The Sun.
London, England, 1844-01-15 00:00:00

BAIL COURT, Jun. 13.

(Before Mr. Justice WILLIAMS.)
Nothing of the least general interest came before the Court
this morning.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS,Jan. 13.
(Sittings in Banco.)
LJBEL.-COIHEAD V. PRITCHARD.

The plaintiff had been for many years mate on board one of
the ships of Messrs. Ward and Co , of London, and was at
length promoted to the station of captain in one of their vessels
bound to the East Indies ; but, upon the first voyage, the ship
was driven by a storm up St. George's Channel, and by the
assumed authority of plaintiff's first mate, who was supported
by the crew, she was put into Swansea. From that
port the mate, Mr. Cass, wrote to the defendant an ac-
count of the transaction, in which he stated that the cap-
tain was drunk, and that he (Cass) was obliged to take
charge of the ship. The defendant showed this letter to
Messrs. Ward, who, upon instituting inquiries, dismissed the
plaintiff from their service, and he has since remained un-
employed. The ground of action was that this showing of the
letter was publication of a libel. On the trial, evidence was
adduced to show that the plaintiff was a competent, sober, and
trustworthy man, and the principal owners were amongst the
witnesses. On the other hand, the mate and some ot the sea-
men were called to justify the statements of the alleged libel.
The jury, iu the first instance, found a verdict of 31)0/. for the
plaintiff, upon the first count, but on the second count the,,
found for the defendant, that there was ❑o malice. The Lord
Chief Justice, before whom the case was tried, ruled that this
was tantamonnt to a verdict for the defendant, and so he ordered
it to be entered.
Sir T. WILDE this day obtained a rule nisi for a new trial,
on the ground of misdirection.

ADMIRALTY COURT, Jan. 12.
THE SPEEP,-COLLISION.
This was a cross-action between the owners of the bark
Thames, of Newcastle, and those of the Speed. a large timber-
vessel, belonging to New Brunswick, to recover the amount
of damage which each vessel had sustained in a collision that
had occurred in the River St. Lawrence, near Orleans Island,
about 10 miles from Quebec, on the sth of October, 1842.
The Thames was a vessel of 150 tons, laden with coals and
glass, bound for Quebec ; the Speed had a cargo of timber, and
was chiming from the same place. On the part of the Thames,
it was contended that the collision was occasioned by the Speed's
helm being ported. instead of being starboarded. in the other
hand, the owners of the Speed alleged that the Thames hao
run into that vessel owing to her not having luffed to wind-
ward, as it was her duty to have done. The evidence was, as
usual in these cases, totalty at variance upon all essential points.
The Queen's Advocate and Dr. Haggard were for the
Thames. and Dr. Addams and Dr. Hayford for the Speed.
The Trinity Mi.sters, by whom the Court was assisted,
were of opinion that the Thames wa► exonerated from blame,
which rested solely with the Speed.
Dr. LUSHINGTON pronounced for the damage sought to be
recovered by the owners of the Thames, and dismissed them
from the action brought against them by the owners of the
Speed in both cases, with their costs.