The Sun.
London, England, 1828-11-15 00:00:00

UNION-HALL.

On Wednesday se'nnight Mr. Bond, junior, of
Clapham-common, was charged before Mr. CHAM-
BERS, by the Honorary Secretary of the Society. for
the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, with having
driven a horse to death, which complainant and se-
veral other persons stated had been witnessed by
many of the neighbours.
Mr. Bond admitted having struck the horse re-
peatedly before it fell, and that on opening the
body, the heart was found ruptured. But as the
blows were not given before complainant, and the
Magistrate was 'unwilling to convict on the defend-
ant's own confession, although directed by the
Statute, and pointed out by the Honorary Secre-
tary, he dismissed the case.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT, Nov. 14.

DAVIS V. MORGAN.

Mr. LOVAT in this cause had to move his Honour
that the defendant should pay the sum of 700/. into
Court. The defendant was the administrator of a
Mr. Gillibrand, a calico-printer at Castlelton, who
died insolvent. His business was carried on for
some time after his decease, and the sum of 700/.
thereby realized, which sum the defendant admitted
by his answer to be in his hands.
Mr. BACON opposed the motion, and contended
that the creditors by whom this bill was filed had
no claim upon the sum which it was the object of
the present motion to have paid into Court.
The VICE-CHANCELLOR thought the money ought
to be paid into Court. This would be merely chang-
ing the custody of the money, and would prejudice
the claim of no party.

REID AND OTHERS V. MILLIDGF. AND OTHERS.

Mr. SUDDEN said that this was a case in which a
publican, named Nokes, being largely indebted to
Messrs. Reid and Co., brewers, and Messrs. Curry,
distillers, had deposited the lease of his house in
their hands. Nokes became a bankrupt, and the
assignees, notwithstanding notice given them of
this deposit, had sold the house and the licences.—
Ho had therefore to move his Honour, that the li-
cences be given up, a receiver appointed, and a new
sale ordered.

The VICE-CHANCELLOR could not refuse the
motion.

BRUNEL V. THE LORDS OF THE TREASURY.

This cause arose out of the sale of York House.
The Lords of the Treasury had made advances to
the late Duke of York for the expence of building
York House, and taken a security on the building.
On the death of the Duke of York they had pur-
chased the house of the executors of the deceased for
81,0001., and afterwards sold it to the Marquis of
Stafford. Mr. Brunel, a builder, and other cre-
ditors, had filed a bill of discovery, in order to as-
certain the nature of the contract between the Duke
of York and the Lords of the Treasury, by which it
was alleged that the latter had engaged to pay the
bills of the workmen. To part of this hill an answer,
and to part of it, also, a demurrer, had been put iu
by the defendants.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (with whom was Mr.
Wray), now moved that the demurrer might be
withdrawn, and a general demurrer to the whole bill
put in.
Mr. SUGDEN (with whom were Messrs. Bicker-
steth and Spence), contended that it would be con-
trary to the practice of the Court to grant such an
application.
The motion was refused, with costs.

COURT OF KING'S BENCILNov. 14.
THE KING V. WII. HENRY HALPIN.

Mr. CAMPBELL (with Whom were Mr. Seijeant
Ludlow and Mr. C. Phillips) prayed the judgment
of the Court upon 'the defendant, who bad been
convicted at the last Gloucester Assizes of a libel re-
flecting on the character of the prosecutor, Samuel
Young Griffith, the proprietor of the Cheltenham
C'hroniele.

After the report of the trial had been read, the
defendant's counsel (Mr. Cnrwood and Mr. Busby)
put in several affidavits in mitigation of punishment.
The first was the affidavit of a person named Miles
Watkins, and the object seemed to be to show that
some of the statements contained in the pamphlet,
charged as libelous, were true. Before the whole
was read,

Mr. CAMPBELL objected that it ought not to be
received.

A long discussion then took place upon the ques-
tion whether or not the affidavit was receivable.
Lord TENTERDEN, in the first instance, was in-
clined to think that it was receivable.; but his Lord-
ship afterwards yielded to the opinion of Mr..lnstiee
Bayley, who laid down as the general rule, that if a
party stated that at the time of publishing a libel he
conscientiously believed the matters which he stated
were true, he might be permitted, in mitigation of
punishment, to set forth the grounds of his belief;
but he was not at liberty to introduce affidavits of
other persons to depose to facts in support of the
statements in the libel, which the author of the libel
was unacquainted with at the time he wrote it. -
The Court ultimately directed the case to stand
over, in order to give the defendant's Counsel an
opportunity of considering whether they would per-
sist in presenting the affidavit to the Court, or with-
draw it. At present, their Lordships would not
express any decided opinion upon the question
whether the affidavit was receivable.

