The Sun.
London, England, 1859-01-15 00:00:00

TO THE EDITOR OF THE SUN.

Sir,—Although we know it is your practice to
hold over ex parte reports of legal proceedings, yet
we do not feel that we can ask you to suspend for
several days the publication of the defendant's
statement, made on the motion for a new trial this
day, on which, of course, the plaintiff could not be
heard.

On this application it was suggested that certain
facts, seemingly inconsistent with the plaintiff's
case, were within his knowledge. We are aware
that our client, Mr. Scully, can show beyond all
question, that they were wholly unknown to him,
but he has no opportunity of doing so until
he shows cause, a few days hence.
In the meantime, should the proceedings appear
in your columns, we shall feel obliged by your in-
sertion of this letter, in order that the denial may
circulate as early and as widely as the report.—We
are, sir, your obedient servants,
Jan. 14. THE PLAINTIFF'S ATTORNEYS.

PARR V. WITHERINGTON.-TURF TRANSACTIONS.

This was an action brought by the plaintiff; a
gentleman well known on the " turf," to recover
stakes from the defendant, which the plaintiff had
won on a race at the races at Catterick. The case
was tried before Mr. Justice Crompton, and resulted
in a verdict for the plaintiff, with liberty to the
defendant to move to enter the verdict in his
favour.

Mr. Knowles, in now moving, said the plaintiff
was the owner of a horse named Kelpie, and entered
it to run for stakes against a horse named Pelissier,
which was nominally, for the purposes of the action,
the property of the defendant, who was clerk of
the course, and held the stakes. There were three
stewards, to whose decision all disputed questions
respecting the running were to be referred, namely,
the Earl of Zetland, Captain Lawson, and Mr.
Merry, and when the race was about to take place
notice was given that Kelpie was a defaulter, and
had not paid forfeit; and Capt. Lawson, one of the
stewards, decided that the defendant was entitled to
the stakes. The race, however, was run, and Kelpie
won, when Capt. Lawson decided formally in favour of
the defendant, with an intimation that the matter
would be referred for the opinion of the other
stewards. It was subsequently referred to the Earl
of Zetland and Mr. Merry, who decided against
Captain Lawson's judgment, but in the absence of
that gentleman. He (Mr. Knowles) was of opinion
that the decision was void, inasmuch as it was not
the joint decision of the three stewards, who were
in the character of arbitrators, and as such were
bound to meet together and give their decision
when so met. He submitted, therefore, that he was
entitled to a rule.
Lord Campbell was of opinion that stewards at
races were
,judges of a peculiar description, who
were not called upon by the common law to meet
together, as arbitrators were, in order to give bind-
ing force. to their decision, but whose decision
might be taken separately, that of the majority
being final. That was the opinion of the Lord
Chief Baron in a recent and somewhat similar case
in the Court of Exchequer, and to that decision of
a co-ordinate court this was prepared to adhere.
The rule must therefore be refused.

The other judges concurred.
Rule refused accordingly.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.

Sittings in Banco.—(Before the Lord Chief Baron,
and Barons Martin, Watson, and Channell.)

HARRISON V. PEARCE.-LIBEL.

Mr. M. Chambers moved fora new trial in this
case, which was tried at the sittings at Guildhall
after last term before Mr. Baron Martin. It was
an action for libel brought by tle. plaintiff, who is
the proprietor of the Sheffield Ti
defendant, the proprietor of the a
"
ess
4, against the
disputeepld Daily
eve
Telegraph. It appeared that
arisen between the plaintiff and several
sral of
the men in his employ who
w
members of
and hadf
the Printers' Union, with regard to termshours
of work. A manifesto was issued by the society,
headed " Trampling on the Rights of Labour,"
in
which Mr. Harrison's conduct towards the men in.
his employ was most severely censured. This docu-
ment was published in the defendant's newspaper,
and at the trial he pleaded a justification, but the
jury found a verdict for the plaintiff with damages
of £5OO. The learned couasel now moved, on behalf
of the defendant, for a new trial, on the grounds of
misdirection, improper reception of evidence, and
that the damages were excessive.
The court postponed further proceedings until a
copy of the shorthand notes of the learned judge's
summing up was produced.
Sittings at Nisi Prins.—(Before Mr. Baron Bram-
well and Common Juries.)
HAMBLIN V. WHITE.-COLLISION.

Mr. Sergeant Shee and Mr. D. D. Keane were
counsel for the plaintiff; Mr. Edward James and
Mr. Cross were for the defendant.

The pfaiiiiiii,;l;i;iiie-O;vner of the smack
Halifax, brought this action to recover damages for
injuries received by his vessel ina collision with the
defendant's brig the Glasgow. It appeared that in
April last the smack was anchored off the ,North

Foreland, showing, as it was alleged, a bright light,
when she was run into by the defendant's vessel.
The substantial defence was that the smack did
not show a light, and that the defendant had taken
every possible precaution to prevent the collision,
which was the result of mere accident.

The jury found a verdict for the plaintiff; da-
mages, £34 Bs. 2d.

COURT OF PROBATE AND DIVORCE.
LAKE V. COLLETT.-ALLEGED FRAUD.
_ _

The alleged testator in this case was Mr. Thomas
Collett, late of Wendover Hall, Bucks, who died in
June, 1857. His estate amounted to about £,1,000
in personalty, and £lO,OOO in real property. His
niece, Mrs. Lake, propounded a will, by which she
was left sole executrix and universal legatee.
The Queen's Advocate (with whom was Dr.
Spinks) opposed the grant of probate on behalf of
Mr. Collett, the nephew and heir-at-law of the de-
ceased. The learned advocate contended that the
document was a mere forgery, and that the evidence
given in support of it was perjury. In fact, of so
questionable a character was the transaction that
the proctor first employed (Mr. Abbott) had refused
to go on with the case. Mrs. Lake's account of the
subsequent steps which had been taken in the suit
was that she had come up to London, and had been
captured by a touter in Doctors'-commons. •
Sir C. Cresswell—l am aware that pirates of that
description infest the neighbourhood of Doctors'-
commons, for attempts have been made more than
once to capture me. (Laughter.) It is a disgraceful
practice, and I wish I knew any means of putting
a stop to it.
The Queen's Advocate said the parties had got
" howsoever" into the hands of a gentleman who
did not now appear td support the case. He should
therefore pray that probate be refused with costs,
and that the pretended will should be impounded.
Sir C. Cresswell said he must take time to read
the evidence, and should therefore postpone his
decision.