The Sun.
London, England, 1828-05-19 00:00:00

WARM3LEY FROND.

This was an application on the part of the plaintiff, to
commit the defendant, who is a solicitor, for contempt in
the breach of an injunction. It appeared that Mr. Frowd,
who is the proprietor of a farm at Madely, in Staffordshire,
commenced an action against the plaintiff, who had been
his tenant, for a breach of certain covenants, and fur the
recovery of the rents alleged to be- due. The plaintiff's
filed their bill in this Court for the purpose of ob-
taining an injunction to restrain Mr. Frowd from pro-
ceeding with that action ; the Court thought there was
sufficient equity, and granted that injunction. The clerk
of the solicitor 4 on the part of the plaintiff had tried, but
ineffectually, to serve the copy of the injunction personally
upon the plaintiff ; he proceeded with the action, and ulti-
mately arrested the plaintiff in defiance of the injunction:

Mr. SITGDEN and Air. hoIENCV vrere in support of the
application, and
Mr. AGAR against it, who contended no proper notice
Lad been given to the defendant.
His Lokustm. thought the case on the part of Mr.
Agar's client entirely failed, and made the order according
to the prayer, and directed it not to be delivered out
till further order, it being probable some arrangement
would he made with respect to the costs.

VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT.
JUDGMENT.
TRUMAN YARKINgOIf.

At the sitting of the Court this morning, his 1101i0UA
gave judgment in this cause. The Bill was filed by the
assignees of a bankrupt, for the purpose of setting aside
a deed of conveyance, on the ground that no sufficient con-
sideration had been given for it, and that it had been exe-
cuted in contemplation of bankruptcy. On the part of
the defendants it was shown, that the sum of money stated
in the deed as the consideration had been actually paid.
Under these circumstances his Honour was of opinion that
the deed was valid, and therefore that the Bill ought to he
dismised.

ARIGNA MINING COMPANY.
lIITCIIENS V. CONCREVE BROGDEN.

The arguments upon the application in this case were
then resumed, and ate likely to occupy the Court during
the entire day. It will be recollected that the object of
the application is to compel the defendants to pay
into Court, to abide the result of the suit, the sum of
15,0001. which they are charged with having improperly
appropriated to therziselves.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH.
TILE KING V. ARIS.

I❑ this case the defendant was convicted of a nuisance,
in having erected a turnpike-gate in the neighhourhood of
Bethnal-green; and Sir James Scarlett now applied for
the prosecutor's costs, the prosecutor being the party ag-
grieved by the nuisance, and therefore, unthr the Statute of
the 5 William and Mary, cap 11. see. 3., was entitled to
his costa.

The COMMON-SERGEANT objected, that as the prose-
cutor had agreed to take the opinion of a gentleman at the
Bar on the question in dispute, but had afterwards refused
to hold himself hound by that opinion, h: had therefore
disentitled himself to costs.

The CounT granted the application.
TILE KING V. GILBERT.

This was a criminal information against the defendant,
a gentleman residing at Bodmin, in Cornwall, for a libel
ou a Mr. Wallis, an attorney, residing in Bodmin, and
also on his wife. The libel was published in the shape of
a hand-bill, addressed to the Electors of Bodmin, and
stated, that Mrs. Wallis was the Marquis of Hertford's
woinau of business, that Mr. Wallis had obtained money
which ought to have been spent in the town of Bodtpin,.
and that a house which he had built in the neighbourhood
of that town was built with money which he had thus
possessed himself of. One of the libels concluded with an
insinuation that' Mrs. Wallis had been guilty of inconti-
nence with a person named Glyn, and that a young lady,
the daughter of Mr. Wallis, was the issue of this inter-
course.

The information was to have been tried at the last
Assizes for Cornwall, but the defendant pleaded guilty, and
wan now called up for judgment. _ _

On behalf of the defendant, an affidavit was put in,
stating, that he had written and caured to be published
the libels in question in an unguarded moment; that it
was the result of political animosity which existed in the
tow❑ of Bodmin ; that he felt he had done what he was
ashamed of doing, and that shortly after the publication of
the libel he had published an apology.
A number of affidavits were also put in from officers in
the army, who had served with Captain Gilbert, and
who bore testimony of his general conduct and character.

