The Sun.
London, England, 1826-01-27 00:00:00

riEuELLio v. cIiowTHER.

- - -----
This was an action to recover the price of the maintenance
of an illegitimate child, at the rate of 12s. per week. The de-
fendant itt ltllB agreed to allow this sum : but In February,
1020, wrote a letter, expressing his intention to allow it no
longer, unless the mother should filiate the child before a Ma-
gistrate. As the anent arose subsequent to this letter, the
Lord Chief Justice held that the defendant was not liable, and
nonsuited the plaintiff:
VcAttLETT now moved for a rule to show cause
why the nonsuit should sot be set aside, contending that by
the law of nature the father of an illegitimate child was
bound to support it; and that, at all events, his revocation
of a contract so to support it niust not be conditional, but
absolute.

The COURT held the nonsuit right. Prima Aide every
maw was bound to supply necessaries for his legitimate chit=
dren; but the law recognized no man as the father of an ille-
gitimate child till it had been fainted in the prescribed course._..•
As his engagement was voloritaryi he might put an end to it
when he chose; and he had put an end to it by his letter.

WILLOUGHBY T.
This was an action by an innkeeper of Cheater against the
proprietor of the Closter Clerunick for a libel. The libel was
headed " The Willoughby Controversy," and referred to
some proceedings in Chancery between the plaintiff and Lord
Grosvenor, his landlord. It appeared ham the article itself,
and from the evidence, that there had been a paper war be-
tween the parties, and that the plaintiff had himself sent ar.
tides to another Chester piaapinerticaw_lletplant)haeget.roatnut., but these
returnedarticleswaerveerndoitcilt ufotrinthOe pn the
part of the defendant. The Jury
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL now moved fin' a new trial,
on the ground of excessive damages. Ile admitted that he
could not set aside the verdict, because the jury had given
something too much; but he submitted that under the cir.
cut-nuances, the damages were altogether disproportioned to the
injury.
The LORD CHIFF JUsTICE—If I had estimated the da.
males, I should not have given so.much ; but I cannot Lind
Luat With .the jury, because when they find the Mimr of a
newspaper libelling one of their fellow.subjects, they make hint pay for it. If _editors .will make a trade .of they must
abide the consequences.
The AT TO 11 BEY 43 E II AL—lt appeared that the plaintiff had himself sent articles to the Courant.
The Lont, cu jurtm w
E—Hut e did f
a nnt know what
they were; you d m,
id not put them in ; and in action had

been brotight against eta Courrw.l, and heavy damages had
bms given, I should not have found fault with the jury.
Mr. Scan LICTT—if the Courant had been put in, I should
have,got 0001. it was no libel at all.
The Loan Cater JusTlCE.'—On the whole you are per.
haps well off. though I shot.tid not have given so much. We
Cannot disturb the verdict.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, JAN. 2ff.
SNOW AND OTHERS PEACOCK Akii oTanns.
Mr. Sergeant Wit.nE moved for a rule. calling on the plain-
tiffs to skew cause why the verdict returned by the Jury in this
case should not be set aside, and a new trial granted. It was
an action of trover brought by the plaintiffs, who are bankers
in the Strand, against the defendants, who are also hankers,
and carry on bu,iness in Lincolnshire, to recoler the amount
of a SOW. Bank of -England note, under the following cit.
eamstances. The plaintiff's had, received a dividend-warrant
from one of their customers, which they sent by their porter
for payment to the Bank ot' England, ~The porter received
the money, amounting to 1,30Q1., but was robbed do his
way home from the pank, and' died shortly afterwards.--
Theplaintiffs caused the notes td be adv,ltieed, and in Ewen
or eight months afterwards one of thelM, which was for five
hundred pounds, was paid into the bank of Messrs. Hoare
and Company, who heti taken it of a person calling himself
Edwards, a stranger to them, but of whom, as they entertain.
ed no suspicion respecting the note, they asked no questions
when they were changing it for him. The trial took place be-
fore Chief Justice Best, in the sittings after last term; and his
Lordship, in summing up, left it the Jury to consider, first,
whether the plaintiffs had taken sufficient care to make the
robbery of the notes known to the public ; and, secondly, whe-
ther the defendants had used due caution when changing the
note in question. The Jury having found for the plaintiff; the
Learned Serjeant contended, that the verdict ought to be set
aside, on the grounds—first, of insuffleient evidence; second,
of evidence having been received which ought to have been
rejected; and third, of' misdirection on the pact of the Learned
Judge. The Learned Serjeant did not much stress on the
two first points, but rested his case principally upon the last;
contending strongly, that the Learned Judge ought to have
stated, that the defendants being the honest holders of the note
(which was part of the lawful circulating medium of the coun-
try) for valuable consideration, were entitled to a verdict.__
The Count granted a rule Nisi.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, DUBLIN, JAW.
LIBEL—THE ZING, AT THE PROSEdUTION OF SIR JOHN
mormocK, V. THE PROPRIETORS OF THE DUBLIN
EVENING HAIL.

