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

Irtb_','V`

COVENT-GARDEN THEATRE.

Mr. KSAN appeared here last night, for the first
time this season, in the difficult and extraordinary
character of King Lear. lie went through his part
with less than his usual energy ; consequently, by
infusing more of vraiseniblanec into it, he rendered
it more impressive and affecting. The curse was
finely delivered, and what it wanted
,in strength
of lungs, it made up in solemnity—a deep
fervent awful solemnity, which we have rarely, if
ever, heard exceeded. His allusion to .himself too
in the third act, where be breaks forth with, " I am
a man more sinned against than sinning," produced
a thrilling effect on the house. Miss JARMAN'S
Cordelia was natural and unaffected ; and Mr. C.
I(emßLE's Edgar distinguished by its usual energy;
he is incomparably, and this, by the bye, is no very
sttiking recommendation—the first Edgar of his day.
The house was well attended, except in the dress
boxes, where there was a somewhat scanty supply of
gentility..

FASHIONABLE INTELLIGENCE.

LAW INTELLIGUNCR.-(THIS DAY.)

COURT OF KING'S BENCH.
(SITTINGS IN BANCO.)
LIBEL-CARPENTER V. JONBS. II
Sir JAMBS SCARLETT applied in this CAM 0'
rule to show cause why the verdict found for lid
plaintiff should not be set aside, and a new, u'iji
granted. The plaintiff is a carver and gilder,
the libel, which was published in one of the Blea
Papers, imputed to him, that' having been emPlcilott
by a lady to gild the frame of a picture, he took
i;cl
the original painting and substituted a copy. A Yerwori
was returned for the plaintiff, with'one
mazes. The grounds upon which he now coneioi
new trial were these :--The defendant himself 1,0
actually boasted of having done the very thing jot
was imputed to him. The matter became p
and gave rise to some angry correspoudence• .04
publication of which became the ground 'of ant
The action was brought against three parties, oil,'
whom was a' Mr. Stafford, who had nothing
ever to do with the libel. Upon the trial the r
tiff contented' himself with proving the pablid
and left it to the defendant to justify it if het
Me (Sir James Scarlet') produced evidence ipv
tification, which . he thought to be tolerkitl
complete; but, as there was no evidence&
all affecting Mr. Stafford, he applied for his ictunet
acquittal in Order that he might give testin3rw
towards establishing the justification. This
.4./1e 4
acceded to, and Mr. Stafford was put into the RI;
when a person in the middle of the Court stud,
up and said, " I desire to be examined for the I,
of justice; I know Stafford, and I knew that bed
not worthy to be believed on his etith.r His Lea'
Friend, Mr. Brougham, who acinduitted the ease' i
the plaintiff, declined to examine this person, Weil 1
name was Brown, and the examination of StattV
was proceeded with. At the conelnsion of the ev.."
for the defendant, however, Mr. Brougham fell,/
Stafford's examination to be se cioneltisire of Pril
justification, that he resolved to try Brovvn sad
accordingly called him— Brown swore that lits
e 4
was not worthy of beliefon his oath. This created ri,. 1„
surprise upon his (Sir J. Searlett's) part, and 1.1
immediately cross-examiued the witness, and ask% T.,
him what brought him there ? He replied that
was there by accident. He Laid been attendiolf,
suit in Chancery ; and he saw in the London nett,'
papers that the trial was fixed for that day, autlY,
accordingly attended. He then asked him bovr,"";
knew that Stafford was to be examined ? and Y.O
replied that he did not know Abet he was to be el f 4
au3ined as a witness, but he knew that ke.was
fendant. He was lastly asked it he had bad
communication with the plaintiff, and he positiee'V
denied that he had. Now he (Sir J. Scarlet') I°
the affidavits of forty or fifty persons, all resPecr
able, sonic of them Magistrates, stating that Mr.
was a gentleman of unquestionable veracity, anal
a meeting of the inhabitants of his neighbourho°
an attestation of his character was signed by the°
all. He had also en affidavit from three perso°
who were witnesses for the plaintiff stating, that tl4°
night before the trial Brown was at the Mitre
vern, and was closeted there in a private room vet
the plaintiff for two hours and a half, and the 1116;
thing the plaintiff said to Brown, when they perm::
was " Well, you will meet me again to-morrow'f
He had also evidence of the previous declaration
the plaintiff himself, tkat he had put Stafford in el
a defendant in order to shut out his evidence, wbie"
would destroy his cage and that he was in a stela
of alarm, as was also his solicitor, lest he shoul
lose his case if Stafford was allowed to give evidenoe'
It also turned out that Brown had some pecuniari
transactions with Stafford, which he (Sir J. Scarlet')
did not seem it safe to examine into on the trial,
because be was not exactly aware of their nature. ,
Lord TENTERDEN—Supposing Stafford's testi:
mony to have been good, would it, have established
a justification ?

