The Sun.
London, England, 1828-02-21 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, FEB,
THE- KING U. BEA UMONT.

This was an infortnation against Mr. Barber Beaumont,
one of the Directors of the County Fire-office, for a libel
contained in a letter, addressed to Mr. Wallace (now Lord
Wallace), calculated to provoke him to fight a, duel.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL stated the case, the particu-
lars of which are already before the public. A Commis-
aion was appointed by Parliament to inquire into
the state of • the revenue, of which Commission Mr.
Wallace was nominated as Chairman, and in the reporr,
which emanated from this Commission, some statements
were made respecting the County Fire-Office, which were
not agreeable to the Directors of that Company, as it
involved a charge of fraud, on the part of the Fire-Office,
against the Revenue. Soon after the report of the Com-
missioners of Inquiry was printed, Mr. Barber Beaumont
addressed a petition to the House of Commons, com-
plaining of the report of the Commissioners, and Mr.
Wallace defended himself from those charges in his place
in the House of Commons. Mr. Barber Beaumont
however, was not satisfied with this appeal to Parliament,
but wrote the letter in question in May, 1827; evidently
for the purpose of provoking that gentleman to fight a
duel. The Learned Gentleman then went through the
letter, commenting on the most striking passages as he pro.
ceeded, and concluded by observing, that if public func-
tionaries, like Commissioners of Inquiry, were not pro-
tected from such attacks as were contained in Mr. Beau-
mont's letter, there was an end to the utility of such in-
quiries, an 4 Parliamentary commissions becaine'a useless
expense.

Lord Wallace sworn and examined by the SOLICITOR-
GENERAL said—l acted as one of the Commissioners under
the Acts of Parliament, (the Ist and 2d' Geo. IV.) ; I
afterwards, with the other Commissioners, made a report in
writing. The report produced is that which I made; the
report is made to the Commissioners'of the Treasury ;
three copies are made ; one for the King and two to be
laid on the tables of the two Houses of Parliament.
The report is entitled the 14th Report of the Com-
missioners of Inquiry ; on the Ist June I received
a letter bearing the signature of Mr. Barber Beaumont.—
I received it at my own house in Portman-square.--
It was handed to me by soy servant, and was in an enve-
lope, addressed " to the Right Hon. .T. Wallace, 33, Port-
man-square." The letter now produced was that I re-
ceived.

Cross•examined by Mr. PoLtom—l cannot say what
particular day the report was laid on the table of the
House of Commons. I was long a Member of the House.
The report was printed. It is usual to print such
reports. A number are printed for the use of the Mem-
bers of the House ; I believe a great many are printed, but
I don't know.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL observed, that a great many
more, he believed, were printed than were ever read.
Cross-examination continued—l believe the printed re-
ports get before the public, and get into the newspapers.
There was a copy of the evidence taken before the Com-
mission accompanying the report, and laid on the table.
Amongst-others there was the evidence of a person named
Hubbard. An application was made to tbe Commissioners
for the form of the oath, with the view of indicting Hub-
bard for perjury. The fact was, that some of the evidence
was taken on oath, and-some was not. There was a letter
written in October, 1826, requesting the form or the oath
put to Hubbard, and a subsequent application was made
in consequence of an order from the Treasury. There was
a reference from the Treasury, upon which communication
was made to Mr. B. Beaumont by the Commissioners. A
petition was presented to the House of Commons
on the 10th April by Mr. Hobhouse, containing charges
against me, which I answered in my place. The evidence
was contained in the Appendix, and the Report and Ap-
pendix were printed together.
Re-examined—Mr: B. Beaumont's own testimony forms
part of the Appendix; the Commissioners received letters
from Mr. Barber Beaumont pending the investigation ;
those letters were printed with the Appendix.
Mr. Jacob Thomas examined by Sir JA M ES SCA FLETT—
Proved the hand-writing of Mr. Barber Beaumont in dif-
ferent letters.

Goss-examined—Witness has seen Mr. Beaumont sign-
ing cheques some years ago.
The letter containing the alleged libel was the❑ pat in
and read, together with extracts from the printed Report
of the Commissioners of Inquiry, in reference to the County
Fire Office.

