The Sun.
London, England, 1850-06-14 00:00:00

Kings v. Reid.—Peel v. Peel.—Lacy and others v. Brown.
Great Northern Railway v. Southall.
Bertram v. Hutchins.— Wagner v. Armistead.
Laidlaw v. Leach, S. J.—Dee v. Palmer.
Sowerby, the younger, v. Jackson.—Bradfield v. Duncan.
Joseph v. Everett and another.—Claridge v. She well, S. J.
Trail v. Holt,—Woods v. Fienis and another.
Mosse and another v. Jones and another.
Dim. s v. Lord Cortenham, S. J.—Methley v. Killick.
S,a, Fire, and Life Assurance Society V. Williams, S. J.
Gay v. Shackle and another, S. J.
Dick v. Jonides and another, S. J.
Mackeson v. Phillips, S. J.—Hunter and another v. Moss.
Langridge (executor) v. Johnson.
New Causes.
Davis v. Newton, S. J.—T. Colledge v. Harty.
Gogga and another v. Gibbs
Tyrwhitt and another v. Halsted.
Hall v. Squire—Mitchell v. Gunnell.
Sharland v. Marshall.
Gell and another, executors, v. Deighton.
Humphrys v. Freshfield.
Gregory and others v. Miller and others, S. J.
Caussidiere v. Long and another, S. J.
Swaby v. Industrial and General Life Assurance and
Deposit Company.
Day and another v. Commerell and another.
Buessard v. Brotherton and others.,
Keogh v. Keogh—Allen v. Ogden.
Willson v. Hale, S. J.—Wilson v. Ashley, S. J.
Oakley v. London and North-Western Railway Com-
pany, S. J.—Cook v. Hulls and another.
Stevens and another v. Houstou—Sherley, administer, v.
Smith—Hulme v. Hatteraley, S. J.
Sadler v. Boyle—Florence and another v. Crosse.
Doe dem. Tilson and another v. Langley.
Thorpe, P. 0., v. Boyes, S. J.
Squire v. Prew—Tucker v. Shaw.
Todd, administrator, v. Webb.
Doe dem. Mean and others v. Dando.
Biddies v. Ledger—Vizitelly v. Chapman.
Miall and another v. Dobell—Ambergate. Nottingham,
Boston, and East Junction Railway v..Kitchin. •
Pai•frement v. Bending—Lycett v. Crockett.
Phillips v. Pound—Wells v. Drummond.
Lenny v. Moffat, S. J.—Lloyd v. Howell.
Rowley v. Wright—Wilkinson v. Boycott.
Booth v. Lamie and another—Short v. Ponsford.
Short v. Woollett—Carlisle and others v. Vonillon.
Lawder v. Berton—Newbon v. Benfield.
Goldsmith v. Bell—Calisher v. Annesley.
Tharratt v. Trevor—Cooper v. Harris and another.
Cocker v. Scott—Almond and another v. Shepherd.-
Browning and others T. HolDles=4eakeS v. White.
Rice v. Gibson—Wood v. Dickeson.
Williams v. Aldred, sued, &c.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
EXCHEQUER CHAMBER, June 13.
(Sittings in Error, before Mr. Baron PARKE, Mr.
Baron ALDERSON, Mr. Justice MAULS, Mr. Justice
CRESSWELL, Mr. Baron PLATT, and 111 r. Justice
TA LPG U an.)
The Court sat to-day to hear errors from the
Queen's Bench.

