The Sun.
London, England, 1850-12-10 00:00:00

GERMANY.

It is stated that Bavaria, seeing in the under-
standing between the two great Powers a sensible
diminution of its influence, has protested against the
terms of the alliance as contrary to the treaties of
confederation. _

vv
We find it stated in the Constitutionelle Zeitung that
Austria and Prussia will sign and issue an invitation
addressed to all German Governments asking them to
join in the Conferences which are to be opened at
Dresden in the course of this month.

According to the statements of the Kolner Zeitung,
there has been no interruption to the Austrian re-
cruitings and armaments. Two battalions of an Italian
regiment were, on the 4th inst., sent by rail from
Vienna to Moravia, and the armies in Moravia and
Bohemia are establishing themselves in their winter
quarters along the Silesian and Saxon frontiers. The
two corps are quoted by the same paper at 150,000
elien, viz., 90,000 in Bohemia, and 60,000 in Moravia.
Tbeir head-quarters are at Prague and Olmutz. The
greatest activity continues to prevail in the laborato-
ries of Vienna. and large quantities of lead have been
purchased at Trieste, at almost fabulous prices. The
month of November alone must have created a defioit
of at least 5,000,000.
The following description of the negotia'ions at
Olmute is given by an Austrian authority, and may
be compared with the details already published on
Prussian authority :—" Soon after the opening of the
Conference, the negotiarors agreed that the question
of the preservation of order against the revolu-
tion still burning under the ashes in almost the
whole of Europe was the first and most important.
All the information and opinions on this subject
exchanged during the consultation led to a
decision that, against this common enemy,
the united power of Austria, Prussia, and Russia
must be opposed. This resolution, which includes the
maintenance of treaties and the old alliance, was the
basis of the negotiations as to the future organization
of Germany, and the two questions subordinate to it,
namely, those of Hesse and Holstein. As to the or-
ganization of Germany, it was stated that the indis-
pensable modifications of the Act of Confederation
of 1815, consistent with its continuance, had already
been accepted. The form and mode in which these
alterations should be carried out would be settled by
the Diet of the Confederation itself; but the
actual recognition of the present Frankfort As-
sembly by Prussia, as the existing organ of
the Band, was not required ; it was for the present
renounced till a settlement of the Russian and Hol-
stein questions should have been effected. The dis-
cussions on these two points were, if not the most im-
portant, the warmest, of the conference. M. von
Manteuffrl on these two points defended the honour
of Prussia in tie) strongest manner, yet after an ad-
mission of the premises it was easy to perceive that
he wAs more anxious to secure an honourable retreat
than a victory. Prince Schwaszenhurg took his
stand on treitieq, and coetendel that they could only
be upheld by Prussia withdrawing from Hesse, and
remaining re, utral, or by lo'r acting in coecert with
the troops of the Bund. M. von Meyendorf inter-
fered as mediator, and brought both Powers to an
agreement on a middle course."

COMMODORE MARTIN'S SQUADRON.
(FROM OUR OWN CORRESPONDENT.)
Tagus, Nov. 30.
.In my last I think I stated we were to start on the
morning of the sth inst. We were a long time kept
in suspense, the winds being very scant. However
we all got under weigh about 10.30 a.m. having the
wind, sulh as it was, right aft, but a flood to con-
tend against. We had scarcely been under sail an
hour when the Commodore intimated that the ships
might anchor as soon as convenient. At one P.M. the
Frince Regent, Arrogant, Arethusa, and Dauntless,
dropped thsir anchors just above Belem, keeping their
sails loosed, waiting for the ebb tide. The Phaeton
and Leander kept on their course • with the change of
tide the wind gradually left us, and ultimately all the
ships anchored in P,n-..50 d'Arcos Bay. The following
morning at 8 o'clock the squadron was again on the
move, and having got over the bar was soon in the fol-
lowing order of sailing :—Prince Regent, Arethusa,
!Kid Arrogant Pinton, Leander, and Dauntless.
On Thursday the lee division was ordered to try
rate of sailing off the wind, and at 10 a.m. thePhxton,
Leander, and Dauntless were doing their best under
all studding sails, with a light breeze from the S.S.E.
This trial lasted till 4 P. M , during which time
scarcely nine miles of ground had been gone ever.
The result was that the Phmon gained on the Leander
1,040 fm.., and on the Dauntless 100.
On the Bth the same ships had another trial by the
wind. Tiaey commenced at two and left off at 4 P.M.
The distance gone over was a little more than 9 miles,
when the Phaeton had gained on the Leander 1,460
fins., and on the Dauntless 1,620 fins.
On Saturday, the 9th, we had a trial, in which all
were engaged. At 10.30 AM. all were fairly started.
The wind, however, continued very changeable, and
at the time of leaving off at 3 P.M. the
Plaamton had gained on Prince Regent 5 9 miles.
If „ Leander .... 3.5
If Arethusa .... 1.5
„ I Arrogant .... 2 2
„ Dauntless.... 3.6
On the 11th we were again ordered to resume our
old oocupatioo, but previous to starting the Commo-
dore made signal to Dauntless that he would send her
some more hands. This appeared quite necessary,
for in consequence of her heavy yards her sails were
badly handled, and it was quite evident to every one
that there was not sufficient strength to do the work
properly. The Prince Regent sent a large party of
marines.

