The Sun.
London, England, 1828-01-25 00:00:00

; LAW INTELLIGENCE.-(THTS DAY.

COURT OF CHANCERY.
JAcKsox V. BOURNE.
Mr. AGAR stated that this was the petition of his client,
Which prayed that the decree made on the 9th of November
!night be'declared to he irregularly obtained, that the pro-
ceedings under it might he stayed, and the costs paid.
The COURT dismissed the petition as to the first point
with costs, and would mention some day on which the
cause should be set down.
The CGURT then proceeded with appeals.

VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT.
SHAcICEL V. TROMPSON.
This was an application for an order to stay the trial of
an action of libel brought by the defendant, an artist, against
the publisher of the John Bull newspaper. The motion
was made upon an affidavit, stating that the defendant at
law had pleaded a justification, and had since filed a bill of
discovery against the plaintiff at law, for the purpose of
snahling him to prove the truth of the charges contained
in the alleged libel.
It appeared that Mr. Thompson had presented a full
length portrait of his Majesty to the late Exhibition at
'3onierset-house. Title portrait, which it will be recol-
lected excited considerable attention at the time, did not
seem to the John Bull to deserve a very large share
of praise, either for the pictorial shill displayed in
it, or for the manner in which, it was alleged, that
Mr. Thompson hail been enabled to get it up. Act-
'rig upon this feeling, the John Bull published a
critique, detailing certain curious circumstances con-
nected with the history of the picture; but as Mr.
Thompson has been advised that she publication in
the John Bull was a false and malicious libel, we, for very
obvious reasons, refrain from a republication of it pen,
dente lite.
The VICE-CliANcr.m.on granted the order for staying
the trial at law, until the coming in of Mr. Thompson'S
answer to the bill of discovery.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH.
3tEEco V. SIMMONDS.
This was an action on a bill of Exchange for 1,0001,
drawn in favour of a person named De Lisle, accepted by the
defendant, and discounted by the plaintiff. The case was
tried at the sittings after last Michaelmas Term, and a ver-
dict taken for the plaintiff.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL now moved the Court for a
rule to show cause why a new trial should not be granted,
on the grounds that the verdict was in opposition to the
Judge's charge, and to the evidence. The defence set-up
was, that the transaction was tainted with usury, De Lisle,
ik whose favour the bill was drawn, having paid 15/. per
ent. for the accommodation of having the bill discounted.
The 15 per cent. was paid to Coates, who introduced De
Lisle to the plaintiff, and who, it was alleged, acted as the
plaintiff's agent. Coates stated, that he received the mo-
ney as a douceur for introducing De Lisle to the plaintiff,
and that the plaintiff derived no benefit from the transac-
tion, and received nothing but the regular discount.—
Lord Tenterden left it to the jury, that if the plaintiff knew
Benefit
was to receive the douceur, though he derived no
*Refit from it himself, the transaction was usurious and
c
leillegal. Now the evidence was that the plaintiff bad re-
red Be Lisle to Coates, and the presumption was that
had referred him to Coates to give Coates an opportu-
'litY of making such terms as he thought proper with De
Lisle.

TMr. Justice BATLEY said that the question left by Lord
enterden would be the question the Jury would have to
y if a new trial was granted.—Rule refused.
THE RING V. THORN'TON.
Mr. CAMPBELL moved for a rule to show cause why a
criminal information should not be granted against a per-
s" named Thornton, the proprietor of the Gloucester and
Cheltenham Herald, for various libels inserted in that
Paper, reflecting on the character of Mr. Marshal, the Mas-
ter Of the Ceremonies in Cheltenham. It appeared that an
election took place some time ago for a person to fill the
°nice of Master of the Ceremonies, and that Mr. Marshal
(who had been an Officer in the Army) and a Captain
Crofton, were rival candidates. Mr. Marshal, however,
was elected by a large majority; and, since that period,
frequent attacks were made on him in this newspaper-, for
which Mr. Thornton was morally, as well as legally, re-
sponsible. These attacks had lately assumed such a cha-
racter, that Mr. Marshal found he could not perform the
functions of his office, nor hold up his head in society, if he
allowed such attacks to pass with impunity. In the
Cheltenham Herald of the 30th December there was a
letter. signed " Verax," in which the writer professed to
Consider the character of Mr. Marshal in the relative si-
tuations of a gentleman, a man of honour, an Officer, a
Christian, and the father of a family. As to a gentleman,
the writer said, that from birth and education Mr. Mar-
so.' had not the slightest pretensions to that character. As
to a man of honour, his claim to that character must be
proved by something else besides the notorious
breach of every honourable feeling—by the
indui-
genee of private slander, and the cruel and vindictive
persecution of an innocent and respectable woman. The
writer went on to state, that, in his character us an officer,
Mr. Marshal well knew that he would not be tolerated in
any regiment in the service, and that, as a Christian, his
character was beet estimated by his conduct, in throwing a
slanderous imputation on the fair fame of an amiable and
unobtrusive Minister of the Gospel.
Lord TENTERDEN said the letter contained two distinct
rharges against Mr. Marshal. He was charged with pew-
secuting a female, and slandering a clergyman. It was ne-
cessary those charges should be answered.
Mr. CAMPBELL said that Mr. Marshal denied those
(l'arges in the most distinct manner.
The Court granted a rule to show cause.
THE KING V. THE LORD BISHOP or ROCHESTER.
The CoamMON SERGEANT moved for a mandamus di-
rected to the Lord Bishop of Rochester, calling on him to
instal the Reverend W. King, who is Archdeacon of Ro-
chester, in a certain Prebend, which was annexed to the
Archdeaconry forever, by letters patent in the reign of
Charles the Second. The fact was, that after the death
pr the late Bishop, the Lord Chancellor considered this
ehend was vacant, and, in right of the Crown, itpre-
Zaunltebdrid e
to; a gentleman belonging to the University of
Itlt it was insisted that the Prebend was an
aPPurtenagnce of the Archdeaconry.
After a short consultation, the Court granted a condi-
tional order.

TIM KING V. GILKS AND OTHERS.
AnoLvnus said this was an action against the
stewards of a Benefit Society, culled " The Albion
Vu
-ion Benefit Society," furtne
refusing to re-admit a
naber, in pursuance to an order from the Justices. The
dict
ease walk tried at the sittings after Michaelmas, and a ver-
taken for the Crown. The learned Counsel now
umved for a rule to show cause why the verdict should nut
he set aside, and a new trial granted, on the ground that as
the articles of the society were not enrolled, the Justices
had 4° Power to make any order for the conduct of the
Uociety.
Lord TENTERDEN. Take a rule to show cause.