The Sun.
London, England, 1850-02-15 00:00:00

JUDICIAL COMMITTEE OF THE

PRIVY COUNCIL.-(THIS DAY.)
The Committee of the Privy Council sat at Whitehall
this morning, and were occupied throughout the morning
in hearing the arguments in the case of Grant v. the
Chief Justice of Bengal, which involved the question of
the suspension, among other things, of the appellant
from a judicial office in India.
Mr. TURNER was engaged during the forenoon in
stating the appellant's case.
The members of the Court present were, Lord Broug-
ham, Lord Campbell, the Master of the Rolls, Dr. Lush.
ington, the Hon. Mr. Pemberton Leigh, and Sir Edward
Ryan.

VICE-CHANCERY.-(THIS DAY.)
(Before the VICE-CHANCELLOR of ENGLAND.)
His HONOUR heard unopposed cause petitions, short
causes, and cause petitions today, but no case calling
for a special report came before the Court during the
whole morning.
(Before the Viee-Chancellor KNIGHT BRUCE.)
The Court heard causes of no interest except to the
parties concerned.
The Vice-Chancellor Wigram did not sit.

QUEEN'S BENCH.—(THIS DAY.)
(Sittings at Nisi Prius, at Westminster, before Mr.

Justice WIGHTKA.N and a Special Jury.)
COYLE V. LEEKS.

This was an actiZi;libel:

M.
Mr. Humfrey, Mr. Chambers, and Mr. Dowdes-
well were counsel for the defendant, and the plaintiff
was represented by Mr. Cockburn and Mr. Edwin
James.

The plaintiff is a collecting clerk in the firm of
Messrs. Grimbell, Clark and Co., distillers, in Albion-
street, and at Cow-cross ; and the defendant is the
proprietor of the City of London Trade Protection Cir-
cular. The libel in question, of which the plain-
tiff complained, appeared in the defendant's publica-
tion, of the dates of the 19th June and 11th July last,
and charged the plaintiff with being connected with a
society in Crooked-lane, a notorious swindler, and with
having decamped from his chambers in that locality
without paying his rent, and in debt to various tradesmen.
Mr. Ha) 04, one of the firm of Grimbell, Clark and Co.,
in whose service the plaintiff is employed, was called on
his part, and proved the publication of the libel, and that
whilst in their service the plaintiff had never been con-
nected with any society in Croaked-lane, and that dur-
ing that time he had conducted himself with the greatest
integrity.
Mr. Hummel-, on behalf of the defendant, in his
address to the jury, reiterated the alleged libel, charging
the plaintiff with being a notorious swindler, and said he
would prove it He, however, relinquished a justifica-
tion of that part of the libel so far as it charged the
plaintiff with living in Crooked-lane, and therefore the
plaintiff must have a verdict upon that point.
Rev. Patrick Fenn was then called on behalf of the
defendant—He said, I am rector of the parish of Rad-
nassuming
advertisement in the Record newspaper, I communicated
nweisths, Manningtree, Essex. In consequence of an
who signed that advertisement, and who the name of J. Sydserff,
de-
scribed himself as the son of a Wesleyan minister,
nacaprerso
and offering money to lend to dissenting ministers, ou
advantageous terms. I had some correspondence with
tho person who signed that advertisement, named Syd-
serff, and he came down to see mc, by his own proposi-
tion, at my residence, on the subject of discounting a
cart sin bill of exchange. (Here the witness pointed to
a person sitting in court in a convicts's dress, and in the
custody of an officer, whom he identified as the man
Sydserff, who had visited him on the subject of the bill
of exchange. Certain letters were then put in,
signed J. Sydserff, and dated June, 1847, from
'7, Belvidere-road, Lambeth, offering to advance
witness 600/. at 4i per cent,, the writer professing
to be the son of an itinerant minister of the Wesleyan
persuasion). Sydserff came down to see me, and the re
suit was that shortly after his visit he sent me down
two bill, each fur 100/., on ley own personal security,
the principal to be paid off in five years. I accepted the
two bills and sent them to Sydserff, but I never got any
money in exchange for them. There were ac-
tions afterwards brought against me by the holders of
the bills.
Cross-examined—Mr. Sydserff came down once to me,
dined with me, and staid three or four hours. I never
came into contact with Mr. Coyle, the plaintiff.
Joseph Sydserff called--My real name is Alfred Sin-
clair. I come now from Milbank Prison. (Handed the
letters signed Sydserff). These letters are all written
by me. The advertisement in the Record was sent in
my hand-writing, and the bills are also written by me.
I know a man named Shires. He calls himself a com-
mission man. I do not know a man called Thomas
Holbrook Coyle. When I received the bills, I gave
them to Shires. I never got any value for them.
Cross-examined—l have been convicted for obtaining
goods under false pretences. I was tried before
Sergeant Mirehouse. They were the goods
of a man in Hatton-garden. I was sentenced for seven
years' transportation. Thee/ is a person named Sydserff,
a merchant, in the City. When I signed his name to
those letters I did not know what business he was. I
gave the bills to Shires to get them discounted; but I
never got any money ,from him in lespect to them.
Shires had formerly been a builder; but when I knew
him he was a commission man.
Shires was hers called, but he did not appear.
(The case was proceeding when our report left.)

