The Sun.
London, England, 1835-11-10 00:00:00

CLARKE V. BAINES.

Sir W. FOLLETT stated that this was an action against
the defendant as the proprietor of the Leeds Mercury, to
recover damages for a libel inserted in that journal. The
plaintiff had been in business in London, where he became
a bankrupt, and had not yet obtained his certificate. He
recently set up in business in Manchester, and on his doing
so a paragraph appeared in the Manchester Guardian, cau-
tioning all persons from having any dealings with him. This
paragraph was copied into the defendant's paper, and five
other local journals ; the plaintiff brought actions for libel
against each of them, some in the King's Bench, others in
the Exchequer, and some in the Common Pleas, The one
against the Manchester Guardian was brought in the latter
Court. The defendants pleaded a justification, and called
witnesses on the trial in support of it. The Lord Chief
Justice who tried the cause doubted whether the justifica-
tion had been completely made out as to one point, and
reeted the Jury to find fur the plaintiff, subject to the
opinion of the Court. The Jury found for the plaintiff•;
damages one farthing; and the Learned Judge said be
would certify, in order to deprive the plaintiff of his
costs. The plaintiff had since obtained a rule' nisi to•
enter up that verdict, and which rule was still pending, ; and
he therefore trusted that the Court would give the de-
fendant in this case time to plead until the rule in the other
Court was disposed of.
Mr. Justice LITTLEDALE—Take your rule.

COMMON PLEAS.-MONDAY.

CHANNELL V. CURTIS.

This was an action for libel. It was brought by the
plaintiff' against the defendant for charging him with false
swearing to certain parochial accounts. The plaintiff was
assistant overseer in a parish i❑ Norfolk, and he swore to
the accounts of his superior, which he knew to be correct.
The action was tried at the last assizes, when.the plaintiff
obtaining a verdict. •

Mr. BIGGS ANDREWS showed cause against the rule.
The Court discharged the rule.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.

GUILDHALL.

Alderman ANSLEY sat yesterday at tbe.C(;unter, Gilt-
spur-street, to dispose of the whole of the City charges.
James Moller, a well-dressed fellow, was placed at the
bar, charged with robbing Mr. Arthur Tucker, a cattle-
dealer, of Ashley, Devonshire, during the Civic procession.
The prosecutor, about twelve o'clock, was passing down
.?oultry, when the prisoner came towards him in the
crowded part. Prosecutor had his band in his right
ers pocket, which the prisoner jerked out, and put his
instantly extracting a purse, containing twelve sove-
reiirus. Prosecutor seized him, but he got away.
Richard Cox, residing at Islington, witnessed the tran-

most

rows,

OM

saction.
Joseph King, a city constable, said the thieves were
working in gangs. The prisoner had just separated with
another from a dozen or more. He produced a loaded
whip-handle, which he found under the prisoner's coat,
buttoned up.
he
tlhriaeslefisi,lltyhee°calldrneisttteti
Four prisoneryo not exceeding 14, were
charged with attempting the pockets of the crowd who had
assembled at the Custom House.
They were remanded.
At the close of the business information was received
ung
that a gentleman had been robbed of4o/.

Sart:thrall Southy, a child, not mare
'than 10,
Q UEEIV'S- S Q UA 12 Z
years of r
age,WHITE and BURRELL, the sitting Magistrates, charged
Yesterday ,
was
brought up in custody before Messrs..
with robbing her mistress.
Mrs. Eliza Burrell, of Holland-street, Blackfriars-road
~
stated that some months back, at the solicitation of the
parents,
she took the prisonet• into her service. On Satur-
day she had occasion to leave home for some time, and
on her return she found that the girl had left the house,