The Sun.
London, England, 1833-01-16 00:00:00

KING'S BENCH-(THIS DAY.)

TATE V. CHAMBERS, ESQ.
This was an action brought by the plaintiff against Mr.
Chambers, the Magistrate of Union-hall, for false impri-
sonment. On the trial before Lord Tenterden the Jury
found a verdict for the plaintiff. The plaintiff had been
brought before the defendant on a warrant, at the instance
of one Dugald, charging him with unlawfully pawning
property left by Dugald in the plaintiff's bands in pledge.
The defendant, considering the case within the meaning of
the Pawnbrokers' Act, committed the plaintiff for re-exa-
mination in default of bail. On his re-examination, how-
ever, he was discharged, the defendant at that time believ-
ing that the case did not fall under the Pawnbrokers' Act.
A Rule Nisi was obtained on a former day by Mr Law
for a new trial, and the plaintiff to-day showed cause
against it. He contended that the Magistrate bail no
power to commit for re-examination, according to the
circumstances of the case, and that the case was wholly
without the jurisdistion of the Pawbrokers' Act.

The Loaf; CIIIEI' JusncE interrupted Air. Platt, and
asked Mr. Law if he had any thing to state in support of
the Rule.

Mr. LAW and Mr. THEssIGER addressed the Court in
support of the rule. They denied that any malice was
proved on the pin of the Magistrate, but that he acted
bona fide to the best of his judgment in construing the
Act of Parliament, and therefore he was not liable for the
result of any mistake. The case was one of great impor-
tance to Magistrates, and to the public in general. They
submitted that a Magistrate had no power to discharge a
person brought before him on a charge until his trial, if
the charge be supported ; and that he had the power of
committing the party for re-examination, where it should
appear to be proper for the ends of justice.
In the course of the argument the Loan Culler Jos•
Ilex stated, that if a party had another taken into custody
upon a warrant, it was his duty to have all his witnesses
in attendance to make out his own case, and the Magi-
strate was not bound to remand the defendant to prison
until the complainant got his witnesses together.
The case was not concluded when our roporter left.

BAIL COURT.-(THIS DAY).

THE KING V. VENLEAZE AND OTHERS.

Mr. FOLLETT moved in this ca;etiiattcdefendants
might not he compelled to appear in Court and plead to
the indictment—(the Learned Counsel did not state what
they were indicted for)—but that to save the expense of
doing so, they might be permitted to plead by a clerk in
Court.

Mr. Justice J. PARKE said the application had been
made to him at Chambers, and he thought that it was a
hard case, and that the indictment could never be sop.
ported. It would therefore be hard to compel the defend-
ants, who were mere labourers, to appear in person to
plead, but there was no precedent for the application.
Mr. FOLLETT said Lord Tenterden had once done it.
Mr. Justice J. PARKE said he knew that, but he
would rather the application was made to a full Court,
when the Learned Counsel could mention that he (Mr.
Justice Parker) was favourable to it.
THE KING V. TUE JUSTICES OF MIDDLESEX.
Mr. Pot.LocK. moved for a rule to show cause why a
writ of mandamus should not issue, compelling the Justices
of Middlesex to enter a continuance of a sessions of No-
vember laq, and to hear an appeal. The object was to
obtain the examination of the only witness for the appeal,
and he was the churchwarden, but the Magistrates had re-
jected his evidence, by the Act of Parliament the 54th
George 111., by which no person rated at the poor-rates,
nor any person holding office, was to be deemed an incom-
petent witness. The churchwarden was tendered as a
witness, but he was rejected, the Magistrates conceiving,
probably, that as he had signed the notice, the case was
analagous to the rule of law that interested persons should
not be admitted as witnesses.

Mr. Justice JAMES PARKE—Then the Justices decided
the case ?

Mr. POLLOCK—Why, as the evidence was then all on
one side, the Justices conceived they had no difficulty in
deciding it. .

His Lordship thought as the case had been decided, he
had no power to make an order, which would have the
effect of com pelling a rehearing of the case.—Rule refused.

NOON AND OTHERS V. PONTIFEX.
Mr. Poi.r.ocic appeared for the plaintiffs, and Sir J.
SCARLETT and Mr. LEIGH for the defendant.

