place
respecting the sale of shares of The Sun newspaper,
and otherwise, whether the prosecutors were not
bound to prove those averments, and whether the
defendants were not at liberty to give evidence on
the subject of those transactions. As far as he (Mr.
Kelly) could collect, it appeared to be the opinion
of the Lord Chief Justice at the trial, that evidence
might be given of the mere fact of certain transac-
tions having taken place, but that the particulars of
those transactions could not be inquired into. He
(Mr. Kelly) had proposed in his cross-examination
of the witnesses to go into the particulars, in order
to put it to the jury to say what the true character
of the transactions was, but this was objected to,
and the objection was allowed by the Lord Chief
Justice. The Learned Counsel went on to refer to
the case of " The King v. Horne," in 6 Cowper,
and to the language of Lord Mansfield in that case,
and he contended that the jury were at liberty
under Mr. Fox's Act,which was particularly adverted
• to at the trial, to take the whole matter into consi-
deration, and to inquire, first, whether certain trans-
actions averred in the information had in point of fact
taken place; secondly, whether the publication by the
defendants related to those transactions; and, thirdly,
if they did, whether the publication was a libel or
not. One of the libels stated in substance, that at
a meeting of Grant's creditors, relating to the sale
of some shares of The Sun newspaper, it was stated
by Mr. Briggs that a sale had actually been made to
Murdo Young, though the fact was that no sale to
Young had taken place. That, therefore, was a
I fact which the defendants ought to have had an op-
portunity at the trial of inquiring into; for how could

( PRICE 7D.)

the jury otherwise judge of the transaction, and how
could they say that the statement was published in
relation to the transaction, unless they were made
acquainted with the particulars of it ?
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE—There is nothing
libellous in the words you have picked ou►.
Mr. KELLY—Those words contained a charge of
falsehood against Mr. Briggs in stating at a meeting
of creditors that certain shares had been sold to
Murdo Young, when in fart they had not been sold.
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE observed, that the
passage which the Learned Counsel had referred to
was not relied on at the trial as part of the libellous
publication, which contained foul and calumnious
language, pervading nearly the whole of it. It was
not for the defendants or their Counsel to pick eur
particular passages, which were not perhaps of
themselves libellous, and say that because they were
set out in the information, the defendants were to'
be let in to give evidence relative to the truth or
falsehood of the statements made in those passages.
Mr. KELLY said he was not arguing that the
question of the truth or falsehood• of the libel was
to be gone into, but merely that evidence ought to.
have been admitted under the averments in the in-
formation relative to the statements made in the
publication. He submitted that the defendants had a
right to call on the prosecutors to prove the allega-
tion contained in the information, notwithstanding
such proof might go to show the truth of the state-
ments. It was not enough for the prosecutors simply
to prove that there had been certain transac-
tions relative to the sale of shares of The Sun
newspaper to Murdo Young; they were bound to
prove, and the defendants were at liberty to prove,
what those transactions were. How else could the
jury know whether or not those transactions related
to the sale of shares ? They had a right to satisfy
themselves upon that point, and to inquire whether
the libels related to the particular transactions re-
ferred to. The evidence did not even establish the
fact of there having been a sale to Young, so com-
pletely was all inquiry shut out.
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE said that there was
no question put by the defendant's counsel in cross-
examination to show that no sale had, in point of
fact, taken place, or that the libel did not relate to
the transactions connected with the sale.

Mr. KELLY could not say what passed,-as he was
counsel at that time for the defendant Ager only;
but he submitted that the question now was, %vhe-
ther the prosecutors were not bound to sustain by
evidence the averments contained in the informa-
tion, and whether the defendants were not at liberty
to give evidence in contradiction of those aver-
ments? In the case of " The King v. Horne,"
which he had before referred to, and which was an
information for a libel alleged to have been pub-
lished of and concerning the King's Government,
and of and concerning the employment of the King's
troops, it was held by Lord Mansfield that evidence
was admissible to show the employment and con-
duct of the troops. So in this case he (sir. Kelly)
contended that evidence was admissible, and ought
to have been received to show what the transac-
tions were respecting the sale of the shares of The
Sun newspaper to Murdo Young. The jury were
bound to decide upon the whole issue, and how
could they decide that the libels related to transac-
tions which were averred to have taken place when
all evidence on the subject was excluded ?
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE said that by pleading
not guilty the defendants had put in issue all the
material allegations contained in the information,
and amongst the rest it was put in issue whether
the publication in the True Sun newspaper related to
the transactions referred to ; and, therefore, if the
defendants or their counsel had suggested that they
had evidence to bring forward to show that the alle-
gations were not true, and it was necessary for
them to give evidence in contradiction, he (the
Learned Judge) should have felt bound to have
admitted it. There was, however, no such sugges-
tion; on the contrary, it was taken for granted that
the evidence given did relate to the transactions,
and that the publication also related to the transac-
tions, and the only point made at the trial by Mr.
Kelly, was, whether the truth or falsehood of the
publication ought not to be inquired into. He (the
Learned Judge) thought, according to what he had
always understood to be the law on the subject,
that no such inquiry could be permitted. It was
not suggested that the evidence which the de-
fendants proposed to give was offered at the trial for
the purpose mentioned now for the first time. If
any such suggestion had been made, he should have
read the evidence.

