The Sun.
London, England, 1832-11-28 00:00:00

TAYLOR V. DAVIES.

This was the petition of the plaintiffs, and prayed that
a bill filed by them, as executors of the late Duke of York,
might he dismissed, under the circumstances, without
costs. In a suit instituted for the administration of the
estate of his late Royal Highness a reference was directed
to the Master to take the usual accounts. Under that de-
cree Davies, the defendant, being executor to his father,
carried in a claim as a bond-creditor of the Duke to the
amount of 2,7001., which, circumstances of suspicion at-
taching to it, as having been given in respect, not of a legal
debt, but of a gambling transaction, the Master had disal-
lowed. An exception being taken to the report, an action
at law was directed for the purpose of trying the validity
of the bond, and the Jury had found in its favour. After
the action at law had been directed, and before the trial,
the Duke's executors, considering that no account of the
consideration had been given, and that the defendant could
not state upon oath that no part of it was in respect of a
gambling transaction between the Duke and his father,
thought proper to file a bill for the purpose of having the
bond delivered up. The object of the present petition was
that they might be at liberty, after the finding of the Jury,
to dismiss the bill without costs, in consequence of the
death of Mr. Greenwood, the attesting witness to the bond,
and the difficulty there would be in the way of a new trial ,1
at law.

Mr. PEMBERTON and Mr. STEWART appeared in sup-
port of the petition.

Mr. BICKERSTETH opposed it.
His HONOUR said the Court would make the executors,
as in the ordinary case of a bill of discovery, pay the costs
which had been incurred.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Nov. 27.

MARCHANT 2'. DODOIN AND OTHERS.

This was an action on a bill of exchangeio;lsol.
The handwriting of the parties to the bill 'having been
proved, the defence set up was, that it had been tainted
with usury, and evidence was adduced to show that it had
been discounted by a Mr. Flight, of Walworth, under cir-
cumstances from which it was intended to he inferred that
it had been negotiated to take up a former bill, which had
been discounted upon usurious terms. The evidence, how-
ever, did not support the defence.
The Jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff.
PRICK V. WOODCATE.

This was an action brought by Dr. Price, of Cannon-
street, against the defendant, a publican, residing in Friar-
street, Blackfriars-road, for the alleged publication of a
libel, in the shape of a handbill, imputing to the plaintiff
gross cruelty and oppression, exercised by him on a tenant
named Marshall.

A similar action was brought some time ago by the
same plaintiff against a defendant named Ives for the pub-
lication of the same libel. On that occasion a justifica-
tion was pleaded, but the evidence having failed to support
the plea, the plaintiff recovered a verdict for 5/. damages.
On the present occasion no justification was pleaded, the
fact of the publication alone being denied by the plea.
Ou the part of the plaintiff a Miss Campbell, a young
lady of rather pleasing appearance, was called, who stated
that she was the daughter of a captain's widow, residing at
Chelsea, and occasionally visited the plaintiff's daughter,
in Cannon-street. On the appearance of the handbills
and placards in question, reflecting on the plaintiff's con-
duct as a landlord, she went by the plaintiff's direction to
the house of the defendant, and on entering the passage,
which opened to the bar, she perceived a placard stuck
up, stating that subscriptions would be received there
" for Marshall, the victim of oppression and cruelty."
She then went to the bar, and asked the defendant's wife
for one of the handbills, which the latter gave her, in
her husband's presence. This was on the 22d September.
She could not say whether or not any person accompanied
her from Cannon street, but she was certain no person
went into the house but herself.

For the defendant several witnesses were called, who
stated that as soon as the handbills in question came out
referring to the defendant, amongst ethers, as a receiver
of subscriptions, the latter, on being applied to to receive
subscriptions, refused to do so, saying that his name had
been used without his authority, and that he would have
nothing to do with the matter. It was itdmitted that the
placard was seen behind the defendant's (boor in his passage,
but the witnesses, some of whom frequented his public-
house several times a day, denied that they had ever seen
any of the handbills there, or that the defendant had ever,
io their knowledge, given any countenance to their publi-
cation. One of the witnesses was a servant in the defend-
ant's employ at the time.
The Loan CIIIEF JUSTICE told the Jury, that if the
wife of the defendant, in her husband's presence, delivered
this handbill to the witness, Miss Campbell, they might in-
fer that she had done so with his acquiescence, in which
case she must be taken to have acted as his agent; but
not so if the husband were not privy to and assenting to
such publication. On the other hand, they would say
whether or not the evidence of the defendant's witnesses
went to weaken Miss Campbell's testimony, although, as
they did not speak to the same day as she did, their state-
ments were not directly conflicting. The first question
which the Jury had to decide was, whether or not the pub-
lication of the libel by the defendant had been proved ? If
not, they must find a verdict for the defendant. If it had,
then, secondly, they were to say to what amount of damages
he was entitled.