This was an action brought by the plaintiff+, Messrs.
Moon, Bays, and Graves, the publishers, of Pall-mall, to
recover the value of an engraved copperplate, which it
was alleged had been spoiled by the negligence of the de-
fendants, Messrs. Puntifes, the copper-smiths, of Lisle.
street.

A great number of witnesses were called for the plain.
tiffs, from whole testimony it appeared that they pur-
chased an unfinished plate, the subject of which was a
copy from Gainsborough's Coltage.cloor, from the
executors of the late Mr. John Scott, an eminent engraver.
In March, 1831, being desirous of having it finished, they
applied to an engraver, who wished that an unfinished
group of figures standing at the cottage-door should be
erased, in order that the engraver should do the whole of
the group himself. The plate was sent to the defendants to
have the group erased, and upon its. being returned it wa•
quite spoiled, as the witriess2s stated, from its baring been
improperly done, and the fine lines over the whole plate
were seriously injured, from the surface having been ham-
mered over. It was stated that it would be more desirable
to begin a new plate than to work upon this plate in its
present state. The value of the plate, as it was sent to
the defendants, was variously estimated from 100 to 200
gnineas.
The case is likely to last the whole of the day.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.-(THIS DAY.,

POKERS V. THOMPSON AND OTHERS.
This is an action for libel, the plaintiff in which is
Captain Forbes, and the defendants are proprietors of the
Satirist Sunday newspaper. It was now brought before
the Court upon demurrer to: a' count in the declaration,
which sets forth that the defendants had published, or
caused to be published, a certain libel in the Satirist of
the 30th September last, by which the plaintiff had been
degraded and lowered in the estimation of his neighbours
and the public. The libel was fully set forth in the count,
and was as follows :—" Langford, conversing with his
man Friday (meaning the plaintiff) on the subject of the
slave trade, enumerated several instances of superior en.
dowenents among the black population. Yes,' observed
Forbes, the history of Hayti affords ample proof of that,
they are equal to us at least in intellectual matters.' You know
Forbes, I fear, but little of history,' remarked his Lord.
ship ; look into the history of England, and you will there
read an account of a black prince who was the greatest
soldier of his time.'"

Air. HUTCHINSON, on the part of the defendants', con-
tended that this count was bad in law, and could not be-
sustained.

Mr.
NIANsEL submitted that the count was good. It
was degarding to call a man " the man Friday" of any one ;
they all knew the source from which the allusion was
taken—it must be held as degrading to include a subject
of these realms in the same class. The Learned Gentle-
man went into the question at great length, amidst the
continued laughter of both Court and bar—we do not mean
that they laughed at the Learned Gentleman, but at the
manner and instances he was obliged to cite in favour of
his view of the argument, and the subject naturally being
one likely to excite the risibility of any one.
The COURT decided against the Learned Gentleman.

They could not uec, that in its present shape, it was at al
libellous. Friday was an attached and faithful servant
and many of the subject.; of this realm were black.
neither was it averred that the plaintiff was a white.
Mr. Iltmtimsoar then objected to another count,
which alleged that the defendants, in the same paper, had
published another libel, also tending to the degradation ot
the plaintiff in the eyes of his friends and the public. It
was headed " Gambling Fracas," and said that a Mr.
Hugh, calling himself Captain Forbes, had quarrelled at n
gaming-house with a Mr. Tarlton—that a meeting wa•
arranged, to come off on Putney-heath—that the adversi
parties were in attendance at the time appoint d, but tint
' neither the plaintiff nor his second appeared upon the ground.
Mr. MANSE[. would also submit that no words possible
to have been used could more tend to degrade the plaintiff
than in the paragraph complained of. It was actionable
at all to connect a man with gambling, especially so in
writing. Then a strong imputation was thrown upon the
plaintiff, in the way his name was mentioned ; but the
last imputation was the strongest ; for in the present state
of society, nothing would so degrade a man as such an
imputatiou of cowardice.

Their LORDSHIPS were against the Learned Gentleman
on this point also. All gambling was not illegal ; for
play, even for a halfpenny, was gambling. The plaintiff
had not averred that he was a Captain, Liar that his name
was not Hugh. Neither was it a libel to say of any man
that he had failed to keep an illegal appointment ; besides,
it was not said that he had him,elf made the appointment,
but merely that it was done for him.
Judgment against the plaintiff on both counts.

SHIPPING INTELLIGENCE-(THIS DAY.