The Sun.
London, England, 1844-04-30 00:00:00

THAW INTE.LLIGENOE,•

. _ . .
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, April 29.
TALL...NCB. A.ND 11,1ERLET V. rtu DUNE OF BRUNSWICK.
In this case. a rule had been Obtained by Mr. Sergeant
Bytes, to set aside • the taxation of costs with regard to
804 103„ the payment of which was alleged never to
have been :authorieed by the Duk© of Brunswick, and
talso with regard-to that portion of the costa which re-
ferred to the •litfoi of Barnard Gregory v. the Duke of
Brunswick and Mfr. 'Valiance, for which it was alleged
Mr. Valiance was equally liable with the Duke of Eruns-
wick.

Mr. Sergeant TALeocati now showed caused against
the rule. He expressed his regret that it should be ne-
ee.saary to enter into this case, but thought be should be
able to show from the affidavits of the plaintiffs that the
Duke of Brunswick was labouring under a mistake
whes he denied that he ever authorised the payment of
the 80L 103. The Learned Gentleman then referred to
the endavits of Mr. Valiance and Mr. Bierley. It stated
that Mr. Valiance acted as s 'licitor to his Lordship from
1641 to November, 1843, end it denied the affidavit of
the Duke of Brunswick and his equerry, Count De
Wats that he (the said Duke) had forbad the payment
of this SOL los., or that he had said he would not per--
mit it to be made. On the contrary, he had autho-
rised the payment, and knew for what purpose it was
expended, he being told of it by Mr. Valiance. The
money referred to eol's.lsted of, money paid to a person
mune,' Banks, fox malting, inquiries respecting the case
against the Duke by Barnard Gregory, and to certain
uxtract3 which weropriated at the request of his High-
Pess,:.,eientl copies of which came into the hands of his
ghness, and for which 35/. was paid by the plaintiffs.
Air. Valiance stated in his affidavit that Count 1)e 'Mils
wee not present at the conversation which was sworn to
have taken place on tho 34 of November ; but that in
the month of Ooteber the Count 1)e Witti called on him
et his office, and proposed ti him to participate in the
profits of his costs, which he (Mr. Valiance) refused to
Accede to, as it would be both illegal and immoral. .Se-
verai interviews and conversations took place afterwards.
On one occasion, on the 20th of October, Mr. Valiance
deposed that the Count Do. Witts called at his office
ottld offered him 50/. for his costs ;and upon Mr. Valiance
expressing his surprise, the Count took a second 501.
out of his pocket, which he offered to Mr. Valiance,
which wai likewise refused. The Count then said that
the Duke desired him to offer 50/. to Mr. Valiance, and
if he did Rot twee* that to offer him the second 501.;
but, if be did not accept them, to bring back both. Mr.
Bierley also deposed. that during a conversation he had
with the Duke. De Witts off,:red hint 1001. to satisfy
Air. Valiance, which he (Bierly) refused to accept.
On the 21st of October Mr. Valiance attended the Duke,
at his request, at his house in Bryanstone-'square, and
after informing him of what took place respecting the
offer of the two 504 notes, he was paid 1501., which
formed part of noeL which had been paid by the Duke,
-and for which credit was given him out of the 1,6141,
the amount of the costs. On the 27th of October Mr.
Valiance received a letter from the Duke of Brunswick,
showing that he still enjoyed the confidence of his High--
mess. Ile called on the Duke on the 3d of November, the
day on which the conversation took place at which the
Duke was said to have rejected the payment of 801. 10s.,
when the Duke produced a book of solieitots' charges
to him, which he purchased in Chancery-lane, according
to the charges in which the Duke required that Mr.
Valiance should make out his bill of costs.--(Laughter.)
This Mr. Valiance refused to do, as the book was of no
authority. Three days after, he had a conversation with
the Duke, in the presence of'De Witts, and on the 11th
November, he wrote a letter to the Duke, on which day
he received a summons from the Duke, requiring him to
deliver his bill of costs to Mr. Graaf, who was henceforth
to be his Highness's attorney. On the 13th, Mr. Val-
iance received a letter from the Count De Wilts, refer-
ring him to Mr. Graaf, who was now, by his (the Count's)
advice, the attorney of his illustrious master. Mr. Val-
iance was most reluctant to bring the matter before the
fublie, and before the bill was taxed by the Master,
he wrote to his Highness, reminding him of all
he went through for him, and all the vituperation
and slander to which he was subjected on 'account
of the relation in which he was placed towards
his Highness. With regard to the second point, he
(Sergeant Talfourd) admitted that his client Mr. Val-
iance was indiscreet in going to the theatre with the
Duke of Brunswick, when Barnard Gregory appeared to
Play the part of Hamlet ; but Mr. Valiance was made a
defendant in that ease, entirely in consequence of his
relations with the Duke and the affidavit stated that
th. Duke of Brunswick promised that he would bear all
the' expenses of that action, and that Mr. Bierley Was
his attorney in that Case.
Lord Chief Justice TINDAL said that the rule was
moved for on two grounds. The first related to the
SOL 10s., the second ground was, whether the Master, in
taxing the costs, ought to have taxed them against the
Duke of Brunswick alone, or whether Mr. Valiance
should be considered as liable to pay jointly with him. It
was sworn that there was a promise of indemnity made
by the Duke which he should have an opportunity of
answering. • The matter must therefore go before the
Master on this point.
Sergeant WILDE' said that they should be certainly
desirous of having an opportunity to answer the second
part of the rule,' though he thought he could give, an
answer from the affidavit of the plaintiffs themselves.
Has client the Duke of Brunswick was subjected to an
action in consequence of his attorney appearing with
him at the theatre, where he ought not to have ap-
peared. But now he was not content to bear any part
of the responsibility which grew out of his own act, and
his Learned Friend moaned over his client, because he
could not make any profit of tho matter. With regard
to the first point, the Duke of Brunswick swore that he
cievecauthorised the payment of the 801.
The matter was referred to the decision of the Master

