The Sun.
London, England, 1821-11-13 00:00:00

1 g
II
'"
I
•:" IL' Iti I I Ild October.

Of the above, 163 were males (including four
of felo-dc-se), and 63 were females.

YELLow FEVER.—The Moniteur of Friday
contains a statement of some length regarding
the progress of the yellow fever in Spain. Most
of the material facts are already known, but two
or three circumstances respecting the character
of the fever are worthy of notice. Drs. BALLY
and FRANcots two of the French Physicians
who went to Barcelona, had witnessed the ra-
vages of the yellow fever in St. Domingo, and
they are of opinion that the malady at Barcelona
is precisely similar. Four-fifths of the persons
attacked by the fever -Lave fallen victims to it ;
death generally ensued in the sth day, some-
times the 7th ; many of the sick died in three
days., and others in 36 hours. Dr. MAzEL, after
visiting twolndividuals ill of the fever, became
ill in the night of the 12th ult. Ile was better
on the morning of the 20th, but-died on the 22d,
after a long agony, and with all the symptoms of
the yellow fever.

CONSTITUTIONAL ASSOCIATION.
TIIE RING V;itiDGIVAE.

In this case, which was tried before Mr. Justice lIOLROYD
at the late Assizes for Lancaster, a verdict was obtained against
the defendant.

It was an action for libel, and Mr. BROUGHAM now appear-
ed on the part of the defendant. He moved for a Rule to shew
cause why that verdict should not be set aside, and a new trial
granted.
The CHIEF JUSTICE—Is the defendant in Court.
Mr. IlnotrGltA3l.—He stands on the floor, my Lord. This
prosecution, said the Learned Counsel, was undertaken at the
suit of a Society called " the Bridgestreet: Association," for an
alleged seditious libel, at least what they pretended to call a
seditioto libel. The evidence for the Crown, and indeed.the
only evidence
The Cmlir JusTicE—This, I-believe, was an indictment
for libel.

Mr. Bnot:GuAlkt.—lt was, my Lord, and I was proceeding
to observe upon the evidence produced to sustain it. I was
about to say, that the only evidence for the Crown was that of a
boy, a young man, eighteen years of ve, of the name of Evan
clerk to an attorney named Nadi% in the town of Man-
chester.

The Cu !Er Ju sar E.—Nad in did you. say, Mr. Brougham?
Mr. BitouGHAm.—Yes, my Lord. Not the old thief-taker,
but the son, though he also was at the trial. This fellow, young
Mellor, swore that he called at the house of Ridgway, the de-
fendant, who, it appeared in evidence, about which no question
was made; carried on the trade of a fustian-cutter. This trade
he carried on in the upper part of the house, while his wife was
most industriously; though it would seem most dangerously, em-
ployed in the lower part of the house disposing of miscellaneous
articles, such as potatoes, sand, brushes, children's books,
amongstlwhich, "Jack the Giant Killer and Mother Shipton,"
obtained the notice of the witness. Now the fact of this witness's
evidence, to which he was desirous of calling the attention of the
Court, was that of the defendant's identity. He did not even
pretend to know the person of Ridgway before the day upon
which he went to purchase the book upon which the prosecu-
tion was founded. Ridgway was never once identified by him.
This my Lords, is not the case of it common informer, interested
in recovering a penalty ; it is more, much more—it is that of
an accompliee, of one who induces another • to commit an of-
fence. But it is worth while, indeed it is most material, to refer
to the evidence itself as to identity ; for since he swore that he
purchased the pamphlet in question from the defendant per-
sonally, of course the credit of all his testimony should rest
upon the truth of that allegatiOn.
The CHIEF JusT Hat:— What are the words of the witness?
Mr. BitoticniAat —1 was about to give them to your Lord-
ships.
The CHIEF JUSTICE—It is sufficient to say whether he
bought the book from a man or woman.
Mr4Bnotroliaar.-011, my Lord, he states that he purchased
it from the defendant. Now 1 am able, by the production of the
atlieavits of four persons, and which affidavitsl now hold in my
hand, to negative this testimony. Mellor says, " I went to the
shop of the defendant, in the window of which I saw pasted up a
printed paper containing these words, 'Just published, an Address
to the Reformers of Great Britain,' and seeing the defendant in
the shop, I entered and asked if he had 4 The NeW Year's Address
to the Reformers of Great Britain,' and the defendant then said
that he had not gai it, but that he had written to London for it,
and Would 'have it by the following Saturday." The witness
stated that he called afterwards Qn the 2d of April, and purchased
it from the defendant. Ile said also that at this period there was
a sign over the shop " David Ridgway, Dealer in Tea and To-
bacco." Now (continued Mr. Brougham), it is distinctly sworn
in the defendant's affidavit, and also in the affidavits of James.
Dunics, John Dunies, and John Dunies's wife, that the sign.
alluded to had been taken down the Christmas before, when the
defendant lift that business, and that it had not since been
replaced.
The evidence was read over by Mr. Justice HOLROYD and
when the Learned Judge had concluded
The Loan C 11) EF cr. said—No question as to iden-
tity appearsi to have been raised upon tha cross-examination.
Mr. .JutiCe II oL ROYD—I do recollect that it was put an ar-
gutnent to the Jury.
Lord, one of the
arguments lulittiswuia
siscdutt3,l;i.titi.7s y, ctelintL'itinalyn;amn my Lord,
called at the de-
fendant's shop for the special purpose, of inducing him to corn,