Mr. ErtsKINE then shortly addressed the Court in aggra-
vation, and observed, that the station and character of Mr.
Gilbert gave additional poignancy to the injury he bad
inflicted.

Sir JAMES SCA RLETI, in mitigation, stated, that the de-
fendant was fully impressed with the impropriety of his
conduct, and that if his offence was aggravated by. the cir-
cumstance of his filling the rank of a gentleman, his suf•
ferings were proportionably great at feeling that he now
stood to receive the judgment of the Court for an act which
he felt himself was disgraceful. The Learned Counsel alto
stated, that the lihel was not written by the defendant, hut
that he felt himself bound to give up the author.
Mr. COLERIDGE followed at the same side.

Mr. Justice BAY T.ET pronounced the sentence of the
Court. lie observed that the apology did not go so far as
to avow a disbelief of the imputations made against Mrs.
Wallis, and therefore the defendant stood forth to receive
the judgment of the Court for a most unwarrantable and
unjustifiable libel. The judgment of the Court was, that
the defendant should be imprisoned in the gaol of Bodenin
for four calendar months, and enter into recognizance,
himself in 2001, and two sureties in 100/. each, for three
years.
The defendant then withrirew in the custody of the
Marshal of the Marshalsea.

CONSISTORY COURT.
At the close of some uninteresting busines., a person of
the name of Smith, requested permission to address the
Court. Ile stated that the object of his application w&'
to be heard on an act and petition which he had given in
against Mr. Arthur Loveday, a Proctor of this Court,
praying that he should he struck off the roll for miscon-
duct, in having grossly mismanaged the conduct of his
cause during a period of three years.
Dr. LUSITINCTON said, it was quite impossible for the
Court to take cognizance of disputes between Mr. Smith
and his Proctor.
intention,tt facts of the case, and thebCourt,
would determine what course should be adopted.ri‘ocitro.r, as would, he Ir
Smitilsaid he
wouldNas evieed, induce burinigsuchcharges against the
Proctor, the Court to
interfere; and he begged to be heard in support of his
allegations, in the first Session of Michaelmas Term.
Dr. LITSJIINCTON then directed Mr. Smith to give the
Praetor
r writtenproperly
m
ade
notice of his
.h h
acquainted

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.
TEARY V. BROADBELT.
BREACH OF PROMISE OF MARRIAGE.
Mr. Sergeant ANDREWS moved that the rule for a new
trial in this case should be made absolute, on the ground
of excessive damages, the verdict of the jury being to the
amount of 300/.

eanulaseid,agaaniudsttherule.
b a now s
h ol
lady's s
IMr.
he Sergeantplaplaintiff
t NirV
had
dE
sub-
sequently lived with her uncle, who kept a public
hours in Brick-lane, Spital-fields, where she became
acquainted with the defendant, who keeps a flourishing
house of a similar description is the same neighbourhood.
He had promised her marriage, and it appeared in evi-
dence that he had said he would rather have her than
1,000%. He had, however, subsequently married a ladY
who had that sum, thus breaking his promise with the
plaintiff. Since Hilary term affidavits had been tiled by
the defendant.
Mr. Sergeant ANnamrs here interposed, and said that
notice had been given that these affidavits would not lie
used, and it was not regular, therefore, to allude to them.
Mr. Sergeant Wxt,oE insisted upon his right to 110 so,
and then said, that more scandalous affidavits hail
~ ever
been put upon the files of the Court. One of those
davits was from a Mr. Cope, (die name of the lady whom
the defendant had married was Cope), and be
swears
that since the trial lie has obtained information,
which he believes to be tole, that one Peter Rowley
Amos had said, that he had known the plaintiff
for the space of two years, during which he frequently had
had criminal intercourse with her. Now it was somewhat
strange that Amos himself bad not made an affidavit to that
effect, if it was true, but it was not so. It was a most infamous
proceeding, as would be Chown by the affidavits in answer,
for be had the tiffidOit of the plaintiff inunif, milting that