The Jury having retired for two hours returned a ver-
dict for the defendant.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER, Nov. 27.

THE KING V. WILLIAM CORBETT.

This was an excise information by the Attorney-Ge-
neral, charging the defendant with having knowingly in
his possession spirits that had not paid duty.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL stated the case. The de-
fendant was the viewer or overseer of a colliery near Shil-
bottom, about three miles from Alnwick, belonging to the
Duke of Northumberland, and occupied by Mr. Taylor,
and he lived near the colliery. It being suspected that he
had some smuggled Scotch whisky, his house was searched
by an Excise officer in last March, when a cask containing
two gallons was found, for which no duty had been paid,
and various empty kegs and casks were found, such as
were used by smugglers. The penalty for the whisky
discovered was 1001.
The Jury found a verdict for the defendant,

ARCHES' COURT, Nov. 27.

WESTMEATH V. WESTMEATH.

This was an alb-gation of faculties on the part of the
Marchioness of Westmeath, for the purpose of obtaining
an allotment of permanent alimony from the Marquis, her
hu,band, from whom she had been separated by an eccle-
siastical sentence. The allegation was objected to on be-
half of Lord Westmeath, because it went into the history
of the deed of separation of 1918, by which her Ladyship
was allowed 1,300/. a year, but which had been pronounced
invalid by the House of Lords, and because it was alleged
that her Ladyship had been obliged to contract debts to
the amount of 10,0001. These, and other allegations, it
was cont,nded, would lead to unnecessary litigath n.
Sir Joni's- Ntenot.t. directed the allegation to he admit-
ted, but again urged the propriety of this matter being
arranged by the mutual friends of the parties.

INSOLVENT DEBTORS' COURT, Nov. 27.

William Pickard, late of Paragon-mews, Kent-road,
hackneyman, was opposed by Mr. WOODROFFE, for Mr.
°Anent and Mr. Skinner, and supported by Mr. COMM
The insolvent had taken the benefit of the Act in 1817;
his debts were then 500/. ; lie now owed 7291. Ac-
cording to his own statement, there was little or nothing
for the creditors, Ile had been arrested on the Ist of
October last, had gone to prison the same day, and im-
mediately lodged his petition. It appeared in the course
of the case, that his landlord, to whom he was in consi-
derable arrear of rent, had put a distress into his pre-
mises, and taken pos+ession of his carriages, horses, &c.
His landlord was willing to give up every thing he had
distrained to the general cre litors, provided his legal de-
mands were satisfied. It was stated by a witness, that a
cart had been employed in removing goods from the pre-
mises shortly before the distress, and that a valuable por-
trait of the insolvent, which formerly decorated the wall
of his parlour, and was considered an inveterate likeness
had been displaced. There was also a defective account,
given as to a chimney-glass, and some other articles of
furniture.

The Learned Commissioner HARRIS observed, that as
:he creditors bad already obtained possession of the origi-

nal, it would not he nece.sary to produce the copy of his
rountenance; but the case must he adjourned for the pro-
duction of his sister, his servant (Martha Tassey), and for
a fresh valuation to be made of his effects.
George Stapleton, a miserable.looking old man, whose
debts were little more than 401., who has two daughters
to support, and whose wife is now lying in her coffin pre-
vious to her funeral, was opposed by a creditor (Joseph
White), a little shopkeeper, near Bethnal-green, on a cog-
novit of 41. 7s. ld., on which he had neglected to pay the
instalments. Mr. White expressed his willingness to re-
ceive his debt by small instalments, and it was ultimately
ordered by the Court, that 4/. a-year be set aside for the
ci editors, and the insolvent immediately discharged.