Mr. Justice LITTLEDALE concurred with the Lord
Chief Justice. If at the trial it had been suggested
on the part of the defendants that the evidence
given on the part of the prosecution did not relate
to the transactions mentioned in the information, or
that the libels did not relate to those transactions,
then he should have said that the evidence pr 6.
posed to be given by the defendants ought to have
been received.

Mr. Justice TAUNTON was clearly of opinion, for
the reasons given by the Lord Chief Justice, that
the evidence had under the circumstances, been
properly rejected.
Mr. Justice PATTESONI urn entirely of the
same opinion.
Rule refused.

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY, JAN. 15.

DYER AND MAINE'S BANKRUPTCY.

A Subdivision Court was held for the purpose of
considering a question of importance to the com-
mercial interests. The matter has been for some
time before the Court, and a few days since the
Commissioners, Messrs. MERIVALE, FONBLANQUE,
and HOLROYD summoned a Division Court to con•
eider the point in dispute. The application to the
Court was to allow the assignees of a Spanish
merchant, named Alzedo, to prove in the estate of
Dyer and Swaine for about 5,0001. for bills of ex-
change, alleged to be accommodation bills drawn by
Dyer and Swaine on and accepted by Knowles and
Son, and which were taken by Alzedo in exchange
for his own acceptances. The three parties were ex-
tensively engaged in the wool trade, and all became
bankrupts in 1825, and before their bills became
due. The question was, could the assignees of Al-
zedo prove for the bills in question drawn by Dyer
and Swaine, and accepted by Knowles and Son,
Alzedo knowing at the time that the whole of the
bills were accommodation bills.
Mr. Commissioner MERIVALE delivered judg-
ment. The right of Alzedo's assignees to prove on
Dyer and Swaine's estate depended on the single
question whether, under the circumstances stated,
the acceptances given by Alzedo in exchange for
those bills were a good and sufficient valuable con-
sideration. It was a principle clearly established,
that if a bill of exchange be given expressly in con-
sideration of another bill, and in exchange for it,
the consideration was valid, arid the holder might
prove under a commission against the party b y
whom the bill was given. The Learned Commis-
sioner, in support of his views of the case, referred
among other authorities to Mr. Baron Bayley's
work on the laws relating to bills of exchange and
promissory notes, page 423 to 430 (last edition),
and upon the principles there laid down, and fol-
lowing the train of decisions, the Court ordered
that the assignees of Alzedo be admitted to prove
on the estate for Dyer and S waine's acceptances in
their hands, retaining the dividends for further di-
rections, when it had been ascertained what each

This was an action brought by the plaintiff against
the defendants to recover compensation for negli-
gence as his solicitors.
The plaintiff employed the defendants to make
out the deeds of assignment of some property which
he had sold. The defendants, instead of inserting a
clause for a limited title, put in a clause of an un-
qualified one, thereby subjecting plaintiff to legal
consequences of a serious nature, though the de-
fendants were cautioned against so doing. A verdict
passed for the plaintiff.

Mr. Sergeant JONES to-day moved for a rule to
set aside the verdict, upon the ground that the
plaintiff suffered no injury from the clause in question.
—Rule nisi granted.

POND V. DISHES.

This was an action brought under the statute to
recover certain penalties for usury. The defendant
discounted a bill for 3501., and charged 201. discount.
A verdict passed for the plaintiff for 9901., the
penalties being threefold the original sum.
Mr. Sergeant STORKS moved to set aside the
verdict upon the ground that it was against evi-
deuce.—Rule nisi granted.

HAWORTH v. HARDCASTLE AND OTHERS.

This was an action tried at the last sittings at
Guildhall before Mr. Justice Alderson and a Special
Jury, the question was an infringement of a patent.
'A verdict was obtained by the plaintiff.
Mr. Sergeant STEPHENS to-day moved to set
aside the verdict upon the grounds that the finding
of the Jury was wrong and against evidence. The
Learned Counsel having quoted many cases in sup-
port of his arguments, the Court granted a rule to
show cause.

rNSOLVENT DEBTORS' COURT, JAN. 15.

John Lyons, a Chelsea pensioner, was opposed
by Mr. COOKE on the part of a creditor named Still-
well. He was supported by Mr. NICHOLLS.
Mr. WOODROFFE also opposed, but on looking at
his brief found that he had made a mistake. "It
is, added the Learned Counsel, laughing " most un-
fortunate for me, for I actually refused a brief to
support the insolvent, believing I had instructions
to oppose him."--(Laughter.)
The object of the opposition was not to delay the
discharge of the insolvent, but to obtain an appor-
tionment of his pension. It appeared that he re-
ceived from the Chelsea Hospital 45!. a year for
wounds received in various battles. He had been
a sergeant of dragoons, and was now both lame and
blind. His debts only amounted to between 50/.
and 60/.

