The Sun.
London, England, 1832-06-01 00:00:00

In this case a rule bad been obtained last term by S
James Seadett, calling on the defendants to show can•
why one or more criminal informations should not be file
against them for publishing certain libels in the Tine Si,'
newspaper, and in a pamphlet, upon the characters
Mr. Alderman Winchestix, and Mr. Thomas Briggs, a-
attorney of this Court.
Mr. CAMCOELL appeared to-day to show cause, am!
"•ciliserved that there must have been some mistake in draw-
'`ling up the rule as against the defendants Bell and Ages .
fur they were in no way implicated in the publication.
The one was a part proprietor and the other the printer ia
• the True Sun newsp tiler, but they were not at all con-
nected in the publication of the pamphlet.
Loan CrilFr JUSTICE—I understand that they are all
concerned in the newspaper, and hut one in the pamphlet
If the fact be otherwise, of 'course the rule will not le•
' made absolute against those two defendants.
Sir JAMES SCARLETT observed that the proceeding in
regard to the pamphlet was against Grant; the libels in
the new•paper were of the carne kind, and taken from
the pamphlet.
Mr. Caaaractr. submitted that it was contrary to the
practice of the Court to call On persons jointly' and se-
' venally to account for a publication in which some of them
had no concern.
Loan CittEr Jusncs:—The present proceeding is en-

tinily in accordance with the rule of the Court.
Mr. CAMPBELL said he felt but little anxiety upon that
point, for he did not doubt he should be able to get the rule
discharged as against all the three defendants. Mr. Grant,
one of his clients, who was the author of the pamphlet,
was a gentleman of education, an officer in the army, and
was conneqed with a highly respectable family in this
country, and the present application was made on behalf
of Mr. Henry Winchester, a paper manufacturer,
anti an Alderman of the City of London, and Mr. Thos.
Briggs, an attorney of this Court. This dispute arose
out of a commission of bankrupt, which was sued out in
November, 1830, by Mr. Winchester against Mr. Grant,
and he (Mr. Campbell) could not' belp conceiving that
the whole matter was mach more fit to ipso:B6oer} by,
the Court of Review, recently established, than for the in-
terposition of this Court. It appeared, that in 1826, Mr.
Grant purchased the property of The Sun newspaper,
and that in IS2B, he sold one•fourth of it to a gentleman
of the name of Murdo Young. Mr. Grant had expended
about the sum of 14,0001. in that speculation, which was
an exceedingly profitable one ; but Mr. Grant becoming
temporarily embarrassed, a commission of bankrupt was
sued out against him, unnecessarily sued out, he would
say, because all the debts proved under the commission
amounted to only 6,1001. whereas the marketable value of
the three-fourths of the newspaper was 13,000/. That
property had unfortunately proved of no benefit whatever
either to Mr. Grant or to his creditors. Mr. Grant,
deeming it necessary to explain to his creditors the causes
of their not being paid their demands, for that purpose
published a pamphlet, entitled " Statement of facts regard-
ing The Sun newspaper." It appears that Mr. Young,
who was the holder of one-fourth share, by the articles of
partnership, had a right of pre-emption on the same terms
as might be made by any other person, and he offered the
sum of 7,5001. for Mr. Grant's shares. But without at
present entering into a detail of all the facts, lie (Mr.
Campbell) would call their Lordships' attention to this
one, viz. that Mr. Grant's certificate was withheld by Mr.
Winchester until Dec. 1831, and then granted at a meeting
of the creditors, called by public advertisement. The
creditors then unanimously voted their thanks to Mr.
Grant for his efforts to benefit the creditors, and they
also unanimously voted bin, his certificate. At a
subsequent meeting, attended by almost all the creditors
but Mr. Winchester, it was resolved to call upon the as-
signees to remove the proceedings and papers into the
bands of Messrs. Alliston and Lock, and that if Mr. Win-
chester would not consent to do so, he be requested to re-
sign his office of assignee.
Sir JAMES Seaatrrz--That was a private meeting,
called by Mr. Grant, of his particular friends, whose
debts were very trifling.
Mr. CAMPBEEL said it was a meeting of the creditors,
and letters were written to Mr. Winchester anti Mr. Briggs,
to attend if they chose.
Sir JAMES SCARLETT-. 1 have the letter here, which
states it to be " a private meeting of my creditors."
Mr. CAMPBELL continued—At that meeting resolutions
were entered into expressive of regret at the appointment of
Mr. Winchester, and stating that they believed the appoint-
ment of certain parties by him had been productive of a very
serious grievance, and an injury to the bankrupt's estate.
