The Sun.
London, England, 1833-02-01 00:00:00

THE KING V. THOMAS.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL showed cause against a rule
for a criminal information obtained on a former day, for
disrepectful words spoken by the defendant of Mr. San-
ders, a Magistrate of the counties of Carmarthen, Pem-
broke, and Cardigan, at the election at Pembroke. The
words were—" You are a trading Justice ; you make
300!. a-year by your warrants : you are a scoundrel, a
liar, and a blackguard." The Learned Counsel now sub-
mitted to the Court, that the words were nut such as to
warrant the granting of a criminal information.
The LoRD CHIEF JUSTICE gild the words, although
certainly very disrespectful, were not, in his opinion, suffi-
cient to justify the Court in making the rule absolute.
Mr. CROWDER supported the rule.
The LoRD CHILI JUSTICE 81114 that the Court ViTT4 of

opinion that the words were not bufficieut to warrant a
criminal information; they were more fit to be made the
subject of an indictment. The defendant had not done
himself any credit by the affidavit he had made, charging
Mr. Sanders with provocation ; hut, nevertheless, the
Court thought it right, under all the circumstances, to
discharge the rule on payment of costs as between attorney
and client.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL must submit that the Court
had no jurisdiction to direct the costs to be paid by the
defendant. The words in the affidavits were such as
would not by the law of England warrant an indictment.
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE said—You allowed the to
begin giving my judgment, anti to get to the end of it,
without objecting at the time that you had not been fully
heard. You waited to see what that judgment was to
he ; you took your chance of seeing whether it would be
in your favour, and I very much doubt whether there is any
justice, to say nothing more, in your being heard now to
question that judgment. The decision is very favourable
to the defendant, and the rule must either be made abso-
lute or discharged on payment of costs.

THE KING V. TEAZLE.
Mr. AUSTEN showed cause against a rule obtained by
Mr. Kelly, for a criminal information against the defen-
dant, for causing a riot, and breaking down the poll-
booths at the last election for the city of Norwich. The
Learned Counsel had a decisive objection to the rule, in-
asmuch as it was stated to have been applied for on the
part of the Sheriffs of Norwich, though it now appeared
that the Mayor and Magistrates of Norwich were the
parties making the application.
Mr. KELLY supported the rule.
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE inquired whether, if this
rule were discharged, the defendant would undertake to
appear and plead to any indictment preferred againt him
by the Mayor and Magistrates ?
Mr. AUSTEN replied in the affirmative.
The rule was then discharged on that condition.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, JAN. 31.

H.A3ILET AND OTHERS v. RICHARDSON.

This was an action to recover back a sum of money
paid by the plaintiffs under a mistake as to the effect of
the terms of a chatter•party. The Jury returned a ver-
dict for the plaintiffs, and a new trial was subsequently
moved for, on the ground that the verdict was against
evidence; and, 2dly, that the action was not maintainable,
the money having been paid voluntarily, with a full
knowledge of the terms of the charter-party.
The question having been fully argued at the bar on e
ormer day,
The Contr., to-day, expressed their opinion that the
else ought to be submitted to a second Jury.
Rule absolute for a new trial.

TIinNISON GLENNY.
This was an action brotwht by the plaintiff, as the pro-
prietor, publisher, and printer of the Satirist newspaper,
to recover a sum of 91. odd fur advertisements. The de-
fence set up was, that a Mr. Gregory was a proprietor of
the paper in question, and, consequently, that the plaintiff
was not entitled, in point of law, to recover. Evidence
was adduced to show that Mr. Gregory had acted in pay-
ing persons connected with the Satirist, and done other
acts in the character of a proprietor. The Jury, however.
stopped Mr. Sergeant B ,rnpas in reply, and found a ver-
dict for the plaintiff for the sum claimed.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER, JAN. 31.

BADDELEY V. OLIVER,.

Mr. PRIX shoved cause against a rule of Mr. Sergeant
TAlfourd, obtained on the part of the defendant, for en-
tering a suggestion upon the rill in order to deprive the
pl int.ff of costs, on the ground that the defendant lived
within the
,jurisdiction of the Cann of Request of Hales
Owen, Bromley Regis, and other places in the counties of
Worcester, Salop, and Stafford, and that the verdict
against him was for a smaller sum than what the juris.
diction of the Court extended to. The verdict was for a
small amount, and execution was granted instanter under
the late Act, under which the debt and costs had been re-
ceived. The present application was, therefore, made t
the Court after final judgment, execution had, and the
judgment satisfied. The Act for this Court of Requests
does not give the defendant costs, hut simply takes away
the plaintiff's right of costa, and from this redress the
defendant is now barred, by the Act empowering imme-
diate execution, unless the defendant takes out a sum-
mons, or makes an immediate application to the Judge
who tried the cause. The defendant has not done this.
Mr. Sergeant TALronan—The defendant did pay the
Sheriffs officer when he came with the execution, but be
paid under protest. —Rule absolute.