The Sun.
London, England, 1826-11-07 00:00:00

THE SHIP INDUSTRY.

This was an appeal from the ward' of certain Justices of Grsat
Grimsby, who had awarded a sum of 401. as salvage on the above-
named vessel.

Dr. LustmtproN (who appeared for the Salvors) now sub-
mitted that the appeal was infirmal, inasmuch as notice of it was
not given within ten (lays after the award was made, according to
the 9th section, 1 and 2 Geo. IV. c. '75.

Dr. Jxxxxu, (for the owners) contended that the notice was
good, it having been given eleven days after the award war made,
the tenth day falling on Sunday.
Lord 81,01ertr. said, that all the parties seemed to have been
informal. The Magistrates were irregular, for they had not dated
the award on the same day that the sentence was made. The
owners were irregular in not giving notice of appeal within the
proper time.
The Court was unwilling to set a bad precedent, and would
consider the circumstances before the next court day.
CLAIM OF SALVAGE—THE WARKWORTIL

Dr. itISHINGTON stated, that be appeared on the part of seven
persons, who had risked their lives to save a vessel called the
Warkworth, which was bound from the North to London, laden
with coals. She was run foul of during the night-time by ano-
ther vessel, and, parting with her anchor, drifted on the sands
near Southend. In this situation she made asignal of distress, and
the salvors, at the imminent risk of their lives, went to her as-
sistance, and, after remaining on board the best part of two days,
got her off in safety. The Warkworth was insured, and the under-
writers tendered 100/., which the salvors submitted was an in-
sufficient remuneration. _

Dr. Jrrnuta said, the underwriters were ready to submit
to any judgment the Court should pronounce, and they had
deemed the tender of 1001. sufficient.
Dr. Lusuumrox said, that if the underwriters were a little
more liberal, they would put a great deal more moneyi,in their
own pockets. .It was well known that there was great difficulty
in getting men on this ceast to hazard their lives.
Lord STOWYLL said, that it appeared from the affidavits of dis-
interested persons, that on the present occasion the danger was
fearful and momentous. The Court, cnnsiderk.g this, awarded
2001. for salvage.—The Court then adjourned.,

COURT OF KING'S BENCH.—(Tuts DAT.)
CRIMINAL INPOPAIATIONS.

Mr. Ditirmax moved fur a rule to show cause why criminal
information should not be granted against the Rev. John Myehr,
a clergyman, a magistrate, and a married man, residing in Lin-
colnshire. A young lady who resided ik,tlie parish where he
officiated, was in the habit of visiting his facility ; some time pre-
vious to her marriage, her intended husband received several
anonymous lettere, signed " Verim," which were proved to be in
the hand-writing of this clergyman, stating that, he (the clergy-
man) had had an improper intercourse with her. Of these letters,
Mr. Williams . (the intended husband) toile no notice, thinking that
they would cease on her marriage; but in this conclusion he was
disappointed, for after the marriage had taken place, he contimard
to be annoyed by similar letters of a more aggravating nature,
of having led an unchaste life, and representing
"hecrusininogbtsheee anldeteyrms. As an indictment would not lie, the hus-
band felt called upon to make this application to their Lordships
provoking conduct.—Rule granted.
to put a stop to such
THE AGE.

granted *gaited Richard Downing
not be
information should
d Publisher of the .49s Newspaper,
Mr. ScAlwyn moved for a rule to thew cause why criminal.
Atnathaltittousmlirb.eEul onthbalper.
ti-otircilharadvkingimitpuPasPhreier ar scandalousanhof rt.d
Easthope, M.P., for the Boroug_
was a member of the Stock
Exchange, and broker to Hallett and
Co., who were agents to the Chili:
Sometime in October they recei- this country in order to pay
Government bail sent remittances
seoxrupeectdvtiiiovniwdeanits,rceoaminlildtit,tea, 'areecepot, eed Ginfoovrmernamtioeinittliinattit'lisiecoCuhnitliaryi
h of September they disco-
with
'ugly circulated; but on the Zit , r I
* fur toe report; and
vered that there was no foundation
that might arise from an ,
ttrhhteetyoevitlislat effect had been accord_
commended that written notice thereof should pw }alto Lea-
Stock Exchange without delay ; but as that could
-,:, then too without the permission of the Committee, and
1 ;mile beingf ent to the
late in the day to obtain that, Mr. EatrhoPe '1—,,,,---I allw whom he
sent
fnrl,llEaacobeletifuPetnou't be done,
Stock Exchange, and communicated personally "'
met there, the information received from the Chilian Govern-
! allusion
ment, that the dividends would not be paid, &c. -11 Age,
to this, the libel complained of appeared in the
„,._
on the first of October. It represented Mr. Easthope al ""o
tasted by base motives in circulating his report,
purchase Chilian Stock, at a hew rate, and that he had actually.
purchased Stock of a Jew named Solomon, who had siterWar 6
sent him a challenge, in consequence of having deceived him;
but that Mr. Easthope, who was nicknamed the Bumproof, was too
cowardly to accept the challenge. The article concluded by stating,
in order t
that this assertiou was open to coutratiktiou, and that unless deuiact