SEVERN AND OTHERS V. OLIVE, SLAIIE, AND OTHERS.
These were actions brought by the plaintiffs sugar refiners,
in Whitechapel, to recover two sums, the one of 50001. the other
of 70001. from the defendants, as Directors of the Imperial As-
surance Company, upon two policies of insurance, in conse-
quence of a loss sustained by a fire which happened on theplain:
tiffs' premises about November 1819. In one of the cases the
plaintiffs had demurred to some of the defendants' pleas, one of
which was afterwards amended, and on issue being joined, the
Cause was tried, and a verdict found for the plaintiffs. This
verdict had been set aside by a rule of the defendants, on the
ground that it was against the weight of evidence, the point to
be considered being whether the process of refining sugar by
heated oil, had or had not increased the risk ? Instead of im-
mediately proceeding to a second trial, it was put off at the in-
stance of the defendants, with the intention of awaiting the de-
cision of another action which was then depending between the
same plaintiff's and the Directors stif the Phanix Company, in
which the same point was involved, and most of the same wit-
nesses were to be examined; further experiments on the pro-
perties of heated oil having been made in the interim. On the
trial of this last cause, the Jury came to the sane determina-
tion as on the preceding occasion, and gave a verdict for the
plaintiffs. The defendants then, took out a summons to stay
proceedings, on payment of the damages and costs. The Pro-
thonotary, in taxing the plaintiff's costs, had divided the amount
between the two offices, and had allowed the costs of various
experiments which had been made, for the purpose of enabling
the witnesses to speak with confidence and accuracy on the
question, whether the risk had been increased by the introduc-
tion of the process of heated oil into the }plaintiff's sugar-
house? Tie had also allowed different sums of money, not only
for the travelling expences of the witnesses who had been call-
ed to give their opinions on this point, but also for the loss of
time which these gentlemen had suffered, particularly to a Dr.
Thomson, a Professor of Chemistry in the University of
Glasgow.
Mr. Sergeant Hu ti.oex having oils former day in this Term
obtained a rule to shew cause why the Prothonotary should not
review his taxation—first, on the ground of the division and ap-
portionment of the costs—secondly, on the allowance of expences
for experiments—and thirdly, on the allowance of expences for
the loss of time to the witnesses :