We started before the wind, all studding sails set,
at i l A.M., and resumed the order of sailing at 2 P.M.
The distance run 9 miles.
Phaeton gained on Prince Regent 2.5 miles.
„ Leander
77
f t
„ Arethusa -
1 11 Arrogant 0.9
ft „ Dauntless. . 0.6
From the 11th to the lath there was nothing to be
done in the way of sailing. We had but a succession
of light airs and calms, during which-time the ships
were occasionally exercised in shifting top-gallant
masts and jib-booms.
On the morning of the lath we had a run of 17
miles, with all starboard studding sails set, the result
of which was at
Pt eeton gained on Prince Regent..... 4.4 miles.
„ Leander . 2.2
„ Arethusa
1 Arrogant 1.9
), „ Dauntless -
At 1 P.m. we started by the wind on the starboard
tack, and left off at 4 P.m., in con6equence of the
Phaeton suddenly shortening sail—there was a stif-
fish breeze, but nothing particular ; but from the
circumstance concluded something was wrong.
Phaeton gained on Prince Regent 6 0 miles.
•
/7 If Leander
II
„ Arethusa
f „ Arrogant
ft „ Dauntless
The wind increased very much during tin night,
so much so that when day broke on the 19th all the
ships were under treble reefed topsails and reefed
courses. The long-wished for breeze had come at
last, and the speculations cn the probable results of
the day's trial may be more easily imagined than
described.
At an early hour the ships were ordered to run
down to leeward, and having gone the required dia-

~

tance, Phmton and Arethusa shook out to single reefed
topsail; the latter set top-gallant sails; Leander under
single reefed main and double reefed fore and mizen
topsails. Arrogant started under treble reefed top-
sails, but shortly after shook out a reef of main
topsail and set main top-gallant sail; Leander shifted
spanker. Dauntless under treble reefed topsails,
reefed courses, and main trysail, ordered to chase
Prince Regent. At 9.45 signal " take angles," when
off these ships started, evidently with as much sail as
they could well stagger under. Shortly after Arrogant
carried away her main top-gallant sheet and split her
jib , in a few seconds the latter sail was blown all to
ribbands. In less than an hour Phaeton bore up, the
Arethusa let fly her top-gallant and topsail sheets to a
squall, and Leander shordened sail. This was to
terminate this day's trial. We were ordered to re-
sume order of sailing, when we observed that Phaeton
had carried away her jib-boom. In reply to the
Commodore's demand " when. would she be ready
to make sail ?" she stated her fore-mast head
was sprung, in consequence, it was supposed, of
something happen.ing to the fore-topmast fid the pre-
vious evening. What appeared very odd to most
of us, was the fact of her still carrying her fore-top-
sail. We were further made acquainted with other
disasters that had befallen her; her bumkin and sprit
sail -gaff opening. In order to account for so much
damage she made the signal " the squall had struck the
Phaeton with greater violence than any of the other
ships." Rather an odd assertion, considering that
both the Prince Regent and Arethusa were to wind-
ward of her. One would think that under the cir-
cumstances every one's attention was too much occu-
pied with his own ship to think of looking after his
neighbour's. It was a heavy squall certainly, but we
are of opinion that it was pretty equally felt amongst
the squadron. The result of this morning's affair
was—aa you know long before this—the Phaeton was
ordered to Portsmouth or Plymouth, as most conve-
nient. It was a pity the trial should terminate thus :
it was getting highly interesting and exciting, and
there can be no doubt but up to the moment the
Arethusa had most decidedly the advantage.
Wednesday—The gale still continued.
Thursday—Still blowing strong. We thought that
we had done with trial sailing in a gale, the Phmton,
the crack ship of the squadron, having been put hors
de combat in the first breeze we had yet encountered,
we felt pretty safe from further trials—not so : at ten
A.M. on the 21st the Leander, Arrogant, and Dauntless
were ordered to leeward three miles, and then beat up :
this trial only lasted an hour, during which time the
Arrogant had gained on the Leander 100, and on the
Dauntless 110 fathoms.

Friday—Strong gale with a heavy swell. Daunt-
bossed rolled here fore and main top-gallant masts
over the side, and rather oddly the one welt imme-
diately after the other, one on one side and the other
on the other. Leander and Arethusa ordered to
supply her with new masts. This morning the In-
constant fell in with us ; and right glad were we that
she could convey to our friends the assurance that
the squadron was together. We felt that they would
naturally conclude the other ships could not have
escaped unscathed in this dreadful storm (as they
would consider it) since the finest frigate had been
so roughly handled.
The Arrogant and Dauntless had two trials under
steam. In the first the Arrogant went head to wind
under full power 3.5 knots, the Dauntless 1.0 under
half power.
In the second trial the conditions were reversed, on
which occasion Dauntless 7.0 knots per hour and
Arrogant had scarcely steerage way.
On Saturday, the 23d, we had a trial of three and
a half hours' duration ; , strong breeze and a heavy
swell. All started under double-reefed topsails.
Shortly after Arethusa set top-gallant sails. The
wind continued to lose its violence, and Arethusa and
Leander shook out second reefs of topsails. At the
termination of the trial, which I should say was by
the wind, the Arethusa was to wind ward of
Leander
Arrogant
Dauntless
The latter is a very leewardly ship, but she fore-
reaches in a most extraordinary weather.
On Sunday we were in a most comfortless state,
the wind had chopped round to the S.W. We were
in the skirts of the Bay of Biscay, the ships were
rolling very much and making very bad weather. We
were in general under close-reefed main-topsail and
storm staysails.
On Monday the weather was scarcely better, but
the wind had changed so as to enable us to make a
course for Lisbon.