by some of the parties, it should be taken for granted as true, &c,
The following was the libel complained of :
" Another instance of the most glaring character, in a new
member of the British Senate, occurred oniThursday last, just as
the Stock Exchange was about to close. A little prig of a stock-
broker, by the name of Easthope, who was returned in the last
election M. P. for St. Albans, brought a quantity of Chaim)
Bonds into the market for sale, because, as broker to Messrs.
Hullett, Brothers, and Co., he had received intimation from them
that the dividends were not likely to be paid. A much more ne-
farious transaction cannot be imagined ; and• it is impossible for
Easthope to deny that he did not know the dividend would not be
paid, because yesterday morning the following placard was affixed
on Messrs,. Hullett's counting-house door :
' The funds needful for the payment of the dividends upon the
Chilian Bonds not having been received by Messrs. Hullett, Bro-
thers, and Co., they cannot receive the Dividend Warrants until
further notice.'

" Such conduct, as may be naturally supposed, drew on the St.
Alban's Member the indignation of the whole fraternity, and
above the rest, of a young Jew, by the name of Solomon, between
whom and Easthope there was a regular wordy skirmish, which,
they say, ended in the latter's calling the Jew out, which was de-
clined, from the Israelite not deeming the Christian a gentleman.
Easthope, from
:having been so repeatedly knocked about and
kicked, generally goes by the nickname of bum-proof, and certain-
ly if any man ever deserved either one or the other, for the affair
in question, he richly merited Loth. We shall be open to any
contradiction of the matter, from whichever party may feel most
annoyed by our comments, if such contradiction can be given—
if it does not appear, we shall consider ourselves quite justified in
coming to the conclusion we have, regarding the dignity and con-
sequence of the Imperial Parliament, which (if this case remain
unrefuted), will be quite as much at stake by the admission of
Mr. Easthope, as Mr. Wilke, or any other person, so impugned."
Mr. SCARLZTT, in support of his application, put in an affida-
vit of Mr. Solomon, denying the circumstance of the duel, and
also another affidavit from a gentleman of the Stock Exchange,
denying that Mr. Easthope was known there by the name of
Bumproof.—Rule granted.
Mr. William Owax, the Attorney-General for Wales, moved
for a writ of certiorari, to have the trial of rioters, concerned in
demolishing a house, removed from Cardiganshire, to some ad-
joining county in England, on the ground that it was impossible
to procure a fair and impartial trial in Wales, for the following
reasons :—about twelve years ago, there was an Act of Parlia-
ment passed, for the enclosing of Commons in Wales, in conse-
quence of which a large tract of land was enclosed in Cardigan-
shire, of which a gentleman named Blackenbury, was apnrchaser
to a considerable amount, and built a splendid mansion
thereon iu 1820 ; but before he was long in possession
of it, an immense multitude attacked and set fire to it,
whereby it was utterly destroyed; The perpetrators of this act
remain as yet undiscovered, although rewards to a great amount
had been offered. Mr. Brackenbury, not dismayed by this, built
another house, which was completed in April last. After he had
been ten days in possession, a mob collected in the neighbouring
mountains, and blew a horn. In a few hours 600 persons as-
sembled and sutTeunded the house : they warned the inhabitants
to withdraw in an hour, or else they should be burnt. The ser-
vants consequently left the house, and in a few minutes after it
was destroyed. A ringleader of this mob was shortly after appre-
hended and tried ; but though lie had been clearly identified, lie
was, to the great astonishment of all present, acquitted.—
Such was the prejudice entertained by the lower classes
against Mr. Brackenbury and the inclosnres, that it
was impossible to obtain a fair trial ; independently of his
prejudice, there was another reason, the witnesses were all Eng-
lishmen, who did not speak the Welch language, and nine out of
ten of the jury, did not understand them or the judge. On the
late trial, the jury expressed a wish that the evidence of the prin-
cipal witness should be interpreted into Welch for them, but Ser-
geant Haywood, who presided, objected to it on the ground that,
by law all proceedings in courts of justice should be in the English
language.—(Much laughter.) The consequence was that the
prisoner was acquitted, from the jury not understanding thu evi-
dence.--A rule to shew cause granted.

BURKE V. CLIMUNT.

Mr. Ouawav moved fur a rule to shew cause why the verdict
obtained in this case should not be set aside, and a new trial
granted. The declaration stated, that the plaintiff had attended
at Marlborough Police-office, for the purpose of collecting infor-
mation for The Times newspaper, and was there known by the
name of The Times reporter ; that in consequence of some pro-
ceedings which had taken place at that office, a fabricated letter
had Leen sent to a Mr. Spilabury, &c. It appeared in evidence,
that Mr. Ilarnett (whom this letter partly affected), had in this
Police Office, communicated in a whisper, that he had suspected
The Times reporter as the author of the fabricated letter,
but the publication complained of went farther, and represented
that it had been openly stated in the office, that the Tinos
•reporter was the author. This was evidently false, for all the
evidence woe she other way; yet his learned friend Mr. Searlett,
having Indulged iu au edifying tirade against Police Reporters,
persuaded the jury to give a verdict for the defendant, on the
ground that those who were in the habit of libelling others, were
entitled to no consideration when libelled themselves.