Mr. Serjeant LENS now shewed cause; he contended, that
the division of these costs were perfectly correct. There had
been four actions ; two of these were against the Imperial, and
two against the Phoenix Assurance Company. .41'he defence in
all was substantially the same. The extatnnents necessary to
be made to ascertain the point in one, were equally required iu
decide the question in another ; and though one of the offices
(the Phoenix) had tried the question twice, and the present de-
fendants had only gone into Court once on the subject ; yet, as
far as the point of increase of risk was concerned, the determena.
tion of one cause was the decision of another. As to the objec--
tion against the expences of the experiments being. allowed, it
was clear that they were necessary to assist the Court 'and the
Jury in their determination ; they were made, not wantonly,
nor with a view to increase the witnesses knowledge in general
science, but for the express purpose of determining the ques-
tions in dispute between the parties. - The same observation
might be made as to the allowance of Dr. Thomson's expences.
The point in dispute was new ; men of science had diKred on
the question, and each party was exerting himself, -for the pur-
pose of obtaining such a weight of evidence as should eventually
determine the justice of the case to be in his favour. It was
objected, that br. Thomson had only been produced for tile
purpose of giving a professional opinion -on a disputed point ;
but.this. objection was. cleat not tenable, :for there was no rule
which said, that witnesses, who spoke to matters of fact, should
lone be allowed their eXpeneg • -
Mr. Prothonotary RAY here olfservede that he had allowed
costs for the loss of Dr. Thomson'sihneeand for the intellectual-
and personal labour of that Gentleman. It was proved that he
hail been, while in town, not only obserVitg the efil'et of the ex-
periments, but attending the process for many. hours each. day,
watching it in every stage, and carefully observing every circuit)»
stance relating to it. Besides which, he laid been obliged to
appoint and pay a Gentleman in Glasgow, to act•as his substi-
tute during his absence. - -4
Mr. Justice Ric ttaltDSoll—A compensation for loss.of tune
is only allowed to Gentlemen of the legal and medical prti
fessionS.
Lard Chief Justice DaLLas—Loss of time is
_loss of profit
to all—to the watch-maker and mechanic as well as to others._
But the CoUrts have decided, that in all but a few excepted
cases rib Compensation is allowed. The case of Willis v. Peck-
ham, 4 Moore's Reports, 300, is in point; as is also that of
Moor V. Adam, fi Maule, and Selwyn's Reports, Ird; ; in which
latter case, the Court of King's Bench had refused to allow the
expenses of two Spanish merchants, who had been brought over
here to give evidence in a cause. . .
11.1 r. Serjeant LENS then took some objections to the affidavit
on which this rule was moved ; but these were overruled.
- Lord Chief Justice DALLAS—The opinions of men of skill
and science are always highly valuable; but perhaps, as this
was an entirely new point, the question may be here, whether
those opinions are to be- gained at the expense of the litigating
parties ?
Alr. Justice R re ilaRDSON—That might increase tbe amount
of their expences in residing here, as they might perhaps remain -
longer, fur die purpose of making these experiments.
Mr. Serjcant 'fanner explained the cause of the long stay of
the witnesses to be, that the actions involving such a weighty
question, they could not; on accountof particular circumstances,
be brought on when they were set down in the paper.
Mr. Serjeant Gilaie followed on the same side as Ser-
jeant Lens.. Be contended that where the loss of time to a
witness was attended with an immediate and direct loss of
profit, by taking him away from any employmou in which he
was professionally crgaged, such witness had a right to demand
a compensation. In the case of Lopez v. De Tenet, a Captain
of a merchant vessel had been allowed a sum as 'enumeration
for the loss of a voyage which lie had sustained by being in this
country attendiog the trial of a cause, and to this allowance.
•the parties, t:iough perfectly ready to dispute exery. thing; never.