On Tuesday head still in the direction of our port.
Arrogant and Dauntless ordered to try rate of speed
before the wind under the combined effect of sails
and steam. Dauntless very much the advantage.
Yon will have perceived that in all these trials the
Dauntless has shown herself a superior sailer, but as
to efficiency, she will bear no comparison with the
Arrogant. Here is a vessel with less tonnage, and
built at a considerably less cost, carries double the
number of guns, and well too, whilst the other has her
main deck ports barely six feet above the water, and
they find the upper deck guns too much for her.
ILre we have, i❑ another shape, a repetition of the
same gross misapplication of the adaptation of means
to an end which has ben observed in the Encounter
and Conflict—an immense amount of tonnage em-
ployed to carry a small number of guns, which duty
all these vessels very indifferently perform.
We arrived here on Wednesday, bringing with us a
very strong breeze from the N.E. We entered the
Tagus under treble reefed topsails and reefed courses,
and top-gallant masts struck. All the ships require
caulking.

The Encounter entered the Tagus on the Ist inst.
from Gibraltar.—Portsmouth Times and Naval
Gazette.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
VICE-CHANCERY COURT, Dec. 9.
(Before. Sir J. KNIGHT B7.IiCE).
OLLENDORY V. BLACK.

The plaintiff in this case, Henri Godfrey o:l2ndorf,
a foreign gentleman, was the author of a book en-
titled " A New Method of Learning to Read, Write,
and Speak a Language in Six Months, adapted to the
French, for the use of Schools and Private Teachers."
The work was first published in London, by Messrs.
Whittaker and Co., the other plaintiff, who had pur-
chased a right to publish an edition of 5,000 copies.
The selling price was 12s. per copy. The defendant,
Mr. Black, of Upper Wellington-street, Strand, had
published at Frankfort-on-the-Maine, an edition of
the work, which he had largely imported into this
country, at a selling price of ss. 61 per copy. An
injunction was, therefore, sought against the sale of
such edition, and also an account of the money re-
ceived for the copies already sold.
Mr. Malins (with whom was Mr. Flaker) appeared
in support of the motion. Dr. 011endorf. at the time
of the publication of the work, was personally resi-
dent in London, as proved by the affidavit of his
landlady. In the case of " Boosey v. Purday" the
Court of Exchequer had merely decided against the
right of a foreigner residing abroad at the time of
publication. It had not gone the length of ileciding
that a foreigner could not have the copyright in this
country.
Mr. BOLT (with whom was Mr. Ellis), for the
defendant, contended that the plaintiff had no domi-
cile in this country. He had merely come to this
country for a few days, to see his bookseller, and now
chimed the same rights of protection for his property
as a natural-born subject of the realm. The Copy-
right Act, which was relied on by the other side, was
not intended to encourage the publications of foreign
authors.

