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

LONDON, FRIDAY EVENING, JUNE 1., 183.2.

but the said Thomas Briggs having started various
jections, it was eventually proposed to refer the nutter 't
the Counsel of the respective parties, and the Wednesda
following was appointed to conclude the agreement fe
sa'e, the said Thomas Briggs stating that his clerk won;
sttend to the matter, as he was about leaving London fe
York. And this deponent further saith, that on the Wed
nesdav following such meeting as aforesaid, the said Jilt
Bell and James Samuel Lom-ix, with their professions
adviser, and two other persons, attended at his (deponent's
banking-house to complete the said purchase, hut neither
the said Thomas Briggs nor the clerk of the said Thoma
Briggs attended such meeting. And on deponent observir,
to the said parties that an objection had been raised to tin
hills of the said John Bell and James Samuel Lomax, tht
said James Samuel Lomax offered to pay down the sum it
10,0001. in full for the purchase of the said shares, which
deponent refused to accede to, believing the previous off,
of the said James Samuel Lomax of the sum of 3,000/
down, 3,0001. in fourteen days, and the remaining 7,000/.
in bills, without assigning the property, as agreed to
bi
Mr. Lomax, till such bills were paid, better than on')
10,0001 down. And the said deponent further saith, that
in consequence of the said Thomas Briggs or the clerk of
the said Thomas Briggs not attending such meeting, the
said agreement was not completed, and the said parties
went away, the said James Samuel Lomax having pre-
viously deposited in the banking-house of this depo-
nent and his partners the sum of 3 0001. which he
brought with him. And this deponent further saith,
that after such last-mentioned meeting, the said Murdo
Young called upon this deponent, requested hint to sell to
him the said tsbariss, and proposed to this deponent, if he
would do so, he would allow to the wife and family of the
said Patrick. Grant the sum of 2001. a year beyond the
said sum of 9,000/. so offered by him in manner aforesaid,
which deponent immediately declined. And this deponent
further saith, thst he was so dissatisfied with the part
which the said Thomas Briggs had taken, in urging the
sale of the piper at a sum which deponent considered be-
neath its value, that this deponent thought it advisable
henceforward, and did from that period, consult his own
solicitor on all matters relating to the said estate; and the
said Murdo Young having filed a bill in the Court of
Chancery against this deponent and his said co-assignee,
claiming a right of pre-emption under this deed of co-
partnership with the said Patrick Grant, and also claiming
a specific prformance of an agreement for sale to him,
grounding such sale upon the deed which the said Thomas
Briggs hail prepared as aforesaid, he, this deponent, under
the advice of his said solicitor, joined in convening a meet-
ing of the creditors of the said Patrick Grant, to take
place on the 23rd day of April, 1831, as set forth in the
affidavit of the said Henry Winchester and Thomas
Briggs, and at such meeting the said Thomas Briggs
opened the proceedings by reading an advertisement, and
then a case which he hail submitted to Mr. 'Montagu, with
the opinion of the said Mr. Montagu thereon ; and the said
Thomas Briggs having stated in such case that the said
shares hail been actually sold to the said Murdo Young,
and the said Mr. Montagu having, as it appeared to de-
ponent, rested his opinion upon a mis-statement of facts,
be, this deponent, did declare at such meeting, that the
facts hid been untruly represented to the said Mr. Mon-
tagu, and that his opinion was founded in error. And
this deponent further saith, that the said Henry Winches-
ter having stated at such meeting with reference to bills
being given by the said John 13,11 and James Simnel Lo-
max, that he would take no man's bills for 6,000/. a per-
son present then offered on the part of James Samuel
Lomax, the sum of 10,0001. down in full, which this de-
ponent (considering the said shares of more value) could
not accede to ; and thereupon the said John Bell and James
Samuel Lomax, having waved their right to the said sale
in favour of a Mr. Hickman, who was present at the said
meeting, the said Mr. Hickman offered the sum of 13,0001.
down, if be should agree with this deponent and his co-
assignee. And this deponent further saith, that at a sub-
sequent interview with the said Mr. Hickman, he, the said
William Hickman, renewed his said offer of 13,0001. pro-
vided a peaceable and quiet possession were given, the said
Murdo Young having threatened him with personal vio-
lence if he the said William Hickman should attempt to
take possession; and it appearing that such possession
could not be given, the said William Hickman declined
giving 13,000/. And this deponent further said), that
with a view to avoid further personal responsibility, he
instructed his said solicitor to prepare and file a bill in the
Court of Chancery in his (this deponent's) own name;
but the said Thomas Btiggs having consented to the said
Henry Winchester'. joining in such suit, be, this deponent,
allowed the said Thomas Briggs to conduct the same."
The Learned Counsel concluded his address by stating
that he was extremely sorry to have occupied so much of
their Lordships' time, but it was of the last importance
to his client. He had now again established himself; and
the present was an attempt utterly to ruin him. He
trusted their Lordships would be of opinion that he had