EXCHEQUER.—(THIS DAY.)
(Sittings at Nisi Print, at Westminster, before the
LORD CHIEV BARON and a Special Jury.)
CHARTIST LAND SCHEME.
O'CONNOR v. BRADsIiAw.
The trial of this case, which occupied a considerable
portion of yesterday, and of which 'a full report ap-
peared in our Third Edition last evening, was resumed
again this morning, when the evidence for the defence
was proceeded with. It will be recollected that the ac-
tion was instituted by Mr. Feargus O'Connor, M.P.,
against the proprietor of the Nottingham Journal for the
publication of a libel.
The first witness called was George Frederick New-
marsh, a solicitor, residing at, Cirencester, in Gloucester-
shire. He said—l acted as solicitor for the sale of the
Lowbands Estate, which was purchased by Mr. O'Con-
nor, and conveyed t) him without any trust.
The CHIEF BARON—Does that apply to all the
estates ?

------ -
Mr. KEATING said it would, perhaps, save time, as
well as make his Lordship's nutes more intelligible, it'
the names of all the estates purchased were given at this
stage.
The CHIEF BARON acquiesced in the suggestion.
Mr. KEATING--TllO estates purchased were Low-
bands, 8,560/. ; lierringsgate, 2,344/. ; Minister Lovell,
10,878/.
; Snig's-end, 12,2001. ; Dod ford, 10,350/. ; and
Mathon, which had bee purchased for 15,350/., but was
not yet conveyed.
Charles Brown, a cordwainer, living at Nottingham,
Scheme in
examined, said—l became connected with the Land
1845, and commenced with one share, for
which I paid 21.55. In 1846 I took two more acres, for
which I paid a similar amount, and in 1847 I increased
them to 20 acres for the benefit of my children. I had
then four
five-pound shares, and I paid altogether 20/.
I never received any allotment. I was at Nottingham
in 1847, and I saw Mr. O'Connor there. He
was making an eleetion speech, and said if he
became a Member of Parliament, he would ,'