THE KING V. THWAIrES AND OTHERS.

Sir J. SCARLETT showed cause against a rule ob-
tained last term by the Solicitor-General, calling on
the defendants, the proprietors of the Morning,
Herald newspaper, to show cause why a criminal in-
formation should not be exhibited against them for a
libel on Psi. Rocafuerte, the Mexican Minister. The
Learned Counsel stated that the alleged libel was
contained in a long article under the head of" City"
in the Morning Herald of the 12th of May last. The
only part of that article with which he need trouble
the Court was the following :—" What a man's ob-
ject could be in sending such an advertisement to the
public papers, and then suffering his name to be
made use of to contradict its contents, it is not dif-
ficult to imagine. Some people affect to be asto-
nished at a Minister of a foreign state acting in the
way that this Viscount de Itabayana, Minister Ple-
nipotentiary of his Imperial Majesty the Em-
peror of Brazil, has done ; but for our parts,
when we recollect the exploits of Hurtado,
Rocafuerte, and others of the representatives of
the new States, we cannot be surprised at
any thing which a South American Minister may
do. The swindle—for we can call it by no other
name—is still going on in the Portuguese bonds. In
the early part of the day they were suffered to im-
prove a little, when certain persons began to sell on
the strength of something which was to appear in'
an evening paper, in the shape of an official an-
nouncement of the non-payment of the dividends."
The rule had been obtained on the affidavit of M.
Rocafuerte, which stated " that he had never, in his
character of Minister, published or put forth any
advertisement or statement whatever for his own
private purpose;
Ppotrhelrlagdharhtize,teiri: publishedchae
r or character r
put of
forth any false or fraudulent advertisern pr state...
a
Minister, or in any
ment whatsoever, or made any wilful misrepresentt.-
tion of any kind." Now the Court would observe
how very cautiously M. Rocafuerte had sworn; lie
oi4 not deny that lie had not pat forth any advertise-
Meat pr statement ; he merely stated that he had
for his own private purpose;" but
surely Cattd our a right to expect an affidavit,
iloet. l rtoie
merelylne so
denying that no eitle statement or
wilful misrepresentation had been made for any
private views of the party, but that none had been
made by him on account, or for the profit, of any
friends or connexions of his, and that be had beep
engaged in no speculations in • the funds connected
with the Mexican loan; and further, that he had
never intended that any thing he published to the

world should have the effect of influencing the public
market. But admitting the article complained of to
be libellous, he (Sir James Scarlett) should contend
that the party applying was not, under the circum-
stances disclosed by the affidavits made in opposition
to the rule, entitled to the extraordinary interposi-
tion of the Court, but must, if he wished to appear
in the character of a prosecutor, have recourse to the
ordinary remedy by indictment or civil action. By
the affidavits filed on the part of the defendants, it
appeared that
.the Government of Mexico had con-
tracted with this country a loan of six millions on a
solemn pledge that the dividends should be faithfully
paid. It turned out, however, that three or four di-
vidends only had been paid out of a reserved capital
in the hands of the agents of the Mexican Govern-
ment; and towards the fall of last year rumours
were afloat on the Exchange that the next divi-
dends would not be paid, and the truth of those
rumours was verified by an advertisement, dated
the 14th of September, 1827, which appeared
in the Times Newspaper, under the signature of Mr.
Rocafuerte. The.consequence of this was, that the
bonds, which, on the rumours first getting abroad,
had fallen from 72 to 75, underwent a further de-
preciation, having immediately fallen to 44. Shortly
afterwards recourse was had to an expedient to raise
the value of the bonds, and, accordingly, on the
12th of October, a public announcement was made
to the effect that 500,000 dollars would be sent
over to England in the first ship of war to pay the
dividends, and that a policy had been opened at
Lloyd's to insure that sum. On the 16th of Octo-
ber, an advertisement, bearing the signature of M.
Rocafuerte, and confirming the previous announce-
ment, appeared in the newspapers; and this, as might
have been expected, bad the effect of raising the
bonds to 56 or 57. The- statements contain-
ed in these advertisements had never been con-
tradicted by M. Rocafuerte, whose signature they
purported to bear, and therefore the public were in-
duced to believe that they were true. It turned out,
however, that no dollars had ever arrived in this
country, and nothing had been done to satisfy the
obligations to the holders of the bonds. Under these
circumstances the Learned Counsel submitted that
the Morning Herald was justified in alluding to
the conduct of M. Rocafuerte in the manner it had done.
There could be no doUbt that misrepresentations to
the public had been made, and M. Rocafuerte having
signed the advertisements, could only justify his own
conduct by blasting the character of his Government.
Without, however, making any imputation upon the
private character or honour of M. Rocafuerte, it was
impossible to say. that the observations which had
been made in the Morning Herald were not fully
justified by the facts which had been made public.
If M. Rocafuerte had not put forth these advertise-
ments for his own private purposes, he had done so
on the part of his Government, and in either case
his conduct required explanation. The .illorning
Herald had no object in view other than that of
guarding the public against risking their money in
such speculations as these, and the course it had
adopted was not only justifiable but laudable.
Mr. Brougham, Mr. Hill, and Mr. Justice, were
heard on the same side; after which
-The SOLICITOR-GENERAL rose to address the
Court in support of the rule.
Their LoRDSHIPS, however, said he had better
postpone his observations to another day, it being
past the time when the Court usually rose.