suffered enough already in being deprived of his certificate i
for twelve months, for the purpose of accomplishing the
fulfilment of this scheme. He trusted their Lordships
would think, altho' he admitted it was not possible to ap-
prove
of the present publication, that it admitted of con-
siderable excuse, considering the extreme ill usage which
Mr. Grant had met wish.
Mr. PoLaocK was on the same side, and would address
their Lordships very shortly, inasmuch as his Learned
Friend Mr. Campbell had put the Court in possessio❑ of
all the material facts of the case. It distinctly appeared,
upon comparing the affidavits on both sides, that beyond
all doubt a very considerable proportion of what had been
alleged against Messrs. Winchester and Briggs turned
out to be true in point of fact, and with respect to
the residue, it mattered not to him whether it was
made our, it not being incumbent upon him to
prove all the minute particulars of the case. He took
it to be quite enough, in order to answer an applica-
tion of the present description, to show that the party
making the imputation had sufficient grounds for so doing,
and that he had proceeded upon circumstances and facts
which would have led the most candid and unprejudiced
mind to come to the same conclusion. The gentleman
against whom the present application was chiefly directed
was Mr. Grant, who appeared to be the principal pro-
prietor of a paper of very considerable funds—far snore
than sufficient to pay all the debts against him, for if
13,0001. would have been given for three-fourths of the
paper, under the very disadvantageous, he might almost
say hostile circumstances with respect to one of the as-
signees, arid the proprietor of the remaining fourth,
who was the Editor, and had long acted as
sole proprietor—it was not too much to say
if Mr. Grant could have conducted that paper himself,
he would have realized a large property for his creditors,
his family, anti himself, probably more than double the
amount of his shares ; yet that was the property which
Mr. Brigg• and Mr. Alderman Winchester were about to
sell for a sum of 7,500/. 4,0001. of which was to be al-
lowed for a claim on the part of Mr. Young, which no
person could tell the accuracy of, and which no person was
to examine into. Only one•quarter of the residue was to
be paid down, and the remainder was to be p iid in Mr.
Young's hills. Such was the arrangement listened and
agreed to by Mr. Alderman Winchester, who was after-
wards fastidious enough to refuse any man's bills when,
the same property was about to be sold for thirteen
thousand pounds. It was not immaterial to remark,
that Mr. Briggs and Mr. Winchester being possessed,
by the publication of the libels, of the whole grounds of com-
plaint, of all that had passed at the different meetings of the
creditors being brought before them, it was rather extra-
ordinary that no person should have been called upon to
make an affidavit except Mr. Briggs for himself and Mr.
Alderman Winchester for himself. Not a single
party, not a single creditor had made an affidavit
in praise of the conduct which had been pursued
by them, or avowed any confidence in them,
or approved of what they did. No one makes a
single affidavit, but Mr. Briggs and Mr. Alder-
man Winchester come forward and, upon their own affi-
davits alone, endeavour to exculpate themselves from
all private motives. They are not joined by a
single person who was present at any of the meet-
ings, or by any creditor who had watched the transac•
tions from the beginning to the end. On the con-
trary, we have creditors making affidavits, and stating
that at first they entertained a good opinion of Messrs.
Briggs and Winchester, but ultimately discovering how
they had acted, they had come to' the resolution
that Mr. Grant deserved their thanks ; but that tc
Mr. Briggs and Mr. Winchester tl;ey owed no-
thing. Now Mr. Young, the person who was
alleged to be at the bottom of all this, made no com-
plaint : he was alleged to be the chief actor in the scheme,
yet he made no affidavit, he did not even state whether
he concurred in the facts stated, nor did be complain of
them. He (Mr. P.) admitted that there were affidavits en

