The Sun.
London, England, 1835-01-23 00:00:00

VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT.

The VICE. CHANCELLOR was engaged the whole morning
in hearing motions of no public interest.

ROLLS' COURT-THURSDAY.

THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL V. SULLEN.
Mr. PEMBERTON moved that the information filed in
this case might be taken off the file for irregularity, and
that all proceedings might be stayed until a proper person
should be appointed relator. This was a case of extreme
importance, for it would decide whether an information filed
by the King's Attorney-General, under the certificate of
the Charity Commissioners without a relator, was a good
and valid information. There were two grounds on which
the present motion was endeavoured to be supported. The
first was, supposing the Commission to have been in exist-
ence under the certificate of which the Attorney-General
filed the information, had that Learned Officer the power
under the different Acts of Parliament, to file an informa-
tion without a relator ? The second was, that as the autho-
rity of the Commissioners under the Acts of Parliament
ceased prior to the filing of the information, the Attorney-
General could not have any authority under those Acts ?
His Horsoua—Has the Attorney-General, by virtue of
his office, power to file an information without a relator?
Mr. PEMBERTON contended that the Attorney-General
had no such power.
Mr. HALL followed on the same side.
Mr. BicKEasTETH appeared in support of the informa-
tion against the motion. The Charity Commissioners were
bound, in the discharge of their duty, to certify to the
Attorney-General, and when they had done so, then it was
that the Attorney-General was authorized to file an infor-
mation. The certificate under which the present informa-
tion was filed was dated when the last Act was in force.
The Commissioners consequently had authority under that
Act. It might happen that the Attorney-General had an
inherent power to file an information without a relator.
His Learned Friends had vainly endeavoured to prove the
converse of this proposition. The real question was, had
the Attorney-General a right to file an information without
a relator ? To this question he should find an answer from
Lord Eldon. That Learned Judge, in the Bedford case,
had said, " There is no doubt, though relators are com-
monly required for the purpose of sustaining costs, the
Attorney-General may, if he pleases, proceed without a
relator." On this dictum, which had been partly confirmed
by the late Master of the Rolls, Sir John Leach, in the
case of the Attorney-General v. the Earl of Ashburnham,
he would rely.
His lloNourt said, it seems to me in one part of this
ease Lord Eldon entertains an opinion decidedly opposite
to that of Lord Redesdale. It behoves me, therefore, to
'- into the cases referred to, which seem to raise a pro-
I and every body else have never doubted.

p0810.9r..!

KING'S BENCH.-THURSDAY.

THE ICING V. FORD AND OTHERS.

These clefenchints, who were convicted at the sittings
after last Term, of resisting payinent of the assessed taxes,
and assaulting an officer named Scattergood, in the execu-
tion of his duty, were brought up to receive the judgment
bf the Court.
Lord D6iiiiß said that, the Court was of opinion that
no rule for arresting the judgment, br for a new.trial, ought
to be granted in this case.
Sir JOHN CAMPBELL having moved that the judgment
of the Court be passed upon the defendants,
Mr. HUMPHREY put in two affidavits on the part of the
defendants, expressing contrition for their conduct, and
stating that they had large families dependent upon them
for support.
Sir JoHt4 fILL did not wish to press for any severe
judgment. on the defendants, and if they were willing to
make the prosecutor, who had been severely beaten by
them, a compensation for the injury he had sustained, he
(Sir John Campbell) would, with the permission of the
Court, consent to their being discharged on their own
recognizances.
The COURT would allow the defendants to enter into the
arrangement proposed, and if they did not they would be
severely punished.
At. the close of the day the parties bad not agreed upon
the terms, and the case stood over till Monday.
THE KING V. SINCLAIR.
This was one of the many indictments arising out of the
disputes relating to the Swinton estdtes. The defendant
had been convicted of a riot and assault.
The COURT recommended that this case should be ter-
minated by an arrangement.
The parties withdrew, but could not agree upon terms.
Mr. DUNBAR addressed the Court in mitigation ; and
Sir J. CAMPBELL and Mr. STEER in aggravation of
punishment.
Mr. Justice LITTLEDALE pronounced the sentence of
the Ceurt, that the defendant should be imprisoned in the
custody of tile Margbal of the Alarshalsea for the space of
one calendar month ; and further, till he had entered into
his own recognizances in the sum of 100/. to keep the
peace for two years.

