The Sun.
London, England, 1845-08-12 00:00:00

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE•

HOME CIRCUIT, C. oydon, August 11, ,
(Before Lord Chief Justiecl TIN DAL and a g'pecis'

Jury.)
VALLANCK V. THE DUKE OF BRIIN®WICS-

The above cast was resumed this morning.
The case of the plaintiff was proceeded with, taia :
.
sffldivit sworn at the Central Criminal Court'.durlsoa
the proceedings against the Satirist, was put 0.,. 00
ri,ad, in which the Duke, in answer to an affidavl.l.l.
the other side, had expressed his belief that Mr.
Irtice, while acting as his attorney, had conducted 12,'"
self with honour and • iStegrity
copies; Of
- .

Mr. Besgood proved tl;t ho purchased six
the printed speech made by the defendant, from the

printer.
Mr. Bierley, the plaintiff's partner, deposed tb at b
bee
fore he entered into partnership with Mr. VaiittnToe
acted as his clerk, and he was acquainted with an the
proceedings connected with the prosecutions agalast ;a.
Age and the Sot! ist, and he said that all the pule the
int were taken under the advice of counsel, with As,
senetien of the Duke, who frequently attended the e'd,*o
tiltations that took place respecting them. After 'tf
nebLeation of the libel in the Lancaster Guardian,'''
Valiance stilt a writ to his agent to serve upon r,
.‘lileer, the reepossible party connected with that psPeat,
tie h,lielei at that time Mr. Milner was a Perityie
stranger to bitn, and he did not thud( there was of
slighte,t ground for believing that he was a friend
V:dlance, or that he ever saw him. The Dolce
:i.,t sati; tied with the apology that subsequently gbire
peered, and he directed them to proceed with Lila
action. The defendant in that action did not plead, 3„,el
judgment went by default, and in May, 1843, he sig'ce
4m juent. At this time all the proceedings were got ;
es agaiiist the Age and Satirist, some of the indictineed
had been removed by certiorari to the Queen's Bench, gra
'hes caused a good deal of delay, but eventuallyßargto
Gregory was sentenced to five months imprisontou'ho
upo indictment preferred against him by the I) ',,,
nad a further imprisonment of eight months upon to 1;e
dictmsnt preferred by Mr. Valiance. The witness g 54
it gnat length the hi,tory of the legal proceedil!:b
„le
of
against Barnard Gregory and against the Age, in
Nir. Valiance had been concerned fur the Duke, and
the taxing of the plaintiff's bill of costs. be
In answer to questions put to him by the Dul'e,tbe
said, that after the libel on the Lancaster Guardian,
iop
Duke gave Mr. Valiance directions to bring m'e,tiot
,gain:st every newspaper in the United Kingdom
hail eopied it, but this, he said, was certainly
The Duke—Why not ? Witness—We shnwed 'hot
the impossibility of bringing actions concurrently'
ag
every newspaper. ecate
The Dulte—Did I not give him notice to pr()s-„."
'very newsvender who sold the Satirist? Witne'-rd,
You I: d, but it was not done, because Sergeant
who was consulted throughout the business, did not t
t advisable. stsdf
DOt cionel;11
The Duke—You throw all the blame upon Sell',
ralfourd. I think we ought to have him as a wittiest&
Chief Justice TINDAL observed, that it was Yell
ii
gable Mr. Sergeant Talfourd might have thourea,
hat, r, for the interest of the Duke, that such a Prt)ce
me should not be taken. bills
Cross-examination continued—There were two Wit'
emit in f.,r cetts, and when the first was delivered tie
eess told the Duke not to show it to De Witts, bkutore
peruse it privately. The reason for this was that 'ooi
.vere private matters contained in it, such as the
by which they obtained information respecting the
rist, and other information connected with the Prl'eobe
dons, which he thought other parties ought not
tcquainted with. fild
The Duke here endeavoured to obtain from the ybe
less a statement of some perticn of the contents o'e
oie
bill that had been delivered, but Mr. Sergeant Sh,e.
ecteci, and said the proper course was to produce tP"
,nd let it speak fur itself. ,
The CHIEF JUSTICE said the Learned SergesilL, Lb°,
right, but he reminded the Duke that if he put,„Tb;ol
bill if. would be his evidence, and would give a rig
reply.
The Duke—Then I shall not do that.—(A
The witness was then further cross-examined,,
