The Sun.
London, England, 1834-11-07 00:00:00

MICKLAM V. ROGERS.

Mr. BICKERSTETH, who appeared on behalf of the plain-
tiff, proceeded to state the facts of the
which were as
follows :—.The bill was filed by tin
pritinte James Mick-
lam, who was a tailor, a.,;(t.inst Mr. Edward Rogers, the
l'.;gal personal rePre'Lntative of his deceased brother, Mr.
Henry Rogers, -And it prayed that an account might be
taken of alp the monies due to the plaintiff and to the other
eredit;os of the late Mr. Henry Rogers, and that the assets
;fight be applied in due course of administration. In ada
dition to this, the bill alleged that the deceased Henry
Rogus, granted, in July, 1823, an annuity of 241. to the
plaintiff, in consideration of a sum of 2001., paid by the
plaintiff to the said Henry Rogers. Mr. Edward Rogers,
the legal representative of his late brother, had put in his
answer, which admitted the granting of such annuity, but
alleged that the consideration was not 2001. in money, but
had been paid partly in money and partly in goods, wie,
and other articles. This allegation, if supported by evi-
dence, would go far to invalidate the annuity, but at first no
such evidence was produced, for it was not until after en-
largement of publication which the defendant obtained that
a Mr. Ragg was examined. This person's evidence differed
totally from the allegation in the answer, and consequently
he submitted that it could not be received.
Air. PEMBERTON, on behalf of the defendant, submitted
that the annuity could not be supported, strictly speaking,
for it had not been enrolled according to the express provi-
sion of the Act of Parliament affecting annuities.
After a short conversation between the Learned Gentle-
men, and with the consent of his Honour the Master of the

THE SUN, LONDON, FRI

Rolls, the following reference was directed :—" Whether
the Mte Mr. Rogers was indebted in any simple contract
debts to the plaintiff, and under what circumstances, and for
what consideration, the annuity was granted, with liberty
for the Master to state special circumstances."

COURT OF KING'S BENCH.

ROGERS V. BRIGSTOCK, AND ANOTHER.

Sir JAMES SCARLETT stated that this was an action
brought by an attorney at Carmarthen, for a libel published
on him by the defendants in a paper called the Weidman,
of which they were the printers and publishers. The case
was tried at the sittings after the last Term, when a verdict
was given for the defendants. The plaintiff was the Town
Clerk of Carmarthen, and had been called upon to give in-
formation respecting that Corporation. The libel referred
to the statement he had made before the Corporation Com-
mission, and charged him with having spoken falsely, as be
was not upon his oath. The mode of defence adopted at
the trial was an aggravation of the injury which the plaintiff
had suffered.

Lord DENMAN said that the lines were an extravagant
piece of absurdity, and that no doubt the Jury bad consi-
dered the explanation of them by the defendant's Council
sufficient. Besides, there had been an explanation given,
and perhaps the Jury thought that explanation sufficient.
Sir J. SCARLETT remarked that indeed there was more
malice than went in the lines.

Mr. Justice TAUNTON said that the Jury had expressed
an opinion that the lines were not libellous, and the Court
could not disturb the verdict.—Rule refused.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS—Nov. 6.

(Sittings in Banco.)
REXFORD V. PORTER AND WIFE.

Mr. Sergeant WILDE stated that this was a case tried at
the last sittings at Guildhall before his Lordship to recover
a sum of money for instruction in music and dancing af-
forded to the defendant, Mrs. Porter, by the plaintiff, who
kept a ladies' school. The circumstances out of which the
action arose were these :—The mother of Mrs. Porter
having been left a widow (her husband dying in India with
two or three daughters) she placed them at school with the
plaintiff. The young ladies contemplating going to India,
became desirous of learning music and drawing, and the-
eldest accordingly applied to her mother to have her taught.
Her mother, who had again married, communicated with the
plaintiff on the subject, telling her that the sum she was al-
lowed by her late husband's executors for the education of
her daughters just sufficed for their board and ordinary
education at het school, but not to learn the accomplish-
mentlof drawing and music, but that if she would wait for
payment till her daughter was entitled to her property,
which, under her father's will, would be when she attained
the age of twenty-one, or was married, she herself would
then pay her. Mrs. Rexford assented to this proposal, and
the eldest sister was taught. music and drawing, for which
she had since very honourably paid. Her sister Harriet,
the present defendant, seeing the arrangement her .sister
Lad made, applied to her mother to make a similar one for
her, and it was made accordingly. The young lady after-
wards eloped from the boarding school with the present
defendant, who married her and received her property.
The present action was brought against them both to re-
cover compensation for the instruction in music and drawing
she had received.—Rule granted.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER, Nov. 6.

( Sittings in Banco.)
THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL V. CLEAVE.

This was an action upon the c. 78,
against the defendant, for publishing the Weekly Police
Gazette without a stamp, and without filing the affidavits
required by the Act. It was tried before Lord Lyndhurst
at the sittings after last term, and a verdict found in these
terms :—" We find the defendant guilty of publishing a
work serving the purpose of a newspaper."
Mr. Serjcant TALrounn now moved for a rule to show
cause why the verdict should not be set aside, as against
the weight of evidence, and a new trial had. He contended
that the publication in question did not come within the
meaning of the Act, which referred to political publications.
The prohibitory words of the Act referred to " any news-
paper or other paper containing public news or intelligence,
or servinr, the purpose of a newspaper." The question then
was whether the Weekly Police Gazette served the purpose
of a newspaper ? It was not sufficient that it served some
of the purposes of a newspaper. It. must answer the de-
scription and serve the purpose generally of a newspaper.
Some persons read a newspaper, like a certain character in
the Critic, solely for the sake of the criticisms on the drama ;
some for its fashionable intelligence ; others for the police
and law reports ; and others again exclusively on account
of the political news and disquisitions. The Tatter and
the Spectator answered some of these purposes ; but no
one ever thought of calling them newspapers. The publi-
cation must suit all tastes to come within the meaning of
this Act, which was directed solely against seditious publi-
cations.—Rule refused.