•
Tilt ICING V. CHARLES WRIGHT.
This defendant was called on, and not appearing, his re•
cognizances were ordered to be estreatedi

THE KING V. ROBISON, ESQ.
Tll2ll Wall an indictment against the defendant for pub-
lishing a libel on Lieutenant-Governor Darling, of New
South Wales, respecting thatrperson's conduct with respect
to two soldiers named Sudds and Thompson. An affidavit
of Elio defendant was put in justifying the truth of the libel.
The ATTUNtY=GENERAI. asked for time to answer the
affidavit.
Mr. ERLE, on behalf of the defendant, objected to this.
Lord DENMAN said that, supposing the prosecutor had
been called al a"iyitness, and that an inquiry into the cir-
cumstances has been entered into, he should not have per-
mitted it to be carried forward. The Court thought that
time should be granted. .
Time was granted, and the Attorney-General was to
mention the case upon another clay thig Tcrm.

THE KING ON THE PROSECUTION OF CORNELIUS DEACON

V. THE BISHOP OF WINCHESTER AND OTHERS.
Sir J. CAMPBELL moved that the certiorari granted
in this case at the instance of the defendant might he
quashed, and a precedendo issued, and likewise that
the trial of the case might take place in Middlesex
or London. This was an indictment againit these
defendants for a riot and assault, which consisted of
the act of turning Mr. Deacon out of a chapel of which
he was the minister. The learned Counsel urged that
it would be absolutely indecent for the Bishop to be tried
by a jury of persons over whom he had high spiritual con-
troul, and all of whom resided within his diocese. The Bi-
shop must be tried by his peers, and his peers were com-
moners, over whom he presided as a diocesan. He ought
not to be tried by a jury so composed. The prosecutor be-
sides desired that this case might be tried in Middlesex or
London, as be deposed in his affidavit that from the great
connections of the Bishop and of the other defendants (one
of them being the son of the Lord Lieutenant of the county)
he was not likely to have a fair trial in Surrey.
The Court granted the rule.
STRACHAN V. THE DUKE OF WELLINGTON.
This was an action brought nominally against the Duke
of Wellington as High Constable of Dover, but in fact
against one of his deputy officers, for negligence in not ar-
resting a person named M'Dermott, against whom the
plaintiff had obtained a writ of execution for the sum of
261. A. writ of execution issued against M'Dermott was
forwarded:by the plaintiff's attorney to his agent at Dover,
on which a warrant was subsequently obtained, and en-
trusted to the hands of Sell, one of the defendant's officers,
with a notice that the defendant in the action (M'Der-
mott) was a very shy bird, but that he might be found at
Broadstairs, and that on the officer applying to a Mr.
Wood, a resident there, he would learn where M'Dermott
was to be met with. Sell gave the warrant to his son, who
did not take any steps to arrest M'Dermott until the day
before the return of the writ, and in the meantime the bird
had flown. The plaintiff complained that in consequence
of this neglect he had lost his debt, the amount of which
he sought to recover by the present action.
The Jury found for the plaintiff—Damages 26/.
The trial lasted two days, and on the first day the Court
was excessively crowded, it being supposed from the name
of the defendant that the cause was one of great public
interest.

COMMON PLEAS.-TIIURSDAY.