be able to get all the members of the Land t
Company located in:Ahree years, but if not it would take '
him five or six years. After that I made an additional
purchase from a successful balloting member, which gave
me the right of location. I paid 351. for that purchase,
which consisted of three acres. I saw Mr. O'Connor
afterwards, at the Ram Inn, Nottingham, and communi-
cated to him what I had done, and he said, with very
great politeness, that the man who sold it was a great
fool ; he did not say the man who bought it was a fool.
—(Laughter.) I was located, eventually, at Snig's•end.
I had a cottage and three acres of land. It was not a
substantial cottage, although it had a neat appearance
outside. It did not keep out the wind and wet. The
ground was not properly prepared for cultivation. I re-
mained at it nine months, and left in consequence of my
expectations not being fulfilled. One of my sons enlisted
in the army, and I wrote to Mr. O'Connor about him.
Soon after I took possession at Snig's-end I got 151.
ready money. In October, 1849, I made an application,
by writing, to Mr. O'Connor for a return of my shares,
but did not receive back any money.
Cross-examined by Mr. Sergeant WILBINS—I left
Snig's-end partly from illness. A s far as I can say, my ill-
ness was a spasmodic attack of the stomach. There were
t hree rooms in the cottage. The rain came through the roof
and window of the back kitchen or scullery, owing to
the bad workmanship. When I went, there le ere
planted about an acre of potatoes, and about half-an•acre
of barley. I reaped the barley. The potatoes were very
much affected by the disease. In the following year I
sowed two acres with wheat, and about half-an-acre with
vegetables. I sold my allotment, and got 251. for it, tied
the purchaser, as far us I know, is living upon it now. I
afterwards wanted th• land back again, and offered to
give 51. more than I had received.
Mr. Sergeant WiLitiNs here observed that the man-
damus which had been obtained to ascertain whether the
company could be legally registered, was at this moment
being argued.
The LORD CHIEF BARON said it was to be regretted,
that a decision was not given before this case came on for
trial.

Mr. Sergeant WILKINs observed that he was placed
in some little difficulty, in consequence of the decision
not being given, but the plaintiff was in no way to
blame.

Mr. ROEBUCK —As my Learned Friend has constitu-
ted himself a witness, it is my duty to say that there
are other witnesses behind me.

William Matthews, solicitor, practising at Gloucester,
said—l was solicitor to Mr. George Dewhurst, the wit -
ness who was called yesterday. I had several commu-
nications with Mr. O'Connor. On the first occasion I
applied to him fur a conveyance of some property on
the Snig's• end estate, which had been purchased, and
he said it was contrary to the rules of the Land Company.
Edward Ross, a frame-work-knitter, said—l was a
subscriber for three acres, and paid V. 183. I heard
him speak in the Market-place, at Nottingham, on the
day of his nomination, and he said if he was returned he
would be able to give allotments to all the paid-up sub-
scribers within 6 years of the commencement of the scheme
William Best, a native of Nottingham, and an allottee
at Snig's-end, gave similar testimony to the preceding
witnesses.

Mr. William Bevans, Secretary to the Commission
appointed to inquire into the state of the pour in En-
gland and Wales, said—l have bad for some years ex
perience in the management of farms. I was directed
two years ago, by the Poor-law Commissioners, to in-
quire into the effect of the settlements on the parishes in
which the allotments of the Land Company were made.
Inspected the allotments and the houses upon
them. The cottages were most excellent, and were
new, and the land was all under a system
of cultivation which is usual to small allot-
ments ; there being a patch of one thing, and
a patch of another. There was nothing remarkable
about the people. My opinion is, that no man can
work one acre thoroughly with a spade, and if he could,
he would be unable to live upon it. The soil was va-
rious, but principally light. The soil at llerringsgate
and Minster Lovel was very inferior—it was very thin,
but six or eight inches deep, upon a gravel substratum.
The soil at Snig's-end was very good. The opinion I
formed was, that these allottees would invariably fail in
about a year, provided they had no other occupation,
and no money. The fact of a two-acre al-
lottee receiving a capital of 1.51. to begin
with, and a three-acre allottee 221. les, would
not alter my opinion. I cannot say whether 71. 105 is 3
fair sum for sowing an acre of barley and half an acre of
potatoes. _ _