Lord Chief Justice DALLAS—The process was the subject of
a patent.
Mr. Serjeant Ilum.ocK—That is still Another argument in
my favour ; if a patent had been obtained for it, its sakky
should have been proved at once, without any further ex}:::-.ments. The Learned Serjeant then contended, that it' the,
were properly allowed, they were improperly divided.
Imperial had only tried one action. They should bac, b.a
proportioned into thirds.
Lord Chief Justice DALLAS, after having consulted for sum-:
time with his Learned Brothers on the Bench, said, that the
Prothonotary must review his taxation, and must not allow th
expences for the experiments, nor compensation for loss of tint,
except to physicians, surgeons, and attorneys.
Mr. Prothonotary 'RAY wished to ask his Lordship one quzs-
don—Whom was he to admit as being a regular physician ?
Did the Court mean only those who produced their diploma
Lord Chief Justice DALLAS—AII who practise as such. la
this case there can be no great diflicultyas to that point, for 1)1.
Pearson and 1)r. Paris are too well known to be requi;ed t:L.)
prove their title to the name.
AIL Prothonotary BAY—There is then another class, that of
surveyors; and a third still above them, I mean engineers,
such, for instance, as the late celebrated Mr. Rennie—ls a co:I:-
pens:aim for their loss of time to be allowed ?
The COURT said, they made no other distinction than whet
the cases on the subject had long decided. A pour man's tirm,
uas as. valuable to him as a rich man's time could be to him ;
a loss was equally a loss to both. They further added, that
the proportion of the costs due from each party wns to be divided
into moieties, as at present.

Joiix Bu LL's wonder at .11uunsieur Nong-tong-paw's
übiquity could not be greater than the astonishment of a French
Gentleman, who popped into Bisu's Of Rea the other day to
inquire after the CNpitals.—" You, vill be so good to tell me de
nonabre of de Capital you tiro—you draw yesterday ?"—" Why,
Sir, there were .. "—" Restez un peu, stay a littel moment •
You will tell me de Capital larger dan Two Hundred Pounds."
" Why, Sir, there were four drawn above £200: there was
No. 7349, .E30,009."—" Ah, ma foi I dat is good ; dat is do
grande chose. Vel, and by whom it was sel ?"—" uses sold
it, Sir."—" .Bisii, hal. ha! von lucky dog ! vel, ((lions !"-t-
-" There was NO. 002, £l,OOO, Sir."—" Ah ! imbed !
who was scl dat??"—" Bean, Sir."—" Eh! ma foi ! Besa
encore? Vel."—" There was No. 2032, £300."—" And who
was sel ?—" Basis, Sir."—'4 Eh, mon dicu! 'tis Very grand
fortune. Now den de last, and who vas sell dat ?"—" Why.
Sir; the last was No. 6275, £3OO, also sold by Brsii."—" Eh!.
de ! 'tis von chose impossible, BISH sell all de four ?"7-
" Yes, Sir, and in a former Lottery he sold all the three Thirty
Thousands."—" Den he is von golden • Philosopher: I v4l
buy, I vill—let me see. Yes, I viii buy your. shop."-His
ambition was at last, however, contented with three tickets ;
that he has 3 chances of gaining the two Thirty r.chß:rtisyct
in the wheel; and we have no doubt BISII will hay.W.lic gooll
luck of selling them.

Wi>tcHEsTtn, Nov. 10.—The Meeting of the Hampshire
.Branch Horticultural Society held, yesterday, at the II art
Inn, in this City, was numerously and most respectiday'at-
tended. Several fine specimens' of fruits were exhibited,
particularly of grapes, apples, and pears. The names of Lord
Rodney, the Rev. F. North, and some other gentlemen were
added to the list of Members.
GARDENS AND ORCDARDS.—Near the town of Wakefield,
there are not less than one thousand acres- of garden and mak-
ard ground. From this judicious appropriation of the land,
adjoinin;_, a populous town, a new and comparativelluable
business has arisen while the neighbourhood enjoys the advan-
tage of a plentiful supply of cheap garden stuff. .Do
facts afford beneficial hints to the proprietors of grourl.4,aronnd
Newcastle, Sunderland,' and Shields,. to dedicate Large poltioris
of their land to this useful and profitable purpose ? rl part of
i
the industrious poor might be advantageously employed n this
object, and children might, at a period when it is Ilifficult to
fix on a trade, be most usefully brought up in the business of
gardening.—(Durhaui Advertizer, Nov. 10.)