The Sun.
London, England, 1832-05-03 00:00:00

EX £A-RTE JAMES ADAMSON, CENT.

Mr. ALEXANDE[ morel the Court for a rule nisi for
filing a criu:inal information against James Thompson, pro-
prietor and editor of the Satirist newspaper, and against
a person of the name of Byrne, for the publication in that
paper of a false and malicious libel on Mr. James Adam-
son, an attorney of this Court. Byrne bad purchased, or
proposed to purchase, a lease of a Chancery house, in Ely.
place, from Mr. Adamson, and the terms mentioned were,
that the money, 251., should be pail down, or by bid at
two months. Mr. Byrne wanted more favourable terms,
arid his wife called on Mr. Adamson in order to endeavour
to procure more favourable terms, but to this Mr. Adam-
son refused to consent. Byrne then assaulted Mr. Adam-
sen, for which he was taken before a magistrate and
fined 51. Byrne arterwards had Mr. Adamson taken
before the magistrates at Bow-street, and there charged
him with having committed an assault on his (Byrne's)
wife. Now, in the Satirist of the 13th April 1 ist, a
letter was published in reference to these tran.actions,
which he bad mentioned in order to ley, the foundation for
th, application against Byrne. The libel appeared in the
shape of a letter addressed to the editor, which began by
complimenting him on his zeal in the exposure of the vil-
lenies of the limbs of the law, and then went on to state
the circumstances respecting the purchase of the lease,
and added, that when the writer's wife went to call
on Mr. Adamson on the business, the amorous spark
endeavoured to seduce her, and offered to give up to her
the 23/. if she would yield to his wishes—that he proposed
to her to elope with him, and that he laid ho'd of and for-
cibly held l.er hand for some time, till she at length broke
away from him an] inferined her husband of what bad
passed ; and the writer added, that it was an aggravation
of this conduct, that the wife was within two months of
her confinement, and that Mr. Adamson himself at time
time had a wife lying dead in the country. This was in
allusion to some statements in the polic., Reports in the
Newspapers of what took place b.:fore the Magistrate,
which reports the applicant represented as garbled and in-
accurate. The letter was signed " Dedasculus ;" but he
submitted that there was sufficient reason to suppose that
Byrne was the a titer. The writer asked the editor's ad-
vice as to what he should do in this ease, as he was nnwil-.
ling to incur the expense of resorting to legal proceedings,
or subjecting himself to legal proceedings by thrashing the
applicant within an inch of his life, and the editor advised
hint to take the applicant before the Magistrate, which
Byrne had done.
Mr. Adamson decidedly denied the truth of this ivory
about an assault on the wife ; and he submitted that the
publication of such an imputation on any one, and rope-
cial'y on an officer of this Court, was sufficient to warrant
the interposition of their Lordships.
Lord 'f ENTERDEN—Take your rule as to Thomson, but
we do not think tke letter sufficiently brought home to Bp ne.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, MAY 2.

DIGBY, BART. V. HUMPHREYS.

The deferidatit, Alexander Hutnphreyt, is the person
claiming the earldom of Stirling, and the right to confer
the title and privileges Of " Baronet of Nova Scotia," under
a patent granted by King Charles in 1628, to Sir W.
Ahxander, the first Earl of Stirling. The plaintiff, Ad-
miral Sir Henry Dighy, having assisted the defendant with
money to support bis c'xm, commenced an action in this
Court to recover the debt. In answer to the declaration
the defendant put in a plea, setting forth the grounds on
which he rested his claim to the earldom of Stilling, to
show that he was not brought before the Court by ha true
designation. To this plea the plaintiff demurred, that it
was not enough for the defendant to object argumentatively
to the name by which be was described in the declaration ;
but that to substantiate his plea, it was necessary th it he
should positively aver that he was the Earl of Stirling.
The Court decided in favour of the demurrer, consider-
ing the defendant to be sufficiently designated in the decla-
ration as Alexander Humphreys.