Mr. DEANE URADY applied to the Court to appoint Thurs.
day next, if convenient to the Court, for the trial of this cause.
Sir John Mortlock, he maid, held a high public situation, to
which there were most important duties attached, the perform-
ance of some of which required his inimediate attendance in
Scotland. The Attorney. General and himself (Mr. Grady)
were confident that the trial would not last any time ; indeed a
proposition had been made by the defendant to give up the
author or authors of the libel to the Board of Excise; and the
matter was even then in progress, and would probably be com-
pleted on the present day (Monday) • still, in case it was not,'
,
he was anxious, for the reasons he had mentioned, to have an
early day fixed for the trial.
The Loan 'ClitEr JUSTICE said, as a compromise Was
pending, he conceived it would ke the better way for Mr. Grady
to let his application stand over until Tuesday.
HOMICIDE IN . DUEL.—THE XING v. 1101AVELL AND
MAGRATII.
Mr. WALLACE applied to the Court to admit the defend.:
ants, both prisoners, to bail. They had been .found guilty by
a coroner's inquest of homicide, the one of the actual homf.
cide, the other for being present as an accessory. The homi-
cide took place in a duel, which, it appeared by notes taken at
the inquest, Was occasioned by, certatnly, the gross.behaviou
liam r
of the deceased in spitting in the face of the tiefendant,
Boswell. The duel, it appeared, was a fair one, as' far as
such combats can be considered fair. It appeared by the notes
alluded to, that the first shot was given by the deceased ; and
that by the opposite party returning the shot, the deceased met
his death. nere was no intention on the part of the relatives
of the deceased to prosecute; for when the matter came before
two of their Lordships in Chamber, there was no opposition
given by the persona most interested to admit the defendants to
bail. The Attorndy-General made no objection, and an assent
for him would be expressed to the Court; he (Mr. Wallace)
therefore trusted the Court would not allow the prisoners to re-
main in custody until the Assizes, as bail to any amount, no
matter how large, would be given.
The CHIEF JusTILIE said emphatically, "It is quite
possible for the Court to entertain the motion."
ARREST OF A BARRISTER IN coutor, ON A CHARGE OF
BURGLARY AND ROBBERY.
An extraordinary circumstance occurred in the Court before
their Lordships sat. Mr. Richard Radford Roe, a barrister,
was, while sitting in the Court, arrested by Hartley, a peace-
officer. Mr. Roe demanded to see the warrant. Mr. /lanky
refused to comply with fur. Roe's demand.
Mr. Roe—Sir, I must see by what authority you attempt to
arrest me here.
Mr. Hartley—l will chew you my authority as is peace-of-
ficer, but I cannot let you look into the body of the warrant.—
I have no objection to chewing you the Magistrate's signature
to it.

Mr. Roe—l do not want to see his signature; it may be, for
aught I know, his signature to a bond; what I want to knowi
is, why I tun arrested?. _

'Mr.-Hartley—i will read it for you out of the warrant.
Mr. Itoe—No, let me read it myself.
nelee::ninytieitgria:
Register
ashamed
of the Court) will you acquaint
Mr. Hartley_ o, 1 will not; there are some private matters
in it ; I will read it for you, and I think you had better retire
gouanry's
to a private place, that I may communicatehwioto.lrdldagaknionwstii;
"we: afrraoorfbntuthrleglary and robbery ?"
pray,
lorrraAi inytA
,rrr.
burglary
tRi
itroo
e. ae
BytT oe ayuNn—rdovn
laughed,e,
elroi,d(hbtoehbn:
the Lord Chief 'Justice with what has happened ? I WWI to
speak to his Lordship.
Alr. Bourne--His Lordship is at present sitting with the
Lord Chancellor and the other Judges; I could not disturb
him.
Mr. Roe.—Then I will not go until I see his Lordship.
Air. Hartley.—I cannot wart on you, Sir; you must come
with me at once, or I must have recourse to force.
Air. Itoe.—Where do you want to bring me ?
Air. Hartley.—To the Magistrates of the head police.oifice.
Alr. Roe.—Very well, I shall go; recollect, Mr. Bourne,
and acquaint his,Lordship that I have been arrested in the Court
when [was about swearing informations.
Mr. floe then left the Court in company with Mr. Hartley.

CATHOLIC LlBRARY.—Yesterdny evening was
appointed for a meeting of the friends of the Lou-
don Catholic Library Institution, at the London
Tavern, to receive the report of the committee ;
but in consequence of the small number of the
persons who assembled, the meeting vilos adjourn
ed to the 17th of February.

ECONOMICAL Move or cwrrlNo CAUL'.
nowtns.—lnstead of cutting off the whole
head of a cauliffower, leave a part On, the size
of a gooseberry, and all the leaves ; second and
even third head, will be formed, and thus they
may be eaten for two or three months ; witen,at
present, by cutting the head completely off, the
bed of cauliflowers are goue in two or three
weeks. We quote the above from a contempo.
rary, but with all dueaubmisslon to his horticulE
turo knowledge, we must say that it stands op.,
posed to our own experience. The only plan
ue have found to succeed with cauliflowers, is to
pull them up at once, root and branch, and plant
others in their stead ; they
aot form sepa-
rate heads like ordinary cabbages, et least we
have never seen them do so,