His Hoezoun said his belief was that when the
cases of " Murray v. Bohn," and " Murray v. Rout-
ledge," having reference to the works of Washington
Irving, were before him, the point whether the in-
formation sought for should be granted or refused
was not argued. It was in substance granted by the
counsel for the plaintiff that the matter ought to go
to law, the defendants being directed to keep an ac-
count. But if, however, the point had been argued
before him on those occasions, he shculd not consider
himself bound by what then took place, or by what he
then did. He considered himself at liberty to deal
with the present case as if those cases were not. It had
been said that the legal weight in this case was doubt-
ful, and that the mere existence of a doubt was suffi-
cient to prevent the Court from granting the injunc-
tion. He did not agree in that. He believed that
doctrine to be new, for it would interfere with the
jurisdiction of the Court, daily exercised to a very
great extent. The question of the legal right being in
doubt was a matter for the serious attention of the
Court, but it did not render it incumbent on the Court
to refuse the injunction. Notwithstanding the argu-
ment that the plaintiff in " Cocks v. Purday" was an
Englishman claiming by assignment from a foreigner,
his Honour thought that circumstance afforded no
clear ground of distinction between that and the pre
sent case. If the case of Cocks and Purday were un-
justly decided, it appeared clear to him the plaintiff
(Dr..ollendorf) was right in equity, and right in
law in the present instance. Tnere was a circum-
stance here which distinguished the present case from
the case in the Court of Exchequer, "Boosey v. Pur
day." When the first publication of the work took
place in England, Dr. 011endorf was himself present
in England. It was said only temporarily so, and
that his domicile was originally foreign, and that it
had never ceased to be so. That may be, but his
Honour could not concede to the proposition that the
circumstance of Dr. 011endorf being present here at
the time of the first publication, was immaterial. His
Honour was of opinion, viewing the case as he did,
that there was a case for an injunction now; he
should therefore grant an injunction on the common
undertaking of the plaintiffs to abide by any order
which the Court may make as to damages. He made
this order merely as a lawyer, but for the sake of
literature generally, this ought to be the right view
of the law.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, Dec. 9.
SMITH V. COOK.—LIBEL.
(Continued from our Afternoon Edition of yesterday.)
Mr. Sergeant SHEE then addressed the jury for the
defendant. Whatever might be the difficulties of a
case entrusted to an ads ocate in a court of justice,
there was always one circumstance calculated to
cheer and animate him, and that was the conviction
that his client was an honourable man. Captain
Cook was a man who, for nearly a quarter of a
century, had enjoyed the respect of his countrymen.
He was the Captain Cook who so honourably distin-
gpished himself during the destruction by fire of the
Kent East Indiaman, many years ago, in the Bay of
Biscay. He had since been employe by the Govern-
ment to treat with the African princes at the Niger,
with a view to the suppression of the slave trade.
This statement, now alleged to be libellous, had been
extorted from Lim by the bold bad man who now
dragged him into court. Mr. Edmund Garbett, the
friend of Captain Smith, had addressed a letter to the
Hon. Member for the West Riding of York, pub-
lished in the Times, and which called upon Captain
Cook to vindicate his character. It was true, as had been
stated by the plaintiff's counsel, that Smith appeared
at a meeting of the Peace Society, and stated his opi-
nion of the character of the pirates in the neighbour-
hood of Borneo. This became the subject of discus-
sion in the House of Commons when 100,0001. was
,isked for head money for the pirates destroyed by
Rsja Brooke. In the course of the debate it was
stated that it was to be wished that Captain Aaron
Smith could the❑ state what he had asserted at the
meeting in question. The Learned Sergeant
then read certain letters of Mr. Garbett
to Mr. Cobien, in which it was stated
that Captain Smith had some years before published an
account of his life on board the pirate ship, in which
he had clearly show❑ that what Captain Cook had
stated at the trial was untrue, and that he (Cook) had
never had the manliness to answer it, or to defend
himself. He made a distinct charge in that letter
against Captain Cook, that he had stated what was
untrue on his oath. This letter having been printed
in the Times and Morning Post, it would not have
been proper for Captain Cook to have remained silent.
He (Mr. Sergeant Shee) would undertake to
prove that all that Captain Cook had stated
in his letter was the truth. If Captain
Smith wanted the whole truth to be known
with respect to the circumstances under which he
was acquitted in 1823, the better way to vindicate his
character would have been to bring his action against
the Times, when Captain Cook might have appeared
as a witness, and been cross-examined. He (Mr.
Sergeant Shee) would undertake to prove that Smith
had not acted by compulsion as a pirate, but was a
pirate and the associate of pirates of his own free will.
Mr. Edward Symmons, clerk to the magistrates at
the Thames Pol'ca-court, produced the original de-
position of Wm. Cook, the defendant, when Aaron
Smith, the plaintiff, was brought before the Court on
a charge of piracy in 1823. A small portion of the
deposition had been lost.
The deposition was then put in evidence.
John Thomas Stuart, clerk to the plaintiff's at-
torney, who was present at the examination of one
Andre Jean Malinaire (now out of the country),
touching this matter, produced the deposition. (Ma-
linaire's deposition was then put in.)
John Lagus—l reside at Mile-end, and now work
about ships. I. have been a mariner. In August,
1822, I was boatswain on board the brig Victoria,
which was on her homeward voyage from Jimaica in
July of that year. I know both Captain Smith and
Captain Cook. About the 7th August, when the ship
was off the island of Cuba, she was taken by a schooner.
The brig Industry, commanded by Capt. Cook, was off
that island at the same time. I had seen the schooner
chasing the Industry, and then get alongside of her.
That was about nine o'clock in the morning. The
Victoria was taken about one o'clock. The schooner
fired before we were taken. A boat then came
alongside from the schooner, with Smith on board,
and three or four more, armed with pistols, muskets,
and long knives. The boat was commanded by
Smith. His face was blackened a little,
I believe. He was not pulling the boat.
Smith came on board first. The captain
and the first and second mates were there.
The first mate said, "Is that you, Smith ?" Smith
said his name was not Smith, but Allen. He then
told the captain and the second mate to go into the
boat with three of the crew. The captain asked if he
must take his papers and what the schooner was.
Smith replied, " You will know when you go on
board." He then gave orders to fill the sails of
the Victoria, that she might run after the schooner. '
The captain and the mate and second mate went
on board the schooner. Smith then asked for liquor
and dinner for himself and his men. The man at the
helm did not steer according to his wish, and Smith
called him a scoundrel, and took the cutlass and
struck him across the head, making a wound three
inches long. He fired his musket as a signal, I sup-
pose. Smith spoke to the pirates in English, and
they appeared to understand him. None gave orders
but Smith, and the men obeyed his orders. The man
at the wheel WAS sent away by Smith, and I was put
in his place. The steward prepared dinner for
Smith and his men. He asked where the cheese
was, and the steward replied that it was Cheshire
cheese. Smith said, " 'Where is Cheshire ? " The
steward said it was in England. The vessel was
becalmed on the same day, and two Dutchmen came
on board with knives. Smith fired a musket at me
because I did not steer according to his liking.
The witness, in cross-examination, stated that he
had given the same evidence on that occasion that he
had given to-day. The mate, the cook, and Captain
Cook, were also examined on that trial. The men
who came on board with Smith appeared to be Spa-
niards. They were armed with muskets, cutlasses,
and long knives. We were about half a psile from