- Cross-examined by Mr. Sergeant WILXINS—I have
had a strong opinion for some years against small
farming. I was about 30 when I first directed my at-
tention to farming, and I have farmed in Jersey and
Yorkshire. lam not an advocate for spade husbandry,
and don't think it is recommended by m•n of great au-
thority. I have tried William Cobbett's system of hus-
bandry, and my experiments have always failed. lam
not aware from his writings that he was an advocate
for spade husbandry. I have not read the work of Mr.•
Mill on husbandry. I don't know such a writer on the
subject.
Mr. Roisuca—There is no author of that name who
has written on spade husbandry.
Mr. Sergeant W ILKINS—You know a great deal, I
dare say, Mr. Roebuck, but you are not acquainted with
everything.—(Laughter.)
Croas-examination cont►nued--I have read Mr. Mill's
work on political economy, and I am personally ac-
quainted with that gentleman, but I know he never had
a spade in his hand in his life, I did not state ham* a
Committee of the House of Commons that I had made
inquiries and found that the cottages at Snig's-end
cost more than 1001. each, but I should say
they cost very little less than that sum. At Herrings-
gat.. there were 30 cottages on the estate and at Minster
Lovell 60.

Mr. Brown, clerk at the office far the Registration of
Banks at Somerset House, said there was no return of
a bank called the National Land sand Labour Bank.

Mr. Weedon, clerk in the Loudon Joint Stock Bank,
said no account was opened in the name of Mr. Roberts,
the trustee of the National Land Company, nor in the
names of T. S. Duncombe, M.P., John Sewell, and
Ernest Jones. There is no account in the name of Mr.
Fergus O'Connor jointly with others, but he opened an
account in his own name in 1847, and another in 1848,
which was distinguished by the initials B. A.
Cross-examined by Mr. WILYINS—I do not know
such a person as Mr. Roberts. (The Learned Counsel
here handed the witness several cheques to a large
amount, which had been drawn by Mr. Roberts.) These
belong to a country account, and are kept in a country
register, which does not pass through my hands. They
appear to belong to a Manchester customer. I do not
know whether Mr. Roberts lives at Manchester.

Re-examined—Mr. O'Connor had a deposit account
in July, 1847, of 8,5001., upon which he received in-
terest. _ _ _ .

(The trial had not concluded when our report left.)

COMMON PLEAS.—(THIS DAY.)
(Sittings in Banco after Term, before Justices Matrix,
(:RESSWELL, WILLIA.IIB, and TALFOURD.)
FARREL V. COOPER.

In this case there were two actions brought by the
plaintiff, against the London and County Joint-Stock
Banking Company, the first for refusing to cash certain
cheques drawn by the plaintiff on the bank when they
had a sufficient balance of his account in their bands to
meet them, and the second for exposing the plaintiff's
banking account without his consent. It appeared that
the plaintiff was in the employ of Lord de Lisle, as farm
bailiff, and that he transacted business on his Lordship's
account, selling wheat and grain of all sorts of the farm.
Lord de Lisle having occasion to suspect that the plain-
tiff's accounts were not all right, wrote to the branch
bank at Tunbridge, and demanded to see plaintiff's
banking account, which, after ha bad obtained an order
from the head office in London, the manager allowed
him to do. His Lordship then served the bank with a
notice not to pay out any of the account of 128 L
which stood 'in plaintiff's name, as the money was his
Lordships. In accordance with this, the bank had re-
fused to honour two of the plaintiff's cheques which had
been presented. Out of these circumstances two actions
had been tried at Guildhall before the Lord Chief
Justice, and in both of which verdicts bad been returned
for the defendant, subject, to a demurrer on two special
pleas, which was now argued.
The arguments in this case lasted the entire morning.

SECONDARIES'.-(THIS DAY.)
(Before Mr. JAMES.)
SCHHOLLINGER V. WEBSTER.
The plaintiff in this action is an hotel-keeper in
Gracechurch-street, and defendant is described as a
captain in the Indian army. The action was brought to
recover the sum of 43/. 10s. on a bill of exchange, and
71. for refreshments supplied.
The defendant suffered judgment to go by default as
regarded the bill, and evidence was adduced as to the
general charges, and a verdict was given for 50/. 10s.
This was the only case.

SURREY COUNTY COURT.
(THIS DAY.)
(Before G. CLIVE, Esq., Judge.)
IMPORTANT CAII7EON TO LOAN MOCIETIEL—OWEN v,