The Sun.
London, England, 1835-04-27 00:00:00

ANDREW' S V. WALTON.

....,.. .
Mr. Andrews, who came up by habeas corpus from the
Fleet Prison; where he bad been committed for non-pay-
ment of the costs of his bill dismissed, was beard, at consi-
derable length it, support of his right to move .fOr the dis-
charge of the attachment under which he was committed.
Mr. J. RUSSELL objected to his being heard until he first
paid the costs of a motion made before Lord Chancellor
Brougham, and refused by him with costs. The same mo-
tion was made by way of appeal before Lord Lyndhurst,
who also refused it, and told Mr. Andrews he could not be
heard until he paid the costs of the first motion.
Mr. Andrews replied that the late Lord Chancellor re-
fused his motion under a misrepresentation of the facts. He
had now an atEclav:t to set the facts right.
The FIRST LORD COMMISSIONER said the rule of the
Court was that a person could not make an appeal motion
without paying the costs of the first motion, if costs had
been ordered. If that rule was not adhered to, there would
be no end of motions in appeal.
The Registrar called over the following causes, set down
for re-hearing on appeal, and no person appearing to show
cause why they should not be struck out of the paper they
were accordingly struck out, viz.:—Attorney-General v.
Dixie ; Barnes v. Moseley ; Robinson v. Mendick ; Gordon
v. Marquis of Hertford ; Thorpe v. Macauley ; Attorney-
General v. Corporation cf Manchester ; and Henry v.
Thomas.

The COURT afterwards proceeded to hear motions up to
its rising, at a quarter to four o'clock. The cases involved
points of practice which were not of any public interest.

BAIL COURT.

Mr. Justice WILLIAMS sat in this Court for the purpose
of hearing motions.

BARING AND OTHERS V. LADY FORD.-THE SAME V.

LADY ANSON.

Mr. 'WATSON applied to the Court for a rule, calling
upon the defendant's attorney to show cause why he should
not plead to the declaration in these causes. The writs were,
issued on the 28th of March, and the attorney, accepted
service of them on the 31st, but had not since pleaded to
the action or taken any further proceedings.
The COURT granted a rule to show cause.
MITCHELL U. HASELHAM.

Mr. PLATT stated that the plaintiff sought to recover
damages from the defendant for a trespass in taking illegal
possession of his lodgings and furniture, under a warrant
for alleged rent due when he had been two days in posses-
sion of the lodging, and by such illegal conduct compelling
his wife to quit the apartments. The person in possession
at length finding out his error withdrew, after remaining
there two days. The most extrordinary part of the case,
said the Learned Counsel is, that the defendant had not
pleaded to the action, so that there was no defence.
It however appeared that the defendant was not unmind-
ful of his interests, for he immediately presented himself to
the notice of the Judge.
George Edwards was then called on the part of the plain-
tiff, to prove his case. He stated that, on the 26th De-
cember, 1833, he was sent for by the plaintiff to his apart-
ments in John-street, Clerkenwell, where he found a man
in possession. He demanded his warrant, which was shown
to him. He then went to the defendant's house, who is a
broker in Jerusalem-passage, Clerkenwell, and asked him
why he distrained upon the plaintiff's furniture, as his
former landlady, Mrs. Lawrence, had given him one month
(which time had not expired) to pay her, and had allowed
him to quit her premises. Witness requested him, there-
fore, to withdraw the man, promising him that, if he would
do so, no action should be brought against him for an ille-
gal distraint ; but the defendant refused to withdraw the
man, alleging as an excuse, that if he did he should not be
able to levy again. • The defendant, he understood, was the
collector of Mrs. Lawrence's rents.
The defendant cross-examined this witness, to show that
he had pledged himself that no action should be brought.
The Learned JUDGE left it to the Jury, who returned a
verdict for the plaintiff with one shilling damages.
The defendant then applied to the Learned Judge to
certify, in order to deprive the plaintiff of his costs.
The Jury also recommended him to the notice of his
Lordship.
Mr. Justice WILLIAMS said in compliance with the re-
commendation of the Jury he should certify.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.

CHALMERS V. PAYNE AND ANOTHER.

Mr. STAMMERS, for the plaintiff, moved for a new trial
in this case, tried before Lord Abinger at the Westminster
sittings after last Term, when there was a verdict for the
defendant. It was an action of libel against the proprietors
of the Morning Post, for a publication in that paper pur-
porting to be the report of a trial in the Court of Common
Pleas on the sth of July last, of " Chalmers (the present
plaintiff) v. Shackell and others," but which report the
plaintiff's declaration stated to be a malicious and de-
famatory libel upon him. The defendants had only pleaded
the general issue. The motion was made on the ground of
misdirection, and also that the verdict was against evidence.
Lord ABINGER—I told the Jury that if the statements at
the trial that bore upon the character of the plaintiff were
sufficiently rebutted and palliated by the evidence and the
verdict, then the publication, taken altogether, was not li-
bellous ; but if they were of opinion that they were not so
palliated, or if they thought it was published maliciously,
then they would find for the plaintiff.
Mr. STAMMERS—The trial pretended to be reported was
the trial of an action for a libel imputing forgery to the
plaintiff.
Lord ABINGER—If the report ofthat trial was necessarily
a libel then all the State trials were libels.
Mr. Baron ALDERSON—In Dicas v. Lawson, I directed
the Jury to look to• the whole publication. The publication
there complained of was the report of a tria lin which there
were strong observations, but the verdict was in favour of
Dicas. I it to the Jury if, taking the whole pub-
lication altogether, tl.;:y Ll.ougllt it would depreciate his
character.