The libel chiefly purported that the Right Honour-
able Thomas Wallace had received were hearsays and
calumnies directed against the County •Fire Office, as
evidence, and had even laboured to give them an air of
truth by his practices on the Office clerks, encouraging the
discarded ones to vituperate their employer, and endea-
vouring to extract from the honest clerks admissions foreign
to their meaning, by worrying and intimidating' them, tic.
After the libel had beeisread, Mr. V. Pot.r.oct addressed
the Jury on the part of the defendant.
The Arroarier-GEtartat having replied,
Lord 'l'Errer•.nzx shortly summed up, leaving it to the
Jury to say whether or no the letter was written with an
intent to provoke a breach of the peace.
The Jury remained locked up until nearly ten o'clock,
when they returned into Court, and pronounced a verdict
of " Guilty."
The trial occupied the entire day, from' half-past nine
o'clock. Lord Wallace sat on the Bench from the "com-
mencement until after the sununing up at nearly six ticlack.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, FEB. :W.

THE TRUSTEES OF TIIE BRITISH MUSEUM V. WHITE.

Mr. Parrzasorr opened the pleadings.

Mr. Sergeant Wir:nE (assisted by Mr. Courts) stated,
that this Lase was an issue directed by the Court of Chan-
cery, to decide whether a person named William White,
did or did not legally execute his will so as to make it a
valid instrument for the conveyance of his freehold pro-
perty to the trustees of the British Museum. The testator
was a person who, during his life, had pursued the study of
the law, and in December, 1822, a few months previous to'
his death, he made the will in' question, by which having
given a life interest to his wife and child, he devised a con-
siderable portion of his freehold property to the Trustees of
the British Museum. The wife and child were since dead,
and the plaintiffs, agreeably to the conditions of the will,
claimed the property in question; but the heir at law dis-
puting the validity of the will, proceedings were taken in
.the Court of Chancery, vidien the present case arose, which
that Court directed should be brought into this Court for
the decision of a jury.
The will was then put in and read. It was in. two
sheets, and the names of the attesting witnesses appeared
only to be attached' to the last.
Mr. Justice PA MC, in summing up, said that the great
point for the decision'ef the jury was, whether they were
satisfied, froM whatliad appeared, that the two pieces of
paper upon which the will was written were at the same
time in the r resence of the witnesses at the respective places
at which they were signed. This would be the first ques-
tion ; and the next would be, whether all the witnesses knew
at tle time of signing that the document was a will.

The Jury returned a deitlitt for the plaintiffs, being of
opinion that both pieces of paper were in the room at the
same time, and that both were signed by thetestator.

. •
CONSISTORY COURT, FEB. 20.
Dr. LUSHINGTOW took his seat to-day u Judge of this
Court. • ,

GRANT V. GRANT.

This was a suit for divorce on the ground of adultery,
`prroted by 31ajor Charles Grant, against Mary Asn, his
wde. The libel had hecn ad.nOteds, iuld*,cluestim now
raised was as ie;the sufficiency of the,an.swerag,Alehnehand
toatallegati7_,o ftacnM
faculties of!, the. psr* \
After Dr. JeNza and Dr. ADDAS bad n heard for
the wife, and Dr.. DoosoN end Dr. 11Aoaatto for the bus-
band,Dr. Lirs/ittiovori gave Sentence: Ma* Grait had ad-
mitted; that whilst at St. Vincent` be' remitted 6001 per
annum to his wife. This adinission was sufficient to enable
the Court to ground upon it an allotment of iliniOny when
the question came regularly, befori it, for it could not be
assumed that Major Grant had been guilty of :devaitition
of the estate, by paying that sum out of what was due to
the creditors. .

The Coußt subsequentlir diiected that 41 per' week
dshecoiudleddb:e o"
t,the wife till the q.oestio, of slisio7 was

RICSARDSON V. ILICHAUDSOit.

This Was a suit for iliVoree bk reason' of 'adulterYf pro-
muted hy,Dr. Gerard Richardson, of Demerara, against
Sarah Hglirietta, Isis wife.,
Dr. tura/toms, after recapitulating the -facts of the
rase; *ll6O Pronounce fay the-separation as prayed.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER, FIB' 20.
• CUMMINS V. MILYLER AND AIM/WM.
The plaintiff in this case is the Rev. Patriet Matthias
Cumming, and the defendants' Mr. Meylsr and Mr. Mul-
ligan, are the Proprietor and, Editor of the Bath Herald.
The declaration stated, that the defendants had printed and
published three libels of and concerning the plaintiff. With
respect to the two first the defendants had pleaded Not
Guilty, and upon that plea issue was joined. T41.6e third
libel a plea of justification wag put in. •
The Jury returned a verdict for the: plaintiff on the eight