Mr. COOKE said the debts were not large, and
could be the more easily paid by a portion of the
pension being set aside towards their liquidation.
Mr. Nicholas submitted that the Court had no
power under the Act to apportion the pension.
His client had only been 4 non-commissioned officer
in the army, and received his pension from Chelsea
Hospital.
The COURT read the 29th section relative to pen-
siom, and held that the one enjoyed by the insol-
vent did not come within the clause. The Court
could therefore make no order.

The insolvent was ordered to be discharged.

HAMBURG PAPERS.

HAMBURG, JAN. B.—According to the latest ac-
counts from Berlin the health of the Minister, Von
Ancillon was manifestly improving.
BERLIN, JAN 6.—His Royal Highness the Prince
of Orange arrived at Silsit on the 29th of Decem-
ber, in the evening, and stopped there for the night,
because part of the road to Memel was overflowed.
On the following day the august traveller passed
safely the Memelshal (the valley of the Memel),
and at ten o'clock passed the Prussian frontier,
where he was received by Prince Dolgorucki.
FROM GREECE, IN NOVEMBER.—The troubles in
Candia excite more apprehension)
laro maasntitthe
eniicoteeyooi
nllmflame‘gvnvomoiEdhl
more
teaieauhctrardirceloeAnievpasuiptineetor
arriving
yai. Tmer
Theoshi tdisuueleuei
numerous.
rfsglAambi
vemcetoarirtpi suc-
cessivelyni
eF,irubdsecnohneisss. tenddfieenaooi under
iiirenft
tert hhhi
efCatmeiredhitbofaameom:tdi
themtoe
nr
na
them,
ani d
mto a
bn the
un ter, pd
notonwo et r
os n t
evenyo
allow the possession of their lands, on which he
seized, and had them cultivated for his account,
allowing them but a very small part of the pro-
duce ; neither did he permit them to enjoy
their fruits, of which he took nine-tenths; that
he forcibly took away their children, to oblige
them to embrace the Mahometan religion under the
pretext of educating them at his own expense; and,
as a proof of it, they stated what had happened to
►wenty-four children whom the Sa,rap had taken to
send to Egypt, and whom they had with great diffi-
pihstsdeaghlpmanudCaelat:sdinniaettsejaddtsspdigh,sebnecieirirAuoroetstisopnrathliddarlnteeaaamegcpctnnP,ithi.piodsreaind,letwpycoivumeerofi
eulty rescued from the hands of his agents. Otte of
them was already circumcised. Admiral Malcolm
and the Commander of the French ship heard with
much sorrow the account of the sufferings of the
Catidiotes; they promised to obtain for them better
treatment from the Pacha of Egypt, and recom-
mended them to return-to their villages and gather
their fruits. They remained firm in their resolution,
and replied that they would not disperse till they
should have obtained from the Commanders of the
forces of the Allied Powers a written promise that
they should be secure for the future. At the same
time they declared that they were resolved rather to
suffer themselves to be cut to pieces tan 10 remain
under a Government which had already so often
deceived them, and that they had bound themselves
together by an oath to leave each other unburied to
the last man, that their dead bodies might bear wit-
ness of the cruelties they had endured, and serve as
a proof of the resolution, which they had not indeed
maintained by arms, but had unanimously adopted,
to flee themselves once for all from the Egyptian
yoke, or all to die.
Such were the state of affairs when the Egyptian
soldiers, armed with sticks, suddenly issued fern
the fortress of Candia, and wounded several of those
Candiots, who made no resistance, but retired to a
strong position, where they prepared to repel force
by force, if the Egyptians should again venture to
attack them.
Meantime the Pacha of Egypt is making great
armaments ; about ten ships of the line are on the
stocks. His army is daily augmented, so that he
will shortly have 100,000 regular troops on foot.
The state of Candia, and the new conquests he has
made from Turkey, serve as the pretext for his
armaments.
Since almost all the leaders in the conspiracy
against the present Government of Greece, with a
view to overturn it and transfer the power to the
Russian party, have been arrested, and since the
troubles its the Island of Tinos are suppressed,
Greece enjoys perfect tranquillity, which promises
to be durable. The press, however, does not enjoy
the liberty given to it by the last decree on the
subject.
It is affirmed that a commercial treaty is concluded
between Greece arid the Porte, which will tie pub-
lished as soon as the Greek Ambassador shall have
received the necessary firmans from the Turkish
Ministry to repair to his post.
EXCHANGES ON LONDON.
HAMBURG, JAN. 10.-13 7,4 ; two months, 135%.
STOCKHOLM. JAN 3.—Two months. 13 14.
LEtpsic, JAN. 3.—Three months, 6 15A.
—Hamburg Papers, Jan. 10.

---- .
DUNGARVAN.IL is said Mr. Edward Ber-
wick, Barrister, will start on the repeal interrst....—Dublin
Paper.