both sides; on the one hand there were the affidavits of Al
Alderman Winchester and Mr. Briggs, who came lief() •
the Court for the purpose of complaining of a charge;
she other there was a host of affidavits to rebut the
charge. He (Mr. P.) avowed what that charge was,
was undoubtedly an imputation on them that they had
been engaged and active parties in a scheme to sell a mo.,
valu ible property at a small price, to the injury of tlo
creditors, but to the will greater injury of Mr. Grant
and it was quite sufficient for him if he showed. tha:
Mr. Grant made that charge in truth, though not in
temper. If he showed that the parties making such
complaint would go away having their rule discharged •
with costs—excluding their own affidavits—i.
Messrs. Winchester and Briggs were now upon tiled
trial for a conspiracy to part with the property from some
corrupt motive—if they were upon their trial before
Jury sworn to say whether they had not joined in a
scheme to get rid of the paper—could any one doubt that
with such facts before them, they would dsclare them guilty,
though they might not be criminal ? But what were the
facts ? Could there he any doubt that the agreement for tla.
sale of the paper to Mr. Young for 7,500/. was only not
completed in consequence of the extraordinary efforts of
Mr. Grant, and the honest and independent conduct of Mr
Thornton ? Had it not been for his exertions, a valuable
property would most likely have been sold to Mr. Young
for 7,5001. Through his great exertions much greater
offers had been made, and one gentleman of fortune
and expectations, having offered largely for the property, was
taunted with his name of Kinnear, as if he was not as
worthy, as wealthy, and as highly rt spe table a man as
the pssty ao whom the assignee and tl:e an!icitor wished to
sell the property, or the assignee and solicitor themselves.
That gentleman was not the only person who was pre-
vented from coming forward, but there were others,
all of whom were deterred from offering to purchase
the property, in consequence of every impediment being
thrown in the way by the very parties making the com-
plaint, to prevent its going into the market. What, he
would ask, must be the opinion of all honest men, of the
conduct of Alderman Winchester, who, together with his
solicitor, when parties were ready to bid for the property,
in the face of the co -assignee stated that the property was
conditionally sold ?
The Loan Gime JUSTICE—They all say the word
conditional was not mentioned.
Mr. Ponnocx—They all say you arc too late, the pro-
perty his been sold, and what, he would ask, was to be in-
ferred from that? The assignment was ready, cut and
dried, and in five minutes the property would have been
delivered to Mr. Young, but for the exertions of Mr.
Thornton and Mr. Grant. Mr. Grant had not obtained
from his property that fruit which be had a right to
expect, and in consequence of the course which had been
pursued, Mr. Thornton thought it right to withdraw him-
self from his association with his co-assignee. What had
been since done ? Mr. Grant had set up another
newspaper, which lie never would have thought
of but for the manner in which he had been treated,
in which he endeavoured, and justly so, to identify
himself as the person who was the real proprietor
of the other Sun ; and the question with their Lord-
ships was not so much whether Mr. Grant, in the
language he bad used, had spoken in appropriate terms,
but whether those terms were not excusable—whether the
comments in which hs had indulged, were indulged in under
circumstances, not merely calculated to justify them, but
which any person desirous of finding an excuse for the
conduct of Mr. Alderman Winchester could not com-
plain of. The very utmost that could be stated in
favour of the gentleman who was the solicitor
for Mr. Alderman Winchester was, that he might
have been made a dupe and a tool of; it might
he that Mr. Young had used Briggs as his tool, and it
might be that in consequence of that he had drawn Mr.
Alderman Winchester into transactions, the consequences
of which lie did not foresee ; that might be so, but upon
whom were these consequences to fall ? He (Mr. P.) knew
what the Lord Chief Justice would have stated if the
case had lssen before a jury—that every man must bear
the consequence of his own acts, and if a man choose to
place himself in a situation of suspicion, be must abide by
the consequences. Wish these remarks, he would leave
the case in the hands of their Lordships, confident that the
present rule would be dismissed with coats.
Mr. KELLY rose to address the Court, but was inter-
rupted by
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE, who observed that the
Court would hear him on another day, if necessary.
The further arguments were then ordered to stand over
to Thursday.

