The Sun.
London, England, 1859-11-10 00:00:00

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.

Before the Lord Chief Justice, and Justices Whiteman,

Hill, and Blackburn.)
LORD BROUGHAM V. ATKINSON.

Sir F. Kelly, this morning, made an application to the
court for a rule calling upon Mr. Atkinson, the proprietor of
the " Westmorland Gazette and Kendal Advertiser," to show
cause why &criminal information should not be filed against
him for printing and publishing a libel inhis paper reflecting
upon the noble and learned lord's character, imputing to
him the exercise of undue influence in relation to certain
charitable property. From the speech of the learned gen-
tleman, it appeared that in 16.51 certain lands were set apart
by some parties for the relief of the poor widows in
Appleby, and as time proceeded a relation of the noble
lord's became possessed of certain landed property in
its immediate vicinity. The relatives of the noble lord
and the trustees of the charitable property, wishing to make
an exchange of a certain part of each other's land, entered
into a negotiation for • that purpose. The exchange
having been effected, a letter appeared in the West-
moreland Gazette, which almost attributed corrupt
practices to tke noble and learned lord during the
time the exchange was being effected. A second attack
was made on the noble lord in the same paper a short time
after he delivered his late speech at Bradford, in which it
was asserted that the noble lord had broken the Tenth
Commandment.

The Court granted a rule upon both points.
TILE QUEEN V. MARSHALL AND OTHERS. - ILLEGAL
SELLING OP ARMY COMMISSIONS.

Mr. Edwin James, this morning, moved for the judgment
of the court upon the persons Marshall, Mortimer, and
Eicke, who had been found guilty of illegally disposing of
a commission in her Majesty's army.
It will be recollected from the lengthy reports of the
trawaction which appeared in The Sun, that a gentleman
of the name of Brydson, being anxious to obtain a com-
mission for a young gentleman named Conyngham, was
induced to write to one of the defendants at his offices in
Piccadilly, where the business of an army agency was car-
ied on under the name of "Armstrong and Co." The
price agreed upon for the commission by Mr. Brydson was
£4OO. After some time the commission was obtained, and Mr.
Conyngham entered the army, but very shortly after it was
discovered the commission had been obtained from the War
Department without purchase, and illegally sold by the
defendants to Mr. Brydson.
-Mr. M. Chambers appeared for Marshall in arrest of
judgment, and contended that his conduet in the transac-
tion had been devoid of anything that could be considered
fraudulent.

The learned gentleman was proceeding with arguments
when we went to press.

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY.
(Before Mr. Commissioner Goulburn.)

IN RE INGIIAM.-ALLEGED FALSIFICATION OF ACCOUNTS.

this bankrupt was described as of Oxford-street, grocer,
and to-day was appointed for consideration of his certificate,
which had been adjourned in consequence of criminal pro-
ceedings having been instituted against the bankrupt on a
charge of falsifying his accounts, but the question stands
over for the decision of the Court above, on appeal, as to
whether the offence proved comes within the operation of
the bankrupt law.
A further adjournment was, therefore, taken by consent.

IN RE ciIOGGIN AND VEALE.
These bankrupts were described as of London-wall
mantle manufacturers, and this was a meeting for the last
examination.
Joint and several balance-sheets had been f lea by Messrs
Hart Brothers, the accountants to the estate, but the assig-
nees required time to investigate thorn, and an adjourn.
ment was taken by consent.

SHERIFFS' COURT.

----- _
IMPORTANT TO RAILWAY COMPANIES —TUE LONnON AND

SOUTH-WESTERN RAILWAY V. DILLMSTT.
This was an action to recaver rent, carriage, and demur-
rage of some goods consigned by defendant to some station
on the company's line, for third parties.
Mr. Charnock, of King William-street, for defendant,
pleaded that by plaintiffs' negligence the goods were da-
maged, and sold at a loss, in consequence of not being
properly stored; and that plaintiffs should not have deli-
vered up the goods to the consignee without the carriage
being paid.
Mr. Cross, for the plaintiffs, contended that they are not
bound to warehouse, and that the consignor was always
responsible for the carriage.
His Honour was of opinion that the carriage must be
paid. As to the warehousing, that was a point upon which
he would reserve his judgment. An action might lie against
the company in damages for neglect, and as there was con-
siderable force in Mr. Charnock's argument, he would take
the papers to Chambers, and deliver his decision on a future
def.