The Court approved of the direction.
Mr. STAMMERS submitted that the question of malice
ought not to have been left to the Jury.
Lord ABINGEa—The question was put to the Jury whe-
ther the report, taken alto,,,rether with the verdict, was on
the face it injurious to the plaintiff ; and the Jury took
the report out with them, and found that it was not.—Rule
refused.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.

MANSION-HOUSE,

The witnesses for the prosecution attended for the pur-
pose of being bound over to give evidence against Foster
for forging a bill of exchange for 8001., and Murphy for
aiding and assisting Foster in his escape, knowing that that
prisoner had committed an act of felony.
Mr. Mahon, the barrister, attended upon the part of
Murphy.
It will be recollected that the LORD MAYOR directed
that. Foster should find bail. His solicitor accordingly sent
notice of bail to Mr. Peachey, the solicitor for the prose-
cution, but the sureties did not appear.
Mr. Peachey said he had made inquiry into the respon-
sibility of the securities proposed, and could not think of
accepting them on „inch an occasion ; one of them was ac-
tually hiding from his.croditors.
Mr. Mahoa represented to the LORD MAYOR the very
great difficulty arising in the way of procuring bail under
all the circumstances, and expressed a hope that his Lord-
ship would not require it to so large an amount as would
have the effect of punishing his client with a heavy impri-
sonment. There was one very strong argument in favour
of the application—that there was no case whatever made
out against him.
Mr. Peachey said that the fact of Murphy's having given
to the captain of the ship in which they were going to Ame-
rica, the sum of two hundred pounds after the passage had
been paid for, was pretty 'strong evidence of the offence of
aiding and assisting in the escape of a felon.
The LORD MAYOR—I have decided on that point, and
I must require the usual notice of bail on such occasions.
I consider Mr. Murphy as an accessary after the fact.
Mr. Mahon—Your Lordship will see the necessity of
ordering the bank notes of my client to be given up to him ?
The LORD MAYOR—I cannot make any order of the
kind. They may be part of the property of the prosecutor.
Mr. Mahon—lt is his own nioney. If the numbers of
the notes be compared with any of the prosecutor's that fact
will be immediately discovered.
Mr. Peachev—l cannot think of giving them up to him.
Murphy—May I ask, my Lord, why you oblige me to
find bail ? •
The LORD MAYOR—Certainly I shall tell you. For as-
sisting Foster to escape. •
Murphy—l had nothing to do with his departure. I
was going myself. I solemnly declare that I have no more
right to be at this bar than your Lordship has.
The LORD MAYOR—So you said before; but I must
keep you till you find bail
Murphy—Perhaps Mr. Peachey would take the two
bail he has inquired after.
Mr. Peachey—Not under any circumstances.
Murphy—l shall not produce them here at that rate.
Mr. Peachey then consented to take notice on the spot
of two other person as bail.
The LORD MAYOR—I shall commit Foster now to New-
gate for the forgery,
Mr. Mabon—He will be perfectly safe in the Compter ;
and, as he will require much legal advice, it can be tendered
with much greater benefit to a prisoner in the Compter
than in Newgate.
The LORD MAYOR-,-I do not see why that prisoner

diould have greater indulgence than another. The offence
with which he is charged is not so much smaller than those
of others as to entitle him to any peculiar degree of accom-
modation.
Mr. Hobler then read over the depositions to the several
witnesses. It will be remembered that the name of Ches-
Lerman was on the bill for 8801., and that Mr. Chesterman,

the proprietor of the Hope public-house, in Blackmore-
street, Clare-market, deposed that the writing was not his,
and that he had never authorised Foster to write his name
on a bill. When Mr. Hobler read over that part of the de-
position,
Mr. Chesterman said, I beg pardon ; I said that I had
no recollection of having authorized Mr. Foster to write
my name.
The LORD MAYOR—You said you had not authorized

Mr. Cliesterman—No, my Lord ; I said that I had no
recollection of any thing of the kind.
The Lour, MAYOR—I understood you to say that you
had neither authorized Foster nor any body else to sign
your name to a bill. _

Mr. Chesterman—l never said I did not authorize any
body tense my name. Ido not recollect that I authorized
Mr. Foiter to do so.

The LORD MAYOR—You wish this to be added to your
statement ? Mr. Chesterman—Certainly. He then signed
the deposition.
Mr. Peachey stated that the witness named Dew, who
had given his evidence so reluctantly on Saturday last, on
the subject of the letter which he had received by post
from Foster, bad declared that he would never, under any
circumstances, appear again in this business.
The LORD MAYOR—Do not apprehend anything of that
kind. Do you subpmna him to the Central Criminal
Court, and let him dare to'tlisobey the authority.
Murphy was then ordered to be brought up again in the
event of the tender of good bail, and to be discharged, and
Foster was fully committed to Newgate.