THURSDAY, MAY, 31.

The further bearing of the case was resumed this day.
Sir J. SCARLETT begged to trouble their Lordships
with a motion connected with a case in the peremptory
paper, that of a motion against Mr. Patrick Grant. His
application was not a very usual one ; but it was not with-
out precedent, and it was made in consequence of several
unquestioned mistakes made, he believed, without any
design ; but which might tend to mislead the judgment
of the Court. Without referring to what those mistakes
were, he begged to be permitted to introduce an additional
affidavit, giving his Learned Friends sufficient time to
answer it it they wished. The affidavit contained a letter
from Mr. Thornton, who had male an affidavit on the
other side—a letter from Mr. Bell, who had made an affi-
davit on the other side—and a letter from Mr. Grant, against
whom the motion was made. These he wished to introduce in
the cause. He would not now state their contents, but they
had an immediate reference to the motion. The affidavit
was made lay Mr. Young, who had not made one before,
and indeed had not been consulted upon the subject. In
consequence of the mistakes which had been made, he was
desirous that those errors should not influence their Lord-
ships. He had the best reason for knowing that one was
at least a mistake, as he had it under the hand of Mr.
Searle himself. It had been stated that a copy of an
agreement had been returned to him by Mr. Briggs.
Now be had the original in Court, and no copy or the
original had ever been returned by Mr. Briggs, nor did Mr.
Briggs ever say it had, to Mr. Searle. Mr. Searle was so
satisfied that it was a mistake, that he had written to Mr-
Briggs to say s,r. The copy which was returned to Mr.
Searle was the one that bad been sent to Messrs. Alliston
and Lock, on behalf of Mr. Thornton, and by him sent to
Mr. Sc trle. Mr. Briggs had not returned his copy at all.
Whatever the merits of the case were—and the Learned
Counsel assured their Lordships that they had not yet heard
them—it was desirable that their decision should not be
influenced by any mistakes.
Mr. CAMPBELL opposed the motion. The case had
already been gone into, and while it was pending, and
contrary to all rule, as well as being a moat inconvenient
step, this application was made to file an additional
affidavit. With respect to the mistake about the copy
of the agreement, he admitted that there had been a
mistake, but it would be found not to vary the merits of
the case.

Lord TENTERDEN, after conferring with the other
JuNes, said, they could not grant the application without
establishing a most inconvenient precedent. The motion
was therefore refused.

The following are copies of the letters referred to by
Sir James Scarlett, to show that the charge made use of
on the first day of the agreement, that the copy of the
agreement returned by Mr. Briggs to Mr. Searle was
untrue :

(COPY.)—THE KING V. GRANT.
" .SIR,—Having made two copies of the agreement in
question, one for you anti the other for Messrs. Alliston
and Co., Mr. Thornton's solicitors, I have reason to be-
lieve that the one annexed to my affidavit in the above was
returned me by Messrs. Alliston and Co., and not by you.
" I regret that the error should have arisen, but having
written to you on the 31st March to return me the draft,
and finding it indorsed, returned by you on that day, will,
I trust, after such a lapse of time, account for my falling
into the error.
" I have handed Mr. Grant's attorney a copy of this
letter. " I remain your's obediently,
" J. SEARLE.

" Fetter-lane; Fleet-street, May 30, 1832."
" Mr. Briggs."

" Freeman's-court, May 30, 1832.
" DEAR SIR,—We find by our books that we borrowed
a copy of the proposed agreement for the three-fourths of
The Sun newspaper from Mr. Searle on the 23d March,
1831, of which we took a copy, and returned the original
to Mr. Searle about the same period.
" We are, dear Sir, your's faithfully,
" ALLISTON, LOCK, SMITH, and ALLISTON."
Several motions, but none of any moment, were then
disposed 'ed of, after which the case of the King v. Grant
and others, as standing first on the peremptory paper, was
called on.
Mr. KELLY rose to fellow Mr. COMIELL and