The CHIRP JUSTICE observed, that he had told the jury that
the primary object of the publication in Bell's Life in London,
was to exculpate the reporter of the Morning Chronicle from any
connection with the fabricated letter; but if they thought that it
also meant to represent the Tinter reporter as doing that which
he ought not to do, they would give a verdict for the plaintiff,
otherwise fur the defendaut. His Lordship desired that the libel
be read, which having been done, the Chief Justice said, that
Edmonds bad at the time in question, been excluded from the
Police office, and as a reporter, had been suspected to be the
author of the fabricated letter. The obvious inference was, that
Edmonds had been suspected, and for that reason excluded. The
Times reporter stated his expulsion in that paper, and Mr.
Edmonds wrote to the Editor, to say that he had not been ex-
cluded by reason of being suspected of having connection with the
fabrication of the letter. This the Editor of the ' Times' refused
to publish, and it was very natural that Edmonds should endea-
vour to exculpate himself.

Mr Gusnity—They have represented .;as occurring at a
police-office what had really not taken place there, to the pre-
judice of Mr. Burke. They at first pleaded a justification, but
they thought proper to abandon that and send it to a Jury, who
gave a verdict not warranted by law.
Mr. Justice BAILEY—Are there any special damages stated?
Mr. GURNEY—None.
The CHIEF Jusvea--Has he any prospect of recovering 201. ?
Mr. GURNRY—Yes, my Lord.
Mr. Justice BAILEY---Spes sua cuique.
The Cum JusricE thought that a verdict would be with
more propriety fir the plaintiff than for the defendant, but he
considered it sufficient damages.
Mr. Justice BAILEY---It does not appear that the plaintiff had
lost his situation in consequence, or sustained any other damage.
It GußwEr—His reputation is to him of more value than 60/.
The CHIEF JUSTICE thought that a new trial ought not to be
urged.
The subject dropt here; about half an hour after the CHIEF
JUSTICE observed to Mr. Gurney, that u there was some novelty
attending the verdict he might take his rule...es-Rule granted.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS._.(Ties DAY.)
FLOOK V. JONIO3.

Mr. Serjeant Taony moved fora new trial in this case, which
was tried before the Lord Chief Justice in Guildhall. The facts
as they came out before the Jury, were as follows:—.lt was in-
stituted at the instance of the plaintiff as assignee for Dree-
ing, for the recovery of money paid by the latter, on the eve of
bankruptcy, to the defendant. The money was due on a bond
granted by Dreeing to one Thomas, to whom the defendant was
executor for 1,200/. lent to Dreeing by Thom,, payable on the
stated, that it was not
thtoiwemeveanrd requested delay, which
19th of October 1822, when Dreeing teas called upon by the de-
(f,enondvaetnttienfotrfpoaryhmimentt.o
pDayreentinthga,
was accordingly granted for two years, as appeared from an in-
dorsement on the bond. The defendant, however, applied in
September 1824 before the appointed time, and Dreeing not wish-
ing to disappoint him, made every exertion to get cash to liquidate
the debt, and sold a quantity of malt at an under value, and even
his watch and furniture, for that purpose,, out of the proceeds of
which he paid to the defendant a sum of 8261. on account. On
the 18th of October following Dreeing committed an act of bank-
ruptcy, and on the 28th of that month a commission was issued,
under which the plaintiff was appointed his assignee. Dreeing
deposed before the Jury, that when he Paid the 8261. he had not
contemplated that his wilieuptcy would occur so soon afterwards ;
he expected he would be able to hold out till Christmas. The
Jury found a verdict for the plaintiff.
The Learned Serjeant contended, that the verdict should be set
aside, on the ground that the bankruptcy was not contemplated at
the time the payment was made. But the Chief Justice, upon
considering the whole facts, refused the motion.

COURT eIF EXCHEQUER-4Tms DAy.)
„wow/ v. siwsow.

Mr. SPINCI stated that this wee A queetiou of the liability of
certain hulas in the township of Helot)leton to pkx kiote, Tio
elainuat had received the 1;0101 lAto.)r* ettti *4-444
they were wt3Ati, and An*ared. WhaY ine time
and the toecuris kerwied (A um y * been enclosed)
• ;i .. 4. commission was orderetir

and this was a demurrer of -Clark and other witnesses, examined
by those commissioners, to answer certain interrogatories relative
to the claims. Those questions were, whether the witnesses had
paid tithes for that part of the land which they occupied. The
grounds of the demurrer were, that the witnesses would by an-
swering those interrogatories subject themselves to the penalties
for non-payment of their tithes. They therefore prayed the Court
to grant a demurrer, that they might not be obliged to give evi-
dence which would operate against themselves.
The COURT over-ruled the demurrer, with an order for a new
commission, and that the plaintiff should make no use of the evi-
dence against the witnesses.