the schooner when she began the chase, and when they •
boarded us ten or twelve men came with the pirate
captain. There were 13 of the crew of the Victoria,
and' 12 of the Industry. I suppose there were GO or
70 men on board the pirate-vessel.
George Lewis examined—Was at the Old Bailey
trial. In August, 1822, I was carpenter in the brig
Victoria. I remember her being taken by a piratical
schooner. A boat from the schooner boarded the
Victoria. The boat's crew were armed with pistols,
cutlasses, and knives. She was commanded by Aaron
Smith, He first came on board, and he then ordered
the captain, the chief mate, the second mate, and three
sailors, to go into his boat. When Smith came on
board he fired a musket off. The captain asked Smith
what he and his crew were. Smith told him to go on
board the schooner, and they would tell him what they
were. The captain complied, and took his ship's
papers with him, at the request of Smith. Smith
stayed on board the Victoria from one or two until
eight o'clock, and gave orders to everyone en baard.
We did the work, and the pirates walked the deck, to
take care of us. Ho told Deane, the moan at the
wheel, to steer the ship " well." He stand: the man
with a cutlass on his head, and made a weuild three
inches long. The last witness was then called to the
helm. Smith asked me where my captain belonged
to? I told him his name was Hearne, and he belt nged
to the North. He asked where he lived. I said,
17, Lucaa-street, C.oinniercial• road, Leedon. :;,nigh
said " -What da I know about Louden ?.' I remember
an American vessel coming in sight. When we lost
her it was quite dark, and the wind blowing hard.
He ordered me to put four oars in the jolly-boat, and
I did so. When the American was twenty minutes'
sail oil', the schooner was about two miles off The
brig might then have been saved if Smith had done
what he ought. Smith came back with a Spaniard.
whom they called their captain. He ordered me to
break open the trunk, and made me take down the
lining at the ship's side and the lining over the deck,
to see if there was any property. The pirate captain
said, if he found any money stowed away he would
blow my brains out. Smith and the captain were
down below carousing together. When Smith went
away he took the mate's boat cloak. The next day
we were sent on board the Industry. We heard a
quarrel on board the pirate schooner in the night, and
heard screaming. It was rumoured that the pirate
captain was murdered that night. I last saw the pi-
rate captain on the 7th of August, when he left the
Victoria. When I went on board the Industry I saw
Captain Cook. I noticed his arm, and observed
marks of blood on it. Capt. Cook dressed Deane's
wound, I do not know what private property of Capt.
Hearne's was taken, nor have I ever heard what
Smith got from this transaction. Lugas and I are
the only two seamen alive belonging to the English
' ship. I was first found out to be a witness by
placard. When Smith was on board the Victoria he
said I was to sound the.well as usual, and consider
him as captain.
Cross-examined by Mr. JAMES—I do not know
who was steward then. Ido not remember his name.

Mr. Henry lman Cohen—My father and uncle
were the owners of the Victoria, and I was in their
office at the time. I was present at the trial of Aaron
Smith, in December, 1823. I heard Captain Cook
examined on the trial of the indictment for piratically
boarding the Victoria. I have heard his deposition
read here today. I did not hear him state anything
respecting the Industry. Captain Cook never said
at the trial that Captain Smith had saved his life ; he
said that Smith had not the power to save his life.
It was stated that Smith had knocked a pistol out of
the hand of some one who was going to fire at Cook's
head. Captain Cook denied the assertion. I have
known Captain Cook for many years.
Mr. Dobie, the solicitor to the Times, produced
letters of the plaintiff of the 15th and 24th of June,
1850, to Mr. Cobden, which were put in in evidence.
The plaintiff, in the last of those letters, called Mr.
Cobden a " poltroon" and a" slanderer " for refusing
to retract what he had said of him in Parliament,
which he had asked him to do in the first letter, and
said he sheltered his pocket from the consequence of
an action, by the " privilege" of Parliament, and his
cowardly back from a flogging by protection of his
purse.
Mr. Barton, from the office of the Morning Post,
produced a letter, signed by " E. Garbett," published
in the Morning Post.
This closed the defendant's case.

Mr. E. JAMES replied on the defendant's case,
commenting on the evidence and circumstances as he
proceeded. The jury were now again impanelled to
try Captain Smith on two distinct charges on which
he had before been placed upon his trial and honour •
ably acquitted. He (Mr. James) contended that the
charges against Captain Smith were malicious, and
without any foundation, inasmuch as nothing could
be more clear than that he had not only not been
guilty of murder, as stated, but had never stained
his hands in human blood, and was also guiltless of
the charge of boarding and plundering the Pre-
voyant. The Learned Gentleman conclude! by
hoping that the jury would award Captain Smith
competent damages for the injury of wilich he so un-
justly complained.

Lord CAMPBELL asked the counsel on both sides
whether they would divest the case of all the merely
technical points on the pleadings, and would take the
verdict on the second plea only, which raised the
substantial question of the truth of the libel ?

Both the Counsel answered the►t in this matter
they would be guided by the Lard Chief Justice's
wishes.

