The Sun.
London, England, 1832-04-16 00:00:00

JURISDICTION IN BANKRUPTCY.

Mr. KNIGHT applied to his Honour to have several
bankrupt petitions set down for hearing without the con-
sent of the parties on the other side. The Learned
Counsel doubted whether, after the judgment his Honour
had given on this subject, he would accede to the present
application ; but he would state how the petitions stood.
They were in his Honour's paper for hearing at the time the
❑ew bankrupt act came into operation, and were petitioi
and cross petitions for a new trial, and for the purpose of car-
rying into effect the verdict upon an issue in bankruptcy
directed by his Honour. The question therefore was,
whether such petitions would come within the descrip-
tion of petitions which the Court could entertain without
consent.

The VICE-CHANCELLOR was of opinion that he could
not hear the petitions without the consent of the other eid,
being obtained.

KING'S BENCH-(THIS DAY.)

Before the Lord CHIEF JUSTICE, Mr. Justice J. PARKE,
Mr. Justice LITTLEDALE, and Mr. Justice PATTESON,
The ATTORNEY GENERAL moved for rules to show cause
why four criminal informations should not he filed against
the Proprietors of four Newspapers, viz. the Court Journal,
the Observer, the John Bull, and the Morning Post, for
publishing libels reflecting upon the character of the
Duchess of Richmond. The libel appeared first in the
Court Journal, of the 18th January, rand although it did
not state in terms who the party was to whom
it referred, there was no doubt that it related to
the Duchess of Richmond. It stated these were rumours
of a
.painful nature, which they (The Court Journal)
feared were but too well founded, had been circulated
respecting the elopement of the wife of a Noble Duke, who
was a Cabinet Minister with a Captain in the Army. He,
the Attorney-General had the affidavits of the Duke and
Duchess, and of Lord Templernore, who swore that they
believed the paragraph to refer to the Duchess, and they
denied that there was any truth whatever in it. The
Court would perceive that in the limited circle of a
Cabinet, the person alluded to was very soon
pointed out. The paragraph was however most fully de-
nied, and it was sworn that so far from the
Duchess having ever withdrawn herself from her hus-
band's house, there had never been the sli4htest cause for
a suspicion of impropriety in her conduct. Two of the
Noble Duke's servants, who had lived many years in the
family, had also made affidavits, in which they deposed
that the Duke and Duchess had always lived on terms of
the greatest harmony. He had likewise affidavits to show
who were the proprietors of the newspapers against whom
the rules were enualit. With respect to the other pa-
pers the same affidavits were made. The Observer
newspaper had made a much more full and complete
statement, so as to leave no doubt in the world who were
the parties referred to, and they added another falsehood,
viz. that the occurrence spoken of was the cause of the
Noble Duke's absence from the House of Lords ; on the
contrary, he continued his attendance there, and the
least inquiry would have convinced the proprietors of that
paper of the truth or falsehood of the statement. The
libel was introduced into the John Bulbul the succeeding
Sunday after its publication in the Court Journal,
and added to it that " they had had no disposition to turn
this to any political account against her Grace's noble hus-
band." In another part of that paper something was said
of 31r. Stanley being at G ,odwood, shooting at the poor
pbeas iota of the Duke of Richmond, and that paragraph
appeared to have some reference to the statement of her
Grace's supposed elopement. The Morning Post con-
tained a repetition of what was contained in the Observer,
adding that they were grieved to find the statement to be
true. Under these circumstances, the Attorney-General
trusted their Lordships would grant a rule for the et irsinal
informations.
Lord TENTERDEN—Take a rule to show cause.