abs knew Ames, and that he had offered to marry hettblt. ..
she declined to become his wife, because she knew biO,
be a dissipated and immoral character. She also str":d
that she never had criminal intercourse with him;
did she ever conduct herself lightly towards him, e,,
towards any other person. If any thing die were 0,
ing to prove this- to be a most base and malignant
hood, it was supplied by other affidavits, •whieb
held, made by the parties, who swore that this Amos V,
applied to various persons to come forward and on
something detrimeatal to the character of this girl, OF,
he dared not do himself, although Cope insinuated tN
he himself could have done sn from his own knowle!
of him. He freely admitted that the damages were 104
Chief Justice BEST. 12 very probable, brother 111',
that if these facts were known at the trial, the datiOr
would have been much larger.
Mr. Sergeant WILDE proaeerled.—The damages a,
large for a person in her station of life, but then the QC„
tion was, whether the sum of 3001. placed her in a
situation than if she was married to the defendant, *.;
was possessed of Z.,,000/. which he had raved,. and 1`)
had an income of 8001. per annum.
Chief Justice BEST. —That is an unfortunate arguallePt,
brother Wilde, for we must believe that she is in a 10
better situation without, than with such a husband.
:llr. Sergeant Whoa then contended that under the;
cumstances of the case their Lordships could not caws
to disturb the verdict.
Mr. Sergeant AN nREWS then addressed the Court on
part of the defendant, contending that the damages
enormously high, and that the rise deseried to he subasiOf.
to the consideration of another Jury.
The CistrF JUSTICE then said, that in his opinioti;
was impossible to disturb the verdict. If the affidaY,„
had not been filed, there might have been a disposition ;
send the case to another Jury ; but the Court was l't)
satisfied that they should not do so, and the defendant
only to blame his own indiscretion and wickedness in OP)
those affidavits for the decision which teas now come °;
His Lordship then alluded in severe terms "to the conthtc
of Amos, as well as of the defendant, and concluded ,
saying, that the rule should be discharged.
The other Judges also concurred in the opinion. that
verdict ought not to be disturbed, and the rule for a
trial was accordingly discharged.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.-(TIIIS

POST-OFFICE ROBBERY AT BIRMINGHAM.
Jokn Hunts was brought up before Sir R. 8111271.5, (0
re-examination, on a charge of stealing Bank notes and b',',
for a large amount from a letter in the Post-Office, 13W
mingham.
Wm. Irons stated, that on the 21st of March he 0f
out from his brother's house, in Oxford-street, to that
Mr. Gass, a neighbour, to get change for a 30/. o°.;
The prisoner was waiting for the change, and received
when he returned.
Josh. Martin, assistant to Fred. Matthew Irons rec,eige
the note in payment for two muslin dresses which he er'
chased. The prisoner was dressed in the first style."
(One of the dresses being produced, the witness idea
tified it.)
The depositions taken at the private examinatiO
were read. The first was that of a traveller, belonging
the firm of Sheppard and Co. of Frame, which enuole;
rated the hills and bank notes he had inclosed in a lend
at Birmingham, he had directed it to his principal, 6,,,°e
had dropped it into the Post-office Birmingham, 00,r,
fth May. It had never reached its destination.
next deposition was that of J. Hutchinson, der;
in the above Post-office. He deposed, that the f':
senor, who had formerly been a sorter there, t't
on a visit with his father (at present, chief clerk of 0.4
establishment), about the 24th of May. He had tV:
visited the witnesses office, and looked over the letter,
remarking, "I wonder if I should know how to sort ncri:,
Witness then thought that he looked over the letters fre'''
curiosity, and since that, he had ample time and ope'
tunity for concealing one.
Ruthven, the officer, deposed that he had qprehendej
the prisoner at his lodgings.
The prisoner then stated that he had taken the notl
in a bet, from a Mr. Joning, a coach-master, 34'
admitted having bought the dresses at the above she!:
which he pointed out to witness. He said that he J'
bought them about a fortnight after he was at Or'
mingham.
The prisoner, who had exhibited the greatest sang flLp
during the examination, refrained from his defence 1)1 wt.:
advice of his solicitor, and was fully committed. fl'ec
witnesses were all hound over to prosecute at the
Assizes for Warwickshire.