Lord CAMPBELL then said, that in consequence of
this very proper course taken by the counsel on both
sides, the case had become one for the jury alone.
He should merely assist the jury by making a few
observations. He thought that there was not the
slightest reason to complain of the plaintiff for having
brought this action against the defendant instead of
bringing it against the Times. It would have been
most improper to bring the action against that paper.
When the paper had taken the precaution to know who
was the author of the letter, and to get an undertak-
ing from him that he would be answerable for the
publication of it, and gave up that author to the person
complaining of it, the author of the letter was the
proper, and the only proper person to be made a
defendant. Likewise he must say that the plaintiff
was in a situation of great hardship, to be thus
' called on to go into an occurrence which happened
between twenty and thirty years ago. As soon after
as it was possible he had been called on to answer
this charge. In 1823 he was accused, and the Crown
properly took up the prosecution, the King's Attorney-
General conducting it. The charge was for pireey
in the cases of the Vittoria and the Industry. On
the fine'. of these cases he was tried. All the evidence
thet could be adduced was heard, and he had no
doubt that all proper evidence was brought forward
that could be considered capable of strengthening the
case against the prisoner. The then Attorney-
was a most able and honour-
ableGenraemaln(,Sainrdß. noGitr
doUd)hrtconducted the case with great
propriety. Two of the witnesses who had been in
the box to-day were then examined. The case went
to the jury with apparently the most excellent obser-
vations, for the Court remarked that the act without
the mind did not constitute guilt; and the jury, act-
ing on that rule, and believing that the plaintiff
acted on compulsion, pronounced a verdict of ac-
qui:tal. It must be assumed that that was a fair and
honourable verdict, and Sir R. Gifford thought it so
conclusive that, no doubt having presented the
strongest case in the first instance to the jury, he
declined to present any evidence on the case of the
Industry. In the year 1829 the plaintiff was again
tried on another charge, before other judges and
under other circumstances. The case was brought
to trial before one of the most enlightened, learned,
and able men that had ever sat on the bench—he
meant Lard Chief Justice Tindal ; and on that occa-
sion another jury was so satisfied that the case against
the plaintiff was insufficient, and that the voluntary
joining of the pirates was not proved, that the jurors
interposed, and, stopping the case, returned a verdict
of not guilty. On the part of
.the plaintiff it was
wished to lay before the jury
bthuttsit wdayatshe objected to
evidence
which had then been given;
because this defendant was not then present, and it
was necessarily rejected. At this distance of time it
was an extreme hardship that the charge should thus
be revived. It was beautifully said by Lord Plunkett
that Time was represented with a scythe in one hand
and an hour-glass in the other, that with his scythe
he cut down the evidence of a transaction, but with
the hour-glass he limited the time within which the
charge might be brought the evidence of which his
scythe hid destroyed. It was true that the law
did not recognise limitation to charges of crimes ;
but men would not fail to see that after a certain
period a charge could not be brought without
pressing with undue hardship on the accused, and
especially in a case like this, when the party had
already three times successfully answered it. As it
was, the jury here mast now consider this charge,
and say whether the plaintiff was guilty or not
guilty. By this libel the defendant charged him with
being a pirate and a murderer, and undertook by the
plea to prove him to be so. The jury would look to
see whether there was any evidence whatever of his
having committed murder ; and with respect to his
having committed piracy, the jury would consider
whether he had committed it voluntarily or not. As
to that, he seemed to have been a man in a respect-
able situation of life, and about to be married. He
was returning to England for that purpose in the Ze-
phyr, when that vessel was attacked, and he became
a victim to the pirates. He was lett among them.
He at last escaped, and there was no evidence to dis-
prove what he alleged in his book with respect to the
manner in which he escaped. Neither was there a
tittle of evidence to prove that the pirate captain was
dead, and that he supplied the place of the
captain. The statements in his book having been
made evidence, were to be taken as much in his
favour as against him, Toe defendant said that the
book proved his case. The jury would say whether ,

that was so or not. If the jurymen believed what the
plaintiff stated, their verdic: must be f,,r him ; if they
distwlieved it, the verdict nut be against him ; but
they would require strong evidence to show that he
had wilfully acted as a pirate after he had had rea-
sonable means of escape. It was said that he might
have escaped when the American was in sight, and
he was on board one of the captured vessels ; but con-
sidering the small distance of the pirate schooner,
and the force on hoard it, the jury would say whether
that was an enter prize tlytt was at all likely to sue
ceed. He should now p through the evidence given
this day-
The jury here interposed, and said that that was
not necessary.
Lord CAMPBELL would then leave the matter with
the jury. lie should only further observe that the
conduct of the defendant when he was in the hands of
the pirates showed what compulsion was exercised
Over a captive. As to the letters of Mr. Cobden they
ought not to have been wrtt •n in that s,lirrilous tone,
ought not to prejudice the jury against the
. . . _

Tin. jury retired fora short time, and then brought
in a verdict for the plaintiff, (Images 101.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER, Dec. 9.

(Sittin4s at Pcin,i, after Michaelmas Term,
b(ifore, the LORD 011IEF 13Anon and Middlesex
Special Juries.)

LAIDLAW V. LE CH,

This action, which was part heard on Saturday,
was resumed and concluded to-day. It was brought
to recover damages for an alleged breach of a contract
entered into by the parties. The defendant paid 201.
into court, and put several piras on the record, which
alleged substantially that the plaintiff had absented
himself ithout leave from his duty, and that he was
incompetent to perform what he had undertaken.
Mr. Knowles, with Mr. Henderson, was counsel
for the plaintiff; and Sir Frederick Thesiger and Mr.
Bramwell for the defendant.