SPIRIT of the PUBLIC JOURNALS.
1a ON Wile DAILY PAPERS OP YESTERDAY.
GLOBE.—The Irish State Prosecutions are progress-
ing ; but at a pace so truly snail-like, that they baffle
all attempts of the most skilful to form an idea as to the
time of their termination. The wordy war commenced
' on Thursday last. Mr. Whiteside, who is counsel
_ - for Mr- O'Coanell, occupied the Court two days. Ilis
speech was worthy of the high reputation he earned
for - himself on the trial, by which he has de-
cidedly placed himself first on the list of advo-
cates at tho Irish bar. By an arrangement, in-
tared into between the counsel on the part of the
Crows and those engaged for the traversers, with the
consent of the Court, four. counsel on the part of the
latter were to be heard in support of the application
for a new trial. The Solicitor-General then to reply.
Four more counsel for the traversers are then to address
the Court, in support of the motion, and in reply to the
arguments adduced on behalf of the Crown. The whole
argument to be wound up by the Attorney-General. Se-
veral days will thus be occupied in this stage of the pro-
ceedings. Term closes on the Bth of May (next Wed-
nesday week). The interval will, therefore, scarcely ad-
mit of doing more than bringing the argument' to a close
' .
within the term. lt is probuble that the judges Will
wish for time to consider the points on which the appli-
cation has been submitted, and postpone their decision to
the next term. Shonid the Court, however, pronounceits
decision on the motiou instanter, and that decision ne-
gative the application, a motion in arrest of judgmenl
• will follow. A very considerable portion of the ensuing
terra would be exhausted by the argument on this new
impediment to the final issue. If on both motions—that
for 14 new trial, and that in arrest of judgment—the Court
should decide against the traversers, a writ of error' to
the liens° of Leeds, as the Court of final appeal, will be
applied for, avid will be granted as of course; but the
house will not then ba in session to hear and detsr-
mine the appeal. As the ease proceeds, strongly confirma-
tory evidence of tint' play with the jury-lists, by some
party or other baiing access to the lists, is discovered.
Afrelarits have, we understand, been sworn by several
personi:who were admitted as jurymen by the Recorder,
&ft whose names were nerer placed on the jury list.
These affidavits, with one of great importance, sworn by
Mr. P. Mahone, one of the solicitors for the traversers,
were not obtained in time to be used on the new trial
Motion.. They will be available, however, in other stages;
and will, we have reason to believe, be used by Mr. Wyse,
in the raetion for Parliamentary inquiry, of which he
-Ivasgiven notice. If doubt exist among the most emi-
nent English lawyere as to some of the other points on
which the treversers and the Crown lawyers in Ireland
are-at issue, no difference of opinion exists as to the va-
lidity of the objections taken to the charge of the Learned
Judge who presided at the trial at bar. Without spe-
cifying the names-of the counsel who have had the whole
case submitted to them for their opinion, •as •lawyers,
eve state, advisedly, that the most eminent counsel at the
tnglisli bar, of both political parties—whose names have
been supplied to us—concur an pronouncing the grossly
partial, and manifestly unconstitutional, charge of Chief-
Justice rennerather es fully sufficient to sustain the writ
of error, and thus to render void the entire proceedings.
Sentence muse be pronounced on the traversers by the
Court before the writ of error can be acted upon. It does
tote however, follow that, though sentence be passed,
it should lee carried into effect. While the Judg-
ment of the Court below is liable to be reversed and the
proceedings quashed, it would be monstrous—involvinsr, .
not merely absurdity, but positive injustice--that the
parties, legally, if not morally, unjustly convicted, should
Lifer the penalty of alleged guilt. The punishment
for misdemeanor, as fixed by the law, is fine and im-
prisonment--either, or both. Should imprisonment form a
part of the sentence, the period assigned would have
bees endured before the judgment of the House of Lordi
could be pronounced upon the writ of error. If that
jiidgment were is favour of the appeal_to say nothing
; of the positive wrong thus inflicted on the parties
fully punished, and for which no adequate
wrong.
reparation Could bo made—what position would
the Governmen!, in such ewe, occupy in the eyes
of the Irish people ?
Already regarded n•ithjea-
lousy-eand dislike—because, as - a party, identified
with the policy to . which the people attribute their"
former wrongs and present , grievances —ti ley would.
then appear, in the eyes of the Roman Catholic popuf
lation of Ireland, persecutors and oppressors ; who,
- under the pretext of " judging " O'Connell . and hie
:co-defendants, " after the law, had caused them to
-be. smitten. contrary to the law." The effect of
such a manifestation would be -to kindle the em-
hers of Irish discontent into a flame. A topic
fraught with fearful power, when applied to the easily-
euetted temperament of the Irish people, would be sup-
' plied to the orators of 'the Conciliation lien. The
came of repeal would be re-invigorated with giant
strength, and wessld progress. with giant strides. Its
. leaders would be invested, not merely with the influence
of heroic patriotism. which, in the estimation of their
followers, had impelled and enabled them to endure suf-
. faring for their country ; they would then be reverenced
. as martyrs. In attempting to crush repeal agitation,
theivoletunent would itself be crushed. If the result
qtainued here, this would be of small moment. Id' eieoda, tin bur view, be beneficial rather than injurious
lit. `toe
theist ire generally, but especially to Ireland. But
K the 0/`6l lity is, that theframe-work .of society would
?'.. s't_..- •

l`~ V

~~~

,~'~

~,- ~~ '~