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

(PRICE

Mr. Poi. Loci() in showing cause against the rub.
and said, that he would trouble their Lordshii,
with but a few observations. In 'ooking at tit•
publications, he said no one could doubt that if t!,

rule were made absolute, and the parties put upon
their trial on the criminal information—although every !-
legation contained in the publications was proved to It,
strictly true—it would he impossible to protect then:
against the consequences of a verdict against them. They
were no doubt libellous—the publication was admitted,
and convicted they must be. That being the certain con-
sequence of the rule being made absolute, he hoped for tlo
indulgence of the Court while he called their attention--
not to the particulars of the affidavits (for they had been so
ably detailed by his Learned Friend)—hut to a mere out-
line of the case, and the position in which the partie
were placed. The complainants, by their affidavits, had
brought before the Court the whole of the pamphlet, con-
sisting of twenty-eight pages—they had not selected certain
parts on which to found their arguments, or to rest their case,
but had given the whole publication as libellous, and therefore
if the affidavits and arguments had run to a great length, i t
was not the fault of his clients, who were bound to en-
deavour •to substantiate every distinct allegation in the
pamphlet. This was the more important, because, as Mr.
Winchester and Mr. Briggs had complained of the whole
of the pamphlet, and as they had not selected any particu-
lar parts of it, they were bound to deny every charge con-
tained in the pamphlet, which he contended they had not
fully done. The first charge in the pamphlet im-
puted to the parties, that from improper motives
they withheld Mr. Grant's certificate for a year.
He need not say that every consideration ought to be
!:own to a person in Mr. Grant's situat;on. iittt with a
full notice in the pamphlet of that allegation, it would be
seen that through aut the whole of the affidavits of Mr.
Winchester and Mr. Briggs not one part pointed to that
single fact, eo as to throw the slightest discredit upon it..
It was said in the pamphlet from which those gen-
tlemen had come forward to justify themselves, that there
was some complaint about some furniture of Mr. Grant's
at Boulogne, and some property of Mrs. Grant's ; but it
was not pretended that for a year the certificate was not
denied ; and it was evident that that was a mere pretence,