It appeared that the plaintiff is a surgeon of great
professional reputation, having been twenty years ago
surgeon to the Middlesex Hospital, and subsequently
in practice at Alexandria, from which city he returned
to this country in 1848. Towards the close of that
year he was engaged by the defendant, who is the
keeper of a private lunatic asylum at Britonferry,
G-lamorganshire, as medical officer to the establishment,
at a salary of 1001. per annum, with hoard and resi-
dence for himself and wife. S holt( ly after entering upon
his engagement, the plaintiff was requested by the Board
of Health to attend in London and give evidence be-
fore them on the subject of the operation of the qua
rantine laws in Egypt, and he obtained four days'
leave of absence from the defendant for that purpose.
He gave his evidence before the board, and was re•
quested by them to give evidence on a second occa-
sion, for which purpose he prolonged his stay in
London. During this time, however, he was visited
with a severe attack of influenza, which laid him up
for some days. In the meanwhile a letter reached
him from the defendant, informing him that as he had
exceeded his leave of absence he had broken his en-
gagement, and another gentleman had been appointed
in his place. The plaintiff immediately returned to
Britonferry, and told the defendant that he consi-
dered himself engaged for a year, at the same time
taking possession of his apartments in the house. This
act was opposed by the defendant, who placed one of
his household to watch the approaches to this part of
the building, for the purpose of intercepting all sup-
plies of food to the plaintiff. This state of things
lasted for 48 hours, when the plaintiff left the house
with his wife, and returned to London. An offer of
201. was subsequently made to the plaintiff, as
compensation for his services, but this was refused,
and the defendant now paid it into court.
Dr. Southwood Smith, and Dr. Watson and Haw-
kins, in their evidence, described the plaintiff as a
man of ability, judgment, and experience.
Sir FREDERICK TRESIG ER, on the part of the defen-
dant, contended that the plaintiff had clearly broken
his contract with the defendant, by exceeding his
leave of absence by ten days, rind that he was inca-
pable of performing the duty he had undertaken, in-
asmuch as he had not kept his books in accordance
with the directions of the statute.

The LORD CHIEF BARON expressed a strong
opinion to-day that there was not reasonable or pro-
bable cause for the plaintiff's remaining away so long.
The jury returned a verdict for the defendant on
the third plea, and on so much of the 7th as alleged
that the plaintiff was unnecessarily absent. The re-
maining issues were found for the plaintiff, but the
general effect of the verdict is in favour of the de-
fendant.

OAKLEY V. THE LONDON AND NORTH-WESTERN RAILWAY

COMPANY.

This was an action promoted by the Treasury to
recover back from the London and North-Western
Railway company the sum of 16s. 9d., under the pro-
visions of the 7th and Bth Victoria, c 85, s. 12, as for
money paid to the use of the company. The defen-
dants pleaded non assumpsit, on which issue was
joined.
Mr. Knowles appeared for the plaintiff, and Sir
Frederick Thesiger for the defendants.
It appeared that the plaintiff was a police•constablc,
and that on th- 13th of August, 1849, he pre'ented
himself at the Liverpool station of the London and
North-Western Railway, and after exhibiting his
police ticket, claimed to he conveyed to London at the
rate of one penny per mile, in payment for which he
tendered the sum of 16s. 9.1. The clerk to whom the
plaintiff applied, and whose business it was to grant
the police passes, informed him that the express train
was about to start, it being then near five o'clock in
the afternoon, and that he had express orders to re
fuse any person to go by that train at the rate of a
penny a mile. The plaintiff said it was important
that he should be in London at eleven o'clock the
same night, and then paid 1/. 13s. to travel by the
express train, which was at the rate of twopence per
mile. Upon this state of facts the present action
was brought to try the right of the defendants
to claim that rate of remuneration for the con-
veyance of a police officer. The action was brought
under the provisions of the 7th and Bth Vic-
toria, c. 85, which attaches certain conditions
to the coveyance of persons travelling in pursuance
of public duties. This statute recites an Act
passed in the 6.11 year of the same reign, and pro-
vides that all railway companies, incorporated by Act
of Parliament, shall be bound to convey officers be-
longing to the marines, the military, and the police,
at fares not exceeding twopence per mile, for which
those officers shall be entitled to travel in first-class
carriages. By the section of the Act upon which
this action was brought, it is further enacted that
privates in those forces shall be conveyed at the rate
of a penny per mile, and upon this it was contended
that the company should refund the excess fare.
In the cross-examination of the plaintiff's witnesses,
it turned out that he was connected with the Bath
police, appointed under the Municipal Corporation
Act, and that he was travelling to the principal towns
in the kingdom, in pursuance of instructions to that
effect, for the purpose of procuring recruits for the
Bath police.

ESir FREDERICK TIIESIGER, at an early stage of
the case, took several objections in point of law to the
maintenance of the action, which he submitted to the
Learned Judge. He observed that the material facts
of the case were not in dispute, but that it was a pre-
liminary question of law, whether a single po►ticeman
could avail himself of this law, when the Act, by
speaking of the " removal of forces," evidently ap-
plied to a great number of men.

The LORD CnrEr BARON said that that was an
objection which was welt worthy of consideration
hereafter, and he also doubted. whether an officer of
the Bath municipal police, traveling to recruit that
force, could avail himself of the privilege conferred by
the Act. He was of opinion, moreover, that it was
not necessary for the plaintiff's discharge of his duty
that he should have been in London as early as he said,
therefore he might have travelled by the mail train,
when probably no objection would have been raised.
Under all the circumstances, as he could not decide
any matter of law sitting there at nisi prius, he should
recommend that the plaintiff should be nonsuited,
and that the question of law be discussed afterwards.
In accordance with his Lordship's suggestion, a
nonsuit was at length entered, and leave was reserved
to the plaintiff to move to set aside the nonsuit, and
enter a verdict with damages as in the declaration.
The LORD CHIEF B4RON refused to certify for a
special jury, and remarked upon the impropriety cf
bringing an action for 16s. 9d. The certificate of its
being a proper case to try in a superior court he di-
rected to abide the event of the rule.

This was the last day of the sittings at Westwin..
ster.

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY, Dec. 9.
IN 1B J. DONOVAN.