CHALMERS V. BYRNE AND PAYNE

Mr. STAMMERS was instructed to appear in the present
ease on behalf of the plaintiff, Mr. Peter Charles Chalmers,
a gentleman of Scotch extraction, who for a considerable
time previous to the unfortunate events which gave rise to
the action now about to be decided had carried on an ex-
tensive business in Lower Thames-street as a provision and
shipping dealer, and also had acted in the capacity of Lon-
don agent to a Mr. Cohu, an extensive miller at Guernsey.
The action had been originally brought against two indivi-
duals, Nicholas Byrne, described in the declaration as pro-
prietor and printer of the Morning Post newspaper, and
Thomas Payne, whose name appeared attached to that
paper as its publisher. Since, however, the commence-
ment of the action one (Mr. N. Byrne) had died, and con-
sequently Thomas Payne, whom, as publisher, the law
made responsible for any libel that might appear in the
paper, became in point of fact the sole defendant.
About the commencement of 1832 the plaintiff Chalmers
received in the ordinary course of business a bill of ex-
change, purporting to bear the acceptance of an individual
named Whiteman Freeman, a Captain of a vessel trading
to the port of London. The la was given to the plaintiff
by Captain Freeman in liquidation of an account for bis-
cuits supplied to his vessel ; and shortly after he received
it he, the plaintiff, endorsed it over to Mr. Cohu, of
Guernsey. When it became due it appeared Captain
Freeman was not in the country, and no provision having
been made for its payment, it was in the ordinary way pro-
tested. On Captain Freeman's return it was prosented to
him, and, after some delay and demur on his part as to its
payment, to the consternation and surprise of his client it was
asserted that the captain's name had been forged, and at the
same time insinuated that Chalmers was privy to the forgery.
On this monstrous charge being made his client lost no time
in demanding its investigation. He appeared in person at the
Mansion-House, and brought forward all the evidence he
could on the moment muster to disprove the assertion of
Captain Freeman. Circumstances, however, were unfavour-
able to him, and the consequence was, the Lord Mayor felt
called upon to hold him to bail to appear and take his trial
at the Old Bailey during the ensuing May Sessions. On
the day appointed Mr. Chalmers made his appearance in
Court in discharge of his bail, and having being put upon
his trial at a late hour of the night, a verdict was returned
declaring him, not only to his own astonishment and con-
sternation, but to the astonishment and consternation of
every one present in the Court, guilty of the crime laid to
his charge. On the 12th of January, 1833, the lapse of
time between May, 1832, and January, 1833, being fully
accounted for by the circumstance that objections had been
taken to the terms of the indictment, which the Recorder,
after giving them every attention in his power, had deemed
necessary to be referred to the decision of the twelve judges,
his Majesty's free pardon was accorded to him, and he
walked out of prison a renewed, regenerated, and untainted
freeman. Objections had been taken to the indictment,
but the Jury were not to suppose that it was in consequence
of those objections his Majesty's pardon had been granted
to him. The pardon he received was entirely attributable
to the patience and perseverance of the Noble Lord who at
the time filled the office of Principal Secretary for the
Home Department. Immediately on the application being
made by his client it met with investigation, and the result
of that investigation was that justice was done to Mr.
Chalmers, aria instead of his leaving the country as a con-
victed felon (capital punishments in cases of forgery having
been abolished shortly after the trial in May, 1832) he was
permitted to leave prison without a stain upon his charac-
ter. At the period of these transactions his client, from the
mere circumstance of hii having received a pardon from
a Government to which a portion of the press was politi-
cally opposed, became the butt of its rancorous misrepre-
sentation and malicious hostility. Scarcely had he been
two weeks restored to his home and his family when there
appeared against him in the Morning Post one of the most
base, one of the most false, one of the most atrocious, one
of the most accumulated libels ever fulminated against any
individual, by the most degraded press of the most de-
graded country. It appeared in the Morning Post of the
28th of January, 1833, and the writer, ed►tor, or other
person who penned it, not content with the false and ca-

lumnious :Enders it contained, had added to its effect by
placing it, not in some obscure corner or interstice, but
among the leading articles of the day, and adorning it with
the following title, printed 'n large and attractive letters:
Motives for the Extension of Royal Clemency." The
first part of the libel the Jury would perceive was extracted
from the John Bull, and the second contained the com
ments of the Morning Post upon that extract.--(1"
Stammers here road the alleged libel.) Such was the sub-
stance of the libel of which his client complained.
The publication of the alleged libel in the Morning Post
the liability of the defendant Thomas Paine, as publisher
of the paper, and the grant of his Majesty's free pardon
having been admitted by the defendant's counsel, the plain-
tiff's case closed.
Mr. ADOLPHUS, on the part of the defendant, said the
plaintiff bad a fair trial—he was found guilty of the charge
brought against him ; points were reserved, they were re-
ferred to the Judges, the Judges saw nothing in them, and
sentence of transportation for life was passed. The Go-
vernment subsequently, on grounds not stated, saw some
reasons for the exercise of the Royal prerogative of mercy.
He was pardoned, and it well became him now to come
forward and say that. he was an innocent man, and to ask a
Jury of his countrymen to confirm his declaration by
awarding damages for supposed injury to his character.
The article in the John Bull was merely copied into the
Morning Post. In the Morning Post, however, it was not
put forward in a conspicuous manner to excite greater
attention ; it was merely copied, as was the common pro,
tice, as an article of news from another paper. It did not
appear as a leading article, so as the more effectually to call
attention to it. Nothing more was done than to quote the
article, without observation or commeut of any kind, ae
much as to say, Here it is, true or false ;" we say, here it
iv, and judge for yourselves.
The Jury, after deliberating some time, requested to be
informed by the Court whether a farthing damages would
early costs ?
The Learned Judge replied that a farthing damagEe
would carry costs unless he certified to the contrary.
The Jury again consulted together for some time, and
eventually found a verdict for the plaintiff—Damages, One

Farthing.
Mr. ADOLPHUS hoped the Learned Judge would bail
no objection to certify.
Mr. Justice GAZELEE, however, refused to certify, olr
serving that ag the plaintiff had conducted his case without
the aid of an attesey, the costs would he but trivial.

