The Sun.
London, England, 1851-11-22 00:00:00

R 22, 1851

Richard Pyle, Wraxhall, Somersetshire, boot and ahoc-
maker.
Thomas Carver Sr:leathers, Wellingborough, Northamp-
shire, currier.
Marcus Brandt, Salford, cap and hat maker.
Benjamin Thomas, Wolverhampton.
SCOTCH SEQUESTRATIONS.
G. Hoorne, Glasgow, druggist, to meet within the
Globe Hotel, Glasgow, Nov. 27, and Dec. 18, at two.
G. Cumming, Dundee, engraver, lithographer, and
printseller, to meet within the Royal Hotel, Dundee,
Nov. 28, and Dec. 19, at two.
J. Forsythe, Udale, Cromarty, and Balvad, Ross, far-
mer, cattle dealer and grazier, to meet within the Com-
mercial Hotel, Invergordon, Nov. 26, and Dcc. 17, at
twelve.

A. Minto, Carnoustie, surgeon, druggist, and apothe-
cary, to meet within the Royal Hotel, Dundee, Nov. 27,
and Dec. 27, at one.
G. Mitchell, Aberdeen, painter and glazier, to meet
within the Lemon Tree Tavern, Aberdeen, Nov. 29, and
Dec. 20, at two.
R. Gray and J. Gray, Uddingston, near Glasgow,
manufacturers of agricultural implements and machines.
to meet withi❑ the Crow Hotel (Dickson's), Glasgow,
Nov. 26, and Dec. 17, at twelve.
D. Maeuzie, Glasgow, ironmonger, to meet within
the Globe Hotel, Glasgow, Nov. 26, and Dec. 17, at one.
J. and W. Atkinson, Glasgow, merchants, to meet
within the Waverley Tavern, Glasgow, Nov. 26, and
Dec. 17, at twelve.

PRICE OF SUGAR.
The average price of Brown or Muscovado Sugar, com-
puted from returns made in the week ending Nov. 18,
1851, exclusive of Customs Duties paid or payable thereon
on the importation thereof into Great Britain :
From the British possessions in America 21s. 2d. per cwt
From the Mauritius 22s 3id. „
From the East Indies ... 265. 2id.
Average price of the three foregoing de-
scriptions of sugar, jointly, computed as
above, and exclusive of duty ... ... 21s. 11d.
By authority of Parliament,
HENRT BICKN ELL, Clerk of the Grocers' Company.
Grocers'-hall, Nov. 21.