GREGORY •. TEE QUEEN.
This was an appeal against:the judgment given on a
conviction of the appellant, the late proprietor of the
Satirist, for a libel on the Duke of Brunswick. The
indictment had been removed by certiorari into the
Queen's Bench, and thence taken to the Court of Ex-
chequer Chamber, where it had been argued on a for-
mer occasion.
Mr. PEACOCK, Q.C.—The real question was one of
costs, and it was deemed material to get rid of one of
the counts in the indictment if possible.
The Learned Counsel,took various technical objec-
tions to the form of the retraxit which was entered,
but they were all over-ruled. He then endeavoured
to maintain that the allegations in the Bth count were
not libellous without an inuendo. They were—" If
she does invite the Duke of Brunswick. she dues what
very few ladies would do; but of course she is at
liberty to invite expatriated foreigners to her table if
she thinks fit."
Baron PARKE said the greater part of the Court
were of opinion that it was libellous. The judgment
of the Court of Queen's Bench must be affirmed.
GREGORY V. THE QUEEN.
This was an appeal against the judgment given
against the appellant on a criminal information for a
libel on the Duke of Brunswick, in the Satirist.
&Ir. Peacock, Q.C., appeared for the appellant, and
Mr. Henniker in support of the conviction.
Mr. PEACOCK said there were four counts in the
indictment, on which separate judgments had been
given, and punishments awarded on each ; the punish-
ment in respect of the second, third, and fourth, to
commence from the expiration of that on the preced-
ing count. In the first count the words were—
" Why, asks a correspondent,- after the acquittal of
Hubbard for the murder of Eliza Grimwood, did all
inquiry cease to find out the perpetrator of that horrid
deed? Who furnished Hubbard, on his discharge,
with the means of leaving this country ? By the
tone in which these questions are put, we are led to
the inference that the writer knows more than he un-
folds. We have heard hints dropped on the subject of
parties who have not been brought forward, and who
could state in whose company (a foreigner be it re-
membered) the unfortunate woman was last seen:'
The inuendo stated that this was intended to mean
that the Duke of Brunswick was the murderer of
Eliza Grim wood.
Mr. Justice CRESSWELL—Thero is no inuendo
that it WAS the Duke of Brunswick who furnished
Hubbard with the means of escape.
Mr. PEACOCK—The jury found that as well, that
that the Duke was meant by the last person,a fo-
reigner, who was seen with her. The second count
was for the following libel :—" It is owing to this
that, although Dublin may be the most plisant city
that sits on the say,' yet its suburbs are free from
foreign adventurers and refugees, whose crimes have
driven them from their native country. There are
neither ex-dukes nor rapalers in the capital of Pat-
land. Their pockets are not picked (rather a difficult
job to do sometimes), nor their Cyprians murdered."
The inuendo alleged that this was of and concerning
the Duke of Brunswick, and, in fact, accusing him
of the murder again. "Again we repeat our thanks
to Observer.' The evidence to facts, in relation to
the particular subjects alluded to, is procuring, and
we have no doubt sufficient information will be ob-
tained fora strong case to lay before the Home S-cre-
tary, to enable that functionary to cause it to be inti-
mated to the suspected party" (inuendo meaning the
Duke of Brunswick) " that his presence here can be
dispensed with, as it may be attended with danger to
himself." The inuendo stated that it was hereby in-
tended to be conveyed that the Duke of Brunswick
was suspected of having committed murder, and in
fact had committed some murder which would bring
his life in danger, according to the law of England.
The fourth count, alluding to the inducement of cer-
tain prosecutions which the Duke had commenced
against Mr. Gregory, contained the following alleged
libel :—" We repeat our thanks to 0. ; we shall not
require such aids to overthrow the prosecution. We
will beat him" (inuendo meaning the Duke of Bruns-
wick) "on the merits. We are not a defenceless
fema.e, to submit quietly to strangulation, or to a
knife being drawn across our throats." The inuendo
" thereby causing it to be believed, or suspected,
that the Duke of Brunswick murdered Eliza Grim-
wood."

Several technical objections were raised, principally
on the ground that the inuendos were too large, and
gave a meaning to the alleged libels beyond their, fir;
construction, and also on the ground that there walla'
be it difficulty in apportioning the sentence ; but,
after a somewhat discursive argument,
Mr. Baron PARKE said—We have no doubt, then,
the first count is sufficient, as there is an introductory
averment of the fact that Eliza Grimwood was mur-
dered. The second count is also good; but the third
clearly bad, as there is nothing to show the Duke's
life was in danger:--it only goes to show that he was
in danger here, and contains that allusion to Eliza
Grimwood. There may be difficulty as to punish-
ment, as each is to commence at the expiration of the
term awarded on the preceding count, and we have
reversed the judgment on the third.
Ultimately the judgment was affirmed on the fourth
count, the imprisonment to commence immediately
on the expiration of that pronounced on the second
count. Altogether the result is, that the appellant
will have to undergo imprisonment for six months.
Mr. Sergeant Talfourd having while at the bar
been Counsel in this case, took no part in the proceed-
ings this day.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
. - Mr. Daniel 0, THAM.E.:S.
drunk and °autiltlht disorderly.
a Roman Catholic priest,
before Mr. Yardley charged with being
Reed, a po-lice-constable, 199 H, stated that
dutyaifntetrhneoorig
George
on
ne
Wednesdaywas on
neighbourhood of Tower-hill
knocked an
o'clock, and was in-
formed that a man had
place
in a very disorderly
on Tower-hill, and
off his stool, and was behaving open-air preacher
manner. He wenwthtne the
veiry
anflourishing
about
saw the priioner,
mention nothingt
a stick, and said the preacher kneaj
our Saviour, and bad no right to
The bystanders. among whom were severall name.
clerks, called out " Shame," and said the prisoner
ought to be locked up, and that he had struck theer
preacher a violent blow across the head with his stick
and knock-d him down, and that it was a most brutal
end cowardly assault on an unoffending man. lie
took the prisoner into custody, when he commenced
flourishing his stick again, and struck a horse which
was yoked to a cart on the head. The animal reared,
and nearly threw the driver from the cart, and it was
some time before it could be secured, and had nearly
done very serious mischief. The prisoner was in-
toxicated-
The prisoner, a man of portly figure, and dressed
in a good suit of black, on being called upon for his
defence, said he was sorry he had forgotten himself.
He bad only arrived in this country from Ireland a
few weeks ago, and was out with a few friends on
Wednesday afternoon. He supposed he wag provoked
at something the preacher said, and struck him. He
regretted very much what he bad done.

L _'+~ ~+