PREROGATIVE COURT, Nov. 14.
MARSH V. TYRRELI. AND OTHERS.

Mrs. Sophia Harding, ofWalworth, the testatrix,
died May 1, 1827, aged about 60, having personal
property at her own disposal amounting to about
20,0001. She was the sister of a Mr. Wm. Smith,
who had been secretary to Sir Edward Hughes, in
the East Indies, and who died 1784, leaving consi-
derable property to the testatrix and her sister ; the
latter died in 1813, bequeathing her share to the
testatrix. It being considered that Mr. Smith had
owed his appointment to the family of Mr. Marsh,
the broker and navy-agent, the testatrix entertained
a strong regard for that family, which had also
iti-
termarried with the Cuthbertv, her friends. Be-
sides executing, in 1816 a deed of gift 'for 10,0001.
to Mr. Marsh, sen., she deposited in their hands
two successive wills, dated 1816 and 1818, whereby
the bulk of her property was left to Mr. William
March, and to his son, Mr. Arthur Cuthbert Marsh.
In June, 1817,. the testatrix married Mr. John
Harding. A few days previous to her marriage she
executed a deed of trust, for the security of certain
property, its which the name of her intended hus-
band was not included. The will of 1818, executed
after her marriage, was to this effect :--It recited a
deed of trust in 1816 ; then gave 5,0001. Bank
'stock in trust, the dividends to be paid to her hus-
band, and on his death the principal to go to his
eldest son by a former marriage; the residue of
her property to Mr. William Marsh, Mr. Cuthbert
Marsh, and a Mf. Creed, paying sundry legacies; her
house and furniture arWalworth to her husband. Of
this will Mr. W. Marsh-and Mr. A. C. Marsh were
executors. The deceasCd, three years before her
death, had a paralytic attack; another two years
before that event, and a third about a month prior to
her decease. At the execution of the will just spoken
.of, it was not disputed that her faculties were sound.
In September, 1824, the banking-house of Messrs.
Marsh failed. On the sth March, 1827, the de•
ceased gave instructions for a new will, not to the
solicitor she had previously employed, but to Mr.
Edward 'Tyrrell, a friend of her husband ; which was
executed on the 9th, and attested by Mr. E. Tyrrell,.
Mr. Fred. Tyrrell, the surgeon of St. Thomas's Hos-
pital (brother of the drawer of the will), and Dr. G.
M. Burrows, the physician, .who had been called in
to ascertain the capacity of the deceased. Mr. John
Tyrrell, a brother of. the drawer, and Mr. Harding,
were appointed executors. By this will, the bulk
of her property was left to Mr. Harding. A codicil
was executed the 26th of April; it merely left
three rings to three ladies, and confirmed the will;
it was attested by two other witnesses, Mr. Timothy
Tyrrell, another brother of the drawer, and Mr.
Peter Dixon, a surgeon; the execution of this co-
dicil was ten days subsequent to the last attack of
paralysis. The pleas in this suit were numerous;
but they all bore upon these two points in question,
namely, whether the deceased, on the 9th of March,
1827, was of sound mind, and competent to the act
she performed; and whether, at the period of exe-
cution, she was a free agent, or acted under com-
pulsion.
Dr. LUSUINGTON this day commenced his argu-
ment in behalf of the executors, but it is not yet
concluded.