and that every satisfactory explanation was given by Mr.
Grant. Mr. Winchester merely stated that, from the nn•
satisfactory conduct of Mr. Grant upon that point, lie
withheld the certificate. Another charge was, that Mr.
Winchester and Mr. Briggs had done all in their power,
and had used every means to prevent the sale of The Sun
newspaper to every other person but to Mr. Young. He
(Mr. Kelly) need not say that it was the bounden duty of
Mr. Winchester, as assignee, and of Mr. Briggs, as seli-
citor to the commission, to do all they could to pro-
mote an advantageous sale of this property. But it
was wholly uncontradicted. And the facts were sworn
to by six or seven persons, that at different periods they
applied and made various offere, both to Mr. Winchester
and Mr. Briggs, to purchase the property, and that every
argument, every means was taken to deter them from be-
coming the purchasers; but that there was a most unex-
ampled readiness on the part of the complainants to deal
with Mr. Young. Directly an offer was made by Mr.
Young, they went secretly to him, but on almost every
occasion of offers by other individuals, they were diverted
from purchasing it ; one person was told he was a young
man, and they would advise him not to risk his money in
such a speculation. Another was informed that it was a
bid concern, and lie was advised to have nothing to do
with it. They had full notice fo in the pamphlet and
in the newspaper that this was a charge against them,
and that they thus betrayed their duty, and yet they bad
not denied the fact. It was true that they had given a
general denial, but although the names of the persons
making the offer were known then, they had not distinctly
and fully denied the fact. With regard to the proceed-
ings of Mr. Young, there was one fact in the affidavits
which w is beyond all in inner of doubt, viz. that Mr. Briggs
willfully concealed from the persons making offers, that
Mr. Young had made an offer which would be ac-
cepted, and the sale concluded, unless a greater offer
was made. A conditional offer was made by Mr. Young
on the 17th, and it was to be concluded on the 19th.—
Mr. Briggs saw Mr. Bell, but ❑ever mentioned a single
circumstance to bins. Mr. Bell proceeded in his negotia-
tion, wirhont knowing a word of the conditionel agree
went on the 17th; and it was only by accident that he
heard, that if a better offer than Mr. Young's was not
made b♦ or on the 19th, the property would be sold to
Mr. Young. Mr. Briggs was charged with a breach of
his duty, in withholding that important information ;
and that was a fact which, before a Jury, would be con-
clusive that he was acting in favour of, and with a par-
tiality to, Mr. Young. The meeting of the 19th was
the most important part of the case. In the publications
the complainants were charged with falsehood, awl with
having swindled, or endeavoured to swindle, the cre-
ditors of Mr. Grant out of the property. It was
a most delicate thing thus to speak of gentlemen
of whom he knew nothing ; but to show that they had no
claim to the extraordinary interference of this Court, it
was necessary to state what took place at that meeting of
the 19tb, and which was most important in the cause. It
was sworn by four or five persons that at the commence-
ment of that meeting an offer was made by Mr. Bell, and
that Mr. Briggs said it was too late, for the property Lad
been sold to Mr. Young, and that, too, unconditionally.
Note, unless those persons had been guilty of perjury, the
charge of untruth had been clearly established against Mr.
Winchester and Mr. Briggs. The latter gentlemen denied
the charge in vague and general terms, and they called on
the Court to believe that denial because it was stated to
have taken place in the presence of the assignees. Now it
was apparent, and it was sworn, that it took place on the
part of Mr. Briggs before Mr. Winchester entered the
room, and then Mr. Winchester repeated the same thing;
but afterwards, when Mr. Thornton c tme in, he said the
property was not sold. As to those parts of the publica-
tions tending to show that Mr. Briggs had acted as the
friend and agent of Mr. Young, and not as the solicitor to
the assignees, who had opposite interests to those of Mr.
Young, there was a remarkable instil:see at that meeting.
When Mr. Thornton, who viewed the ease with different
feelings from Mr. Winchester—when he insisted on selling
the property to the best bidder, and that it should not be
hurried into the hands of Mr. Young, it was Mr. Briggs
himself who bid on the part of Mr. Young, and that, too,
without the slightest communication with Mr. Young at
the time. What did that show, hut that Mr. Briggs was
the friend and agent of Mr. Young, and supported his
interest against the interests, of the creditors? With regard
to the question as to the copy of the agreement being re-
turned by Mr. Briggs to Mr. Searle, he would say nothing
about it, as it was a mistake ; and it was, moreover, quite
immaterial. There was, however, another fact. By both
the pamphlet and the newspaper another misrepresenta-
tion was charged against Mr. Briggs, in express terms, is
getting the opinion of the Learned Counsel, and pro-
ducing it at the meeting of the 23d of April,
for the purpose of showing that the assignees could not
interfere with the rights of Mr. Young. He was charged
with having alleged that the property was sold to Mr.
Young, and that was untrue. Mr. Briggs did not deny
that; the only way in which he bad noticed it was by de-
claring that he never said he had made a false statement
to Counsel. On the other hand, he was met by showing
that the case submitted to Counsel did contain, or at least
he so read it at the meeting, that untrue allegation. If a
case were laid before Counsel, stating that the property
had been sold, there could be no doubt how the opinion of
that Counsel would be. It was further stated in the
pamphlet, and not denied by Mr. Briggs—or if denied,
he eras contradicted by Mr. Thornton and others, that on
that circumstance being stated, Mr. Thornton contradicted
it on the spot, and said it was false. Mr. Thornton con-
firmed the statement in the pamphlet, and he was con-
firmed by three or four other persons. Some observations
had been made about the resolutions of certain creditors,
expressive of their disapprobation of Mr. Winchester's con-
duct, and requesting him to resign, not being agreed to
and signed by three fourths of the creditors in number and
value. Perhaps they were not, but it was perfectly incor-
rect to say that the whole amount of their debts did not ex•
ceed that of Mr. Winchester, because there were two
persons, Mr. Hill and Mr. Logan, whose debts amounted
to between 2,0001. and 3,0001. Mr. Winchester's debt was
not half that amount. It was true that Mr. Hill was not
present at the meeting ; but he signed, and approved of the
resolutions. Mr. Winchester was present, and therefore
theme was nothing unfair in the proceedings; but whatever
number were there, it was a fact alleged anti borne out by
the affidavits. But there was one observation of Sir
James Scarlett'e to which he (Mr. Kelly) would call their
Lordship' ttention, viz., that it was untrue to say that
the suit in Chancery was founded wholly or in part upon
the agreement or deed, whatever it might be. It was sworn
that the suit was wholly founded on that deed, and his