The Sun.
London, England, 1851-01-20 00:00:00

courage and genuine humanity are always found in the
sarn, b9sorrt.

Mr. Pearse, the active and indefatigable agent of
Lloyd's, at Penzance, and also agent of the Shipwrecked
Mariners' Society, was on the spot at the earliest possible
moment, aud, as usual, showed the utmost anxiety to
render every assistance.

ASSAULT ON JUR. MIALL.
The legal proceedings against the Rev. Messrs. Cole
and Over for the assault committed on Mr. Miall, at the
Papal Aggression meeting at Islington, have been
abandoned on the receipt of the following apologies, and
their payment of the costs incurred:-
39, Highbury-place, Jan. 4, 1851.
Dear Sir,—l have already twice apologized to Mr.
Mall for the purely unintentional fall which he met with
at the Islington meeting. I certainly used sufficient
force to remove Mr. Miall, sideways, about a yard along
the platform; but I had not the slightest idea of the
proximity of the steps to the platform (two, I believe ,in
number) down which he fell. For whatever degree or
manner of force I used, as primarily causing that fall, I
have (as I have said) already twice apologized—once to
Mr. Miall before the whole meeting and again to Mr.
Miall, personally and studiously, after the same meeting;
which latter apology Mr. Miall, at the time, accepted.
Nor have I ever uttered one word since to detract from
the sincerity and full intent of those apologies.
As a Christian person, and a gentleman (terms I pub-
licly used), I can, of course, have no objection whatever
to repeat such apology a third time in writing.
I do not deny the right which Mr. Miall had, as a
parishioner, to move any legal amendment; and I ac-
knowledge that the Chairman had not declared Mr.
Miall's amendment to be irrelevant. I beg on this
ground, also, to apologize to Mr. Miall, and to express
my regret that I should, through inexperience in such
mutters, have violated any recognized usage of public
meetings, which time has established.
I am, dear Sir, yours faithfully, 1
HENRY COLE.

To W. 11. Ashurst, Esq., &c. &c.

Islington, Jan. 6, 1851.
Dear Sir,—l certainly used sufficient force, at the
meeting of the parishioners of Islington, on the Bth No-
vember, to remove Mr. Miall sideways along the plat-
form, but I was not aware of the proximity of the steps
down which he fell. For whatever force I used for
causinc, that fall, I now apologize to him, as the Rev.
Mr. Cole' did at the time. I do not deny the right
which Mr. Miall had, as a parishioner, to move any
legal amendment; and I acknowledge that the Chairman
had not declared Mr. Miall's amendment to be irrelevant.
I beg on this ground also to apologize to Mr. Miall, and
to express my regret that I should have violated any
recognized usage of public meetings.
I remain, dear Sir, very respectfully yours,
To W. H. Ashurst, Esq. EDWARD OVER.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS, Jan. 18;
In the Exchequer Chamber, before the LORD CHIEF
JUSTICE of the Common Pleas, Mr. Justice PATTESON,
Mr. Justice CRESSWELL, Mr. Justice ERLE, and Mr.
Baron MARTIN.)
QUEEN v. MORTIMER REALEY.

In this case, in which the defendant was found guilty,
at the Central Criminal Court, of attempting to obtain
goods under false pretences, from John Baddeley and
others,
The COURT affirmed the conviction.
QUEEN V. DAWSON.
The prisoner, Frederick Augustus Dawson, was in-
dicted and convicted at the Central Criminal Court for
forgery.
It appeared at the trial that the prisoner uttered a &mu-
nent which purported to be a genuine one, for the pur-
pose of obtaining the sum of 9s. from John Lave. The
document was a bill-head of the ordinary kind, showing
on the face of it that John Lave was indebted to Frances
Dawson in two bushels of apples of the value of 95., and
there was appended to the end of it a note to the following
effect, purporting to be written by Mrs. Frances Daw-
son :—" Sir,—l hope you will excuse me asking for such
a trifle, but I have received a lawyer's letter this morn-
ing, and unless I make up a certain sum of money by
one o'clock an action will be brought against me, and I
am, therefore, obliged to hunt after every shilling."
This paper was described in one count of the indictment
as an order, and in two others as al:warrant, and the
question reserved for the opinion of this court was,
whether that was a proper description of such written
paper under the statute.
Mr. REPTON, who was heard in support of the appeal and
against the conviction, contended that the document
was neither a warrant nor an order, but a simple request,
which the party might. or might not obey. The statute
seemed to contemplate an offence of this kind, for it
mentioned a warrant-order or request; and the meaning
of penal statutes ought to be strictly construed according
to the terms employed. in using the words warrant and
order, the Legislature no doubt intended that they
should not travel beyond the ordinary meaning which
in commercial dealings were attached to such terms.
The necessary ingredient of a warrant or order was
this:—lt must be drawn by a party who had authority
to do so, and addressed to a party who was bound to
obey it. Now, the party to whom this document was
given was not bound to pay the amount, for it might so
happen that he kept a running account with Mrs. Daw-
son, or had three months' credit. Another distinguishing
quality of a warrant was, that the party obeying it,
had a sufficient indemnity of the consequences of his act,
because if a civil action was afterwards brought to reco-
ver the amount, the production of the document would
he a sufficient defence to the action. In the present case,
however, the document, supposing it was a genuine one,
would not show that the request it contained had been
complied with, and therefore would not be a good de-
fence against the claim, without some other additional
evidence that the money had been paid. On these
grounds he contended that the indictment was bad under
the statute, and that the conviction ought to be quashed.
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE—I think, if this were a
genuine order, and the party paid the money, he would
afterwards have a good defence to any further claim
should he happen to be in possession of the document. I
am of opinion, therefore, that this is clearly a warrant or
order, and that the conviction ought to be affirmed.
Conviction affirmed accordingly.
QUEEN V. R. C. BIRD AND SARAH BIRD.
The prisoners in this case were convicted of assault at
the last Exeter assizes, having previously been acquitted
on the higher charge of murder, and an appeal was sub-
sequently made to this Court to quash the conviction,
but the judges before whom the appeal was argued did
not agree in opinion, and no decision was given.
Their Lordships now intimated that the case would
be heard before all the judges on Saturday the 25th of
January.