-_,..
EXCHEQUER COURT.-THURSDAY.

THE KING V. LORD BROUGHAM.
Mr. LEE moved for a rule to show cause why an attach*
ment should not issue against Lord Brougham, for neglect"
ing to attend as a witness in the case of Dicas v. Lawsouf
pursuant to a subpoena. He made this motion on the Ali'
davits of Mr. Dicas and others, in which it was stated that
the above cause was entered for trial for the sittings after
Michaelmas Term last, at Guildh4ll; that on the 19th of
November, a writ of subpoena was served on Lord
Brougham, at his house in Stanhope-street, May-fair, to
;attend as a witness in the said cause, when Lord Broughate
told the officer who served it, that if Mr. Dicas brought hit°
to town, he would make him pay his expenses ; that in cow
sequence of his Lordship's observations, Mr. Dicas wrote.
him a letter, saying that he had directed the sum necessari
for paying his expenses to be paid to him, which was the
same as was paid to Lord Eldon for coming a greater die'
tanee ; that, on the 19th of December, Thomas Moseli
left another letter at his Lordship's residence in Stanhope'
street, stating that the cause was set down for trial on the
23d of December, and also left five shilling, as his neeessurl
expenses ; that the cause was tried on the 23d of Dece°
ber, before Baron Parke, at Guildhall, when Lord Brougbar°
was called to give evidence, but did not appear ; that 13.15
Lordship was a material and necessary witness.
Lord ABINGER—Your affidavit does not state the nature
of the evidence which Lord Brougham was to give, so that
the Court might judge whether it was material or not.
Mr. LEE—It is not usual in applications of this kind t°
state more than that the party was a necessary and materiel
witness.
Mr. Baron Paula—lt was admitted at the trial that
the object of the summoning Lord Brougham was t°
prove that Mr. Dicas was the person to whom the public,"
tions referred.
Mr. LEE—One of the publications was a letter 4144
A Lawyer," which stated that Mr. Dicas had written a
begging letter to Lord Brougham to extort money foci
Lim. Therefore it was desirous to have Lord Brouglia°
examined as to that fact, and also to produce the letters. j,
Lord ABINGER—There was no justification pleadeua
therefore such evidence was unnecessary ; probably Ler,
Brougham was aware of that fact. The Court will De:
grant an attachment unless they have reason to know thay
there was a contempt of Court. You may have an actioe
against Lord Brougham for not attending. rt
Mr. LEE—There is no difference in the eye of the %Au
between Lord Brougham and another witness.
Lord ABlNGER—Certainly not.
Mr. LEE—AII that is usual in motions of this kind is t°
state that the party was a material and a necessary vritnes_At;'
The Attorney-General, in his address to the jury, obserTA
that no person had been put into the box to prove that tu.
_ _

libels referred to Mr. Picas. • he
Mr. Baron PARKE—That was not a point put to t'"l
jury. The Attorney-General's speech went on the grounu
that the publication was not libellous. If it had not beet;
proved that Mr. Picas was the person referred to, I shout'
have nonsuited him.
Lord ABINGER—I agree that the affidavit in general
_dig
sufficient, but the distinction between this and other casv'
is, that the subject of this action was before the Court
a former day, whereby we were put in possession of 0,1
facts by Counsel, and knowing the facts, we feel satisfie•
that Lord Brougham was not a necessary witness. 11°4

then, can we grant an attachment ?
Mr. LLB—i;," is immaterial whether he was a necessl
witness or not ; as he did not attend, he has been guilt:, as
a contempt of Court. It is for him to show that be ha
not been guilty of such contempt.
Lord ABlNGER—Subpoenas are sometimes served ill
the purpose of annoyance and vexation:, and an attacbraeat
may be sued out for the same purpose. When the Cou,
know the facts, they are able to decide whether it i 6
contempt of Court or not—Rule refused.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.