The present proceeding was in the nature of an appeal
from those meetings. He felt the extreme inconvenience
attending this proceeding, because there were circumstances
which were exceedingly unfit to be stated, but in justice
to the character of his clients, he was bound to bring them
before the Court. The supposed libels were very
long, very tedious, and very dull, and therefore he
did not propose at present to read them all
through. It should be stated that Mr. Young had
made no complaint whatever. Mr. Briggs was
the solicitor to the commission sued out by Mr. Win-
chester, and Mr. Winchester was joined as assignee with
a most respectable and most honourable gentleman, a
banker in the city of London, Mr. Thornton, who had
made an affidavit. Mr. Young had made no affidavit, al-
though he was acquainted with the scheme more intimately
than the others, except Mr. Briggs. Mr. Winchester was
not perhaps, the author of the scheme, hut was in some
!_?y dragged into it. The publications imputed to Mr.n
Winchester, Mr. Briggs, and Mr. Young, that to the Preju-
dice of Mr. Grant's creditors, and also of Mr. Grant, Mr.
Young had been allowed to get possession of the whole of
t
iler property ; that for that purpose Mr. Winchester and
Aißrigga withheld Mr. Grant's certificate ; that they
refused offers from various quarters more advantageous
than Mr. Young's ; that they misrepresented the value
of the property ; that they mated various things which
were proved to be false, by means of which other persons
were prevented from buying the property at its j
—and that Mr. Young had contrived to remain
value
session of the whole without making any remuneirnatii=
[The Learned Counsel then read portions of the pamphlet,.
commencing at page 26, in which all the charges against
Mr. Winchester and Mr. Briggs were recapitulated, and
having done so, he proceeded.] Mr. Briggs and Mr.
Winchester had filed affidavits, in which some of the
charges were denied, but others left uneontradicted.
Oue part, in which Mr. Briggs was charged with pre-
paring a case which he was to make use of at a meeting
of the creditors, in which it was falsely stated that the
property was sold to Mr. Young,—that part was not de
niest. The answers he (Mr. Campbell) had to give
to this application were, that some parts of the affi-
davits, on which the rule was granted, were very im-
perfectly denied—that others were not denied at all—
that the whole was proved to have been committed—
and that therefore, as they-, had not come into Court
with clean hands, they had not put themselves in a situa-
tion to call upon this Court for any such extraordinary
interference as that now sought to be obtained. The
affilavits on the part of the defendants were extremely
long, but he would by and by read them. The substance
of his answer was, that the commission being sued out in
November, 1830, and Mr. Thornton and Mr. Winches-
ter chosen assignees, an offer was made by Mr. Young to
purchase the property at '7,5001., but subject to a debt of
4,0001., due to him from Mr. Grant ; that offer was
therefore but 3,5001. A Mr. Westley then came forward,
andoffer offered 9,000/, upon which Mr. Young raised his
to 9,000/. ; but owing to the conduct of Mr.
Briggs, whose object was that Mr. Young should have it
at his offer, Mr. Westley abandoned his offer to purchase.
n came forward a Air. Kinnear, who was wil-
ing to give a large sum of money for it, but
he was prevented by Mr. Winchester and Mr.
Briggs, who dissuaded him by saying the property
was not SO valuable as he expected it was. Mr. Kin-
near had made an affidavit of the circumstances. Then
came the further negotiation between Mr. Young and
Mr. Winchester,
madea n to
not
induceso valuable
anti it appeared that various efforts had
been
11lr
as Was expected. On Thurs.
Thornton to believe that the pro.
perty
day, March 17,
1831,
into between Mr. a conditional agreement was en-
teredno other offer more Young and the assignees, that if
advantageous(the should be made before
the following Saturday 19th March) then Mr. Young
,was to be the purchaser
for 9 000/ That agreement was
most studiously kept a Secret' by 111 r. Briggs. Mr. Bell,
who afterwards offered 13,0001., and with whom an agree-
ment had been entered into by Mr. Lomax, waited on Mr.
Briggs and learnt the particulars of that conditional offer.
A meeting w
for the Saturday. appointed at Mr. Thornton's Banking-house
what had takeany.l Messrs. Bell and Lomax having
3,000i.P place,
heard
then came forward to make a de-
posit of
those
gent, At that meeting Mr. Briggs expressly
stated to
indavnenaen (what was proved to be false by
four or five a
they were too abate
s) that the property was sold—that
evannd that it was sold to Mr. Young ;
in short, they did tbing to prevent the offer being
made. That attempt? however, failed. It was common
Pleated to Mr. Thornton,
11,0001, and
presence Messrs. Lo-
max and Bell °flared 1100
and afterwards 13 000/. and
the property was knocked down ,
to them as it were at the
.atter sum, and that was an absolute agreement. A meet-