"Sir J. SCARLIITT—Most eertainli it would. vie
had seen the picture, and the pi ate marks on its
and the plaintiff had admitted to him the trick he bad
practised. The only thing against Mr. Stafford wit°
that be had seen the copy in the lady's room, and did
not tell her of it because he had promised secrecy.
It was also an extraordinary fact, that Brown had
formerly given evidence in a cause, and his evidence ,
led to his being indicted for perjury, and the prose'
cution was foregone upon his signing an abject deela'
ration that his evidence was false, and paying all the
costs of the prosecution, as well as the coats of, the .
cause in which he had given evidence. In addition
to this, he was also informed that he was an tower'
tificated bankrupt. The verdict was only for 05°
shilling damages, but still, under the circumstances
of the ease, the defendants determined to set aside
the verdict.

The COURT granted the rule on the ground that
the verdict -was obtained by a fraud.
LEFAILATION..—PICIERING V. .70XE9.
This was an action brought against the Marael
of the King's Bench Prison, by a servant of his,
whom he had discharged, and about whom he bet;
written to a Mr.- Morney, stating, that the plaintin
was addicted to drinking, and negligent, and that be
had missed much of his wine while the plaintiff Was
his butler, at his house at Putney Heath. The call
was tried at the' late sittings at Westminster, na"
has been so recently reported, that it must be free
in the recollection of the public. A verdict was re'
turned for the plaintiff—Damages 75/.
Sir J. SCARLRTT ROW 11381,0c1 fora rule to she'
cause why the verdict should not be set aside, upon
the ground that the letters containing the
libels were privileged communications, and that the
Chief Justice had erromeoubly left that fact to the de
cision of the Jury.
The COURT were, however, of opinion, that it
was properly a question for the Jury, and therefore
refused to disturb the verdict.

woou.wr V: stoves L.
In this case damages to the extent of 7504 bad
been recovered by the plaintiff for au injury ell'
tained by him in consequence, of the falling of al4 I
of wool from the storehouse of the defendants. TO
Judge in hi,s charge to the Jnry said, that if the
plaintiff in consequence of seeing the bag of 'wool
despending had lost his presence of-mind so far as
to run into, instead of out of the' Way of danger, is
would not destroy his claim for damages against the
defendants,

Sir J. SCARLLTT now moved fora.rule to AO'
cause why a new trial should not be' 'granted, up 91.1.
the ground of misdirection on the part of OP
Learned Judge who presided in the parti (Aar 005 e
above stated.

The. Court, however fully coincided in the viol'
.aken by the Lord Chief Justice, and refused there'
ore to disturb the verdict.

ARCHES COURT.

THE EARL •F POUTHItOUTII V. TIER 00UNTESS OF FOi:jfe-

DIOUTEI.
On this caqe 4,eing called on by the Registrar,
Or. LUSHINGTON said the necessary steps ball beep
taken to withdraw the appeal which had been el'.
tered, the suit therefore was at an end.

DE COURTNEY V. HUMPHREY.
This was an appeal from the Ecclesiaatiecil (a'
of Cardiff; the defengaßz. 1144 beiii iniene,ad 10..
perfprrn penance in the parish church during the
time of divine serviee, for defamation, from whi°"
sentence he appealed to this Court.
Sir Joux /sitcuaLL was of opinion that a proved
sentence had been pronounced by the Court 011,1?1,,
the appellant must therefore orforin Ihe'penance
before the last session of this term, and give tivPIT
four .hoitrs noiice of his dningtci the minister tlii"
clerk of 'the church

HAMILTON v. arAlm.Ton.
Dr. LUSHINGTON stated that this was an aPP")
from the Consistory Court of Gloucester. It tiri!s. '
a suit originally instituted by
Major Raja:telt 0
against his wife for a divorce ou the grounds or
adultery ; against the decision of that Court the
present ippeal was brought. The libel stated, t}4
the parties were married at Paris in the yew Igl6. ;
(a copy of the certificate of which was annexed),;, ,'
they mpetinae vtletwards rettumed to England, as"