LIVERPOOL COUNTY COURT.
(From the Liverpool Courier of Wednesday.)
The judge took his seat at ten o'clock yesterday, at
which time there was full attendance of suitors. Upon
taking his seat his Honour said he had been insulted by
a vulgar fellow the evening before, when there was no
officer in court, and he directed that in future, the officers
should not leave the court until it was cleared, or he (the
judge) would be murdered some day.
CONTEMPT OF COURT.
The first case called was that of Rebecca Fairclough
and Ann Fellinghant, for contempt of court.
Mary Owens, a charwoman, stated that she attended
the court on the 27th of October, on an action in which
the defendants were concerned. Between five and six
o'clock she was in the ante-room, when one of the
women, Ann Fellingham, said that she (the plaintiff)
was not in her right mind. She came up to her with her
cousin, Rebecca Fairclough, and told her she was not in
her right mind.
The JUDGE—That is a fashionable imputation.
The witness continued that the defendant had said she
was a bad one, and bad also used other foul names to
her. Rebecca Fairclough called her a bad woman, and
said she had taken a carter into her bed-room, when she
lived in her house. All this was said aloud, so that it
might be heard by all the parties present.
Both the defendants denied using the expressions im-
puted to them.
A man named Joyce deposed to the truth of the
plaintiff's statement.
A woman, named Ann Griffiths, was then called for
the defendants, but it appeared she was not present at
the time. This witness the plaintiff said had threatened
to kill her, and the Judge recommended her to apply for
a summons from the magistrate in her case.
This being the substance of the case, his Honour pro-
ceeded to adjudicate upon it, and said, these two
women seemed to him to belong to a class of which
there were too many in this town, who thought they
might carry everything their own way, by violence and
insolence. He had talked to them in vain, and others
of their class. They had had various notices addressed
to the public that he would not endure in that court
these scenes of violent and brutal insolence. It was
then his business to tell them what he would do with
with them for what they bad done. They had a notion
in their head that they might act in any sort of manner
without receiving any punishment ; but he would make
an example of both of them, and perhaps they would
find the severe punishment he was about to
inflict upon them to be a lesson not only to
them, but to others like them, who did not
know how to conduct themselves, and who treated
a court of justice as if it were a pothouse ; they thought
they could brawl and rail in the outer court as much
as they pleased. Respectable people came to that court
and attended in the ante-room, and he would not allow
respectable females to be insulted by filthy language. In
order that they might know and be an example to others
he gave notice that he would have the court properly
respected, especially as it was held up, as it had been, as
a place to be insulted with impunity, and persons were
encouraged to insult the judge. As long as this con-
tinued he would look upon these offences with a sharp
and eagle eye. Nor could he overlook things which in
ordinary cireumstances ho might feel disposed to over-
look. A few days' imprisonment had no effect upon
people. He would therefore impose a fine, which, if not
paid, would end in their being sent to Lancaster Castle
for several weeks. He told them what he would do
with them. A paltry imprisonment of a few days was
only laughed at. He would see if he could treat them to
a little further indulgence in that respect. He would tell
them that, at the rising of the court, he would impose a
fine of 51. in each case for this insolence, and if not paid,
they would both be sent to Lancaster Castle for forty
days. The women were then removed by the bailiff,
after which the judge proceeded to say that the po-
lice ought to be more attentive to enforce order. He
did expect their assistance in the outer court to
keep order. lie expected the police would exercise
ordinary vigilance. They ought not to tolerate loud
411 king in the outer court, as though it were a common
room, or as though people were talking at home. It was
a part of the court, and he did not consider that the
door made any difference. Parties were sitting there us
in the court, to take consent in actions, and it was, in
truth, a part and parcel of the court ; the circumstance
of the door did not prevent it being so, any more than a
curtain or a blind would. He considered the outer court
as a part of the inner court, and he insisted on the
greatest possible propriety being observed. The court
had been made a place so objectionable by some persons
frequenting it, that some persons who had been there
would rather submit to 5/. or 101. loss, than come to it
again. Ho trusted the police would act strictly, and he
thereby gave them a general order, when they witnessed
any indecency, to bring the parties into the box, and he
should deal with them in a proper manner. He could
not hear what went on in the outer roam, but he would
not permit parties to be treated with insolence and abuse.
He knew there were ruffianly characters who came to
that court, and who nested persons there without de-
cency, and conducted themselves in a detestable manner.
If such persons did not behave themselves, he would send
them to gaol for forty days. In that court, at least, he
would endeavour to secure proper respect. In the courts
of assize the judges were not insulted. There was a class
of miscreants in this town who threw public opprobrium
on the court. That herd he would endeavour to treat in
another manner; but all cases of indecency in the court
he would treat in a summary manner.
COMMITTAL OF A DEFENDANT FOR TRIAL FOR PERJURY.
After a case of minor interest, " Patrick Doyle v.
Edward Cummings" was called. In this case Mr. Wil-
ford was for the
plaintiff, and Mr. Wheeler for the de-
fondant. The plaintiff and the defendant were both
tanners' labourers, and the action was to recover the
sum of 21. 10d. 4., a balance due for board and lodging.
The plaintiff's wife appeared to prove the claim on behalf
of her husband, and the defendant appeared in person.
The case occupied two hours in its hearing. Tee cir-
cumstances of the case are of no public interest, but the
issue of it is, inasmuch as it resulted in the defendant's
being committed to take his trialem a charge of perjury.
The case as stated by the plaintiff was, that the defen-
dant had been a lodger in her house for some time, and
that the sum she claimed was a balance due for a portion
of that time. The point at which the case attained a
public interest was when the defendant denied the debt.
Thereupon the Judge said, " Take care what you are
about; perhaps you do not know that I have power to
send you to Lancaster Castle, and that you may be sent
out of the country for many years." The man replied that
he begged the Judge's pardon; and his Honour said " he
believed this woman (the plaintiff) was speaking the
truth. He cared nothing for their oaths; they were idle
wind to him if ho did not believe them. The perjury
committed by parties in that court of justice was mon-
strous. It would bring down the judgment of Heaven
upon the country. It was a detestable fact that he had
heard more perjury since he bad sat in that court, he
might say in a single month, than ever he had before."
At a subsequent period in the case he said, "it would be
necessary to repeal the County Court Act if this false
swearing were persisted in." A long and unpleasant
colloquy then took place between the judge and the de-
fendant; the latter continuing his denial, in which he
somewhat prevaricated, and in which his statements
were denied by certain witnesses for the plaintiff. The
Judge accordingly ordered that the sum should be paid
immediately. When this had been done, his Honour
said he was very sorry that in that case ho felt it his
duty to take a course of which he had previously given
notice. The practice of parties giving evidence in
county courts in their own behalf had recently
become the law of the land, and this would
have been a useful procedure, if parties had told
the truth; but as it was it would be better to repeal the
County Courts Act. Men came there to tell great
falsehoods to defend actions. They had no moral
scruples about it. The question was, which could swear
the hardest. He had every respect for pessons who
gave evidence in a proper way. Here was a respectable
person, who was corroborated in many important parti-
culars by two witnesses of a respectable character, as far
as he could judge. After some other remarks its to the
bearing of the law as administered in County Courts,
his Honour proceeded to say that it was an advantage to
the public to have person* presiding in courts of justice
who enjoyed the respect of those over whom they were
called to preside and settle differences. The man who
would come into a court of justice to heath ir, insulted
one of the most useful aids ef society; at the same time,
it was a dreadful thing to contemplate the perjury
which was practised. It was enough to pro-
voke the wrath of Heaven when any man, or
any body of men, committed such open shameless
perjury. It was his determination to put this down, and
in future he would consider it is duty to punish parties
when such impudent defences were set up. His flonour
then called upon the clerk of the court to read the Act
of Perhament, 14th and 15th Viet., cap. 100, ate. 19,
and said he would commit the defendant to gaol for
trial on a charge of perjury, unless he could find reeog-
nizanees to answer the charge at the 456iMe•