The bankrupt was, in 1848, a fishmonger in Ox-
ford-street, his debts being 7,5501., his assets 7,2001.
He then united to his business of fishmonger that of
a timber-merchant, trading in partnership with Mr.
Vallance. In April last he become bankrupt, and the
result shows unsecured debts of about 5,0001., and
assets 300/. This was the certificate meeting.
Mr. Simons appeared fur the assignsee, Mr. Lucas
for,Mr. Newton, a creditor on a hill of exchange, and
Mr. Lawrance for the bankrupt.
The ground of objection on the part of Mr. New-
ton was that the bankrupt had put in a false plea in
defending an action.
His Horroun, however, decided that Mr. Newton's
hands were not clean in the matter, and that he
should not be justified in giving him a certificate,
putting him in the positi ,r) of a judgment creditor.
Oa the grounds of bad book-keeping and entering
upon a trade of which he knew nothing, the certifi-
cate of the. bankrupt would be suspended three
months, and then be of the third class only. Protec-
tion was granted.

The Earl De Grey has arrived in St. James's-
square, from Weat-park, Bede.

LIVERPOOL ASSIZES, Yesterday.
TRIAL OF THRELFALL FOR FORGERY.

(Before Mr. Justice TALFOURD.)
William Threlfall was indicted for le.zving uttt?red
several forged hills of exchange, at Liverpool, with
intent to defraud the Hull Flax COMplly.
Five of the jury, on being called over, were ob-
jected to by the Crown.
Mr. Sergeant WILKINS announced that the pri-
soner, of his own tree will, had a►ithdrawn the plea of
not guilty, and now pleaded guilty to the charge of
uttering, not of forging.
Mr. 'Brass, who appeared to prosecute, said he was
ready to produce no less than 30 bills of exchange for
32,8111., which had been uttered by the prisoner, all
of which were forgeries. Besides these there were
66 others, with four in addition, making altogether
forgeries to the extent of 113,801/. Tnat was prior
to the time of his apprehension. Since then 15 addi-
tional bills had fallen due—all forgeries. These
amounted to more than 20,0001. The entire number
of forged bills was 115, alterther amounting to
133,0001, all of which he eras prepared to prove the
prisoner had uttered with a guilty knowledge.
Mr. Sergeant Wtraitris, in miigation, sail it was
right his Lordship should be informed that, although
the bilis were forgeries, bills to the extent of 113,800/.
had been taken up when they arrived at maturity., At
the time the prisoner committed the forgeries he had
no idea of defrauding any one, and this was proved
by the fsct that he had met every bill which was due
up to the time of his apprehension. He had borne
a most exemplary character, and though he had done
a most illegal and foolish act, he had never intended
to commit any moral crime. Nothwithstanding all
the disadvantages arising from his apprehension, the
prisoner's e,4ate would yield a dividend of 12s. or 15s.
in the pound.
Mr. Buss admitted that ont of the 130,0001. of
forged bills, about 80,000/. had been paid by the pri-
soner, but still there was a large amount which had
not been paid. . _

His LORDSHIP said he would con Eider the matter,
and pass sentence in the morning.
SIRRELL'S CASE.—THE PLATE ROBBERIES.

Mr. Sergeant WILKINS applied that in case the
grand jury should find a true bill, the trial would
take place on Wednesday morning. The application
was granted.
Mr. Bodkin is also retained for the defence; and
Mr. Goodman, of the Mansion-house, London, with
several other respectable gentlemen, are to be exa-
mined as to Sirrell's character.

POLICE IN TELLIGENCE.
GUILDHALL.

Samuel Porter was placed at the bar, charged with
forgery, under the following ingenious circumstances :
It appeared that the prisoner was in the employ of
Messrs. Wilkinson, upholsterers, of Ludgate-hill, and
according to the statement of a member of that firm,
he had been their servant for upwards of ten years.
He was occasionally employed in day work if out of
doors, and piece-work if in the house. At the end of
the week it was usual for him to make up his book of
time and work, and submit it to the foremen to
check, previous to receiving payment from the head of
the firm. When he was paid he was accustomed to re-
turn the book to the foreman, to hold until the follow-
ing week. Within the last two years it has been
ascertained that the prisoner commenced a system of
petty frauds by one of the most ingenious methods
that a workman could invent to practise against his
master. After obtaining the foreman's signature to his
account, signifying that it was perfectly correct, he
would take his hook away, add another figure to the
unit in the shillings column to the item for piece-work.
and carry out the same alteration in the total. He then
carried the book to the principal, and received the full
amount, and when he was about to return the blok
to the foreman, he erased the figure he had previously
added, thereby defrauding his employers of so many
tens of shillings, according to the number he added.
It was discovered that this system had been going on
for the last two years, and when prisoner was taxed
with it, after great hesitation, he admitted that he had
done it two or three times, and then offered to refund
the money or work it out. Mr. Wilkinson asked
him if he was not sure it was fifty times. He said
not, but he could not tell whether he had done it
twenty-five times or not. On being questioned as to
when he did these things, he replied, whenever he
wanted money.
The foreman to Messrs. Wilkinson was then called,
and deposed that prisoner's bill last week when pre-
sented:for payment did not exceed 1/. Bs. 9id , and by
the means he had been detected in using he obtained
10s. more than was due to him, as he received from
Mr. Wilkinson 1/. 18s. 9id., the figure on the left of
the 8 having been added by the prisoner after wit-
ness's signature had been attached to the account to
show the principal that it was correct.
The case being considered complete, prisoner was
remanded till t,'-morrow, when the depositions will
be rflad over to him, previous to his being committed
for trial.