he said he was aware that Gregory had offereu,oel)
Valiance 2,00J1. if he would prevent his being br" ;01
sp for judgment. He denied that there bad bee°
inneecssary delay in the proceedings. tY
the Duke asked the witness whether he did 001, tlO
moment he received the taxing master's order ,
ea) ment of the costs, send the Sheriff's officers ▪ tp
"10
vi it of execution to his house, and instruct the or
hammer at his door, and insist upon immediateTb
and-nt, wi'hout giving him any notice ? Witness ocil
noment we received the order we put it into the P
of the proper officers to execute it. 100
The Duke—Was it not within two hours aft er s(3'
remised it ? Witness—lt was the same day. ‘'Clesi
cu ted it immediately. We had been obliged to wgitice,
,nonths for the money while the bill was under tao
and, therefore, thought we had waited long enough' it of
The Duke—Did }ou not describe me in the On of
.ummons that was served upon me in this acts
commonly calltd the Duke of Brunswick." Witt
ft
The
be so. ?/,
They Duke—Was not that intended as an insult
Witness—Certainly not.
Sergeant SHEE explained—There was at pre ,
„woe
reigning .Duke of Brunswick ; and lest any obie4id
sheuld be taken as to tbe description, it was thong'
visabte, so to describe him.
The Duke—There could be no difficulty.
!wintry, if a Duke has sixty sons, they are all Di el•
se
('Laughter.) And if a Count has sixty sons, they are
all Counts.—( Roars of laughter.) oiCe€
The Duke—Was I not always very anxious to fed,
myself as a witness to be cross-examined by the illsoce
ants in all the actions for libel, and did not Mr. Valp./
endeavour to dissuade me from doing so 7—Wit i1;17011
You were always anxious to be examined, but 400
some occasions Mr. Valiance was anxious to spar'
the pain of appearing as a witness. fled t
Mr. C. PEARSON, the City Solicitor, was then es that
p, ove that Mr. Valiance had been in his office, all' wit,
he had kn)wn him ten or fifteen years. He lil,,isee
stated that he had read the printed speech coraP'-ceiii
,f, and he had no doubt it applied to Mr. Vallie9iislif
his character ef attorney. He added that while ow [°'
employed at the Central Criminal Court during tile!, of
i.eution against the SaCrist, he had opportuatl`fooss
:kserving that Mr, Vatauce appeared to be
zealous and active in the matter. Aesett
The Duke objected to this being received as e''
Chief Justice TINDAL—Yes, we must receive thtii",.cte‘`
Is iu answer to your plea that he shuffled and leg
your interest eO'
Mr. Sergeant SIIEE said this was the plaintiff
up( n which the Court adjourned for a short periew tog
The Duke of Brunswick then addressed the jurSflto
in a somewhat ingenious speech contended, in 11170 °C7
instance, that the matter charged as libellous vito before
in reality. He then said that, upon the inquiry ge it'Ae
the Sheriff, he was compelled to give some eltettioce
the delay that had taken place, and feeling eerProef'
that it was entirely owing to the neglect of his attf,eo,
he stated so to the jury, and for this he was calk' fie
to answer an action for libel. Mr. Valiance, vib°c,igeg
been slow formerly, was quick enough in his Ott u.i
for the speech in question was only made on the tthog
June, and he had got the case down for trial at
~b Dad
assizes. He then went on to say that the bill arl"'osble
been referred to was a most improper and unresi beef
one, and but for that Mr. Valiance would have std it
his attorney, Because, however, he refused to •
is'
Mr. Valiance kept his papers, and put him to gre
convenience ; and he now sought to obtain more °boar'
from him, by means of this action. He trusted',andandever, that the jury would defeat him in this attempt'
return a verdict in his favour.
Chief Justice TINDAL having summed up, If °tit
The jury retired. They were absent about half
how:, hen they returned into Court, finding /

for the plaintiff:—Damages, 2001.
CILLETT V. BULLWENT. Joe
This was an action for slander, tried before 0.1%
tics Coleridge and a common jury, on SaturdaY., Ole
Mr. Edwin James and Mr. Creasy were Orl, for
plaintiff; and Mr. Montagu Chambers and Mr. O;
the defendant. lacerfly ?ft,
It appeared that the plaintiff was a young.ty of
spectably connected, and was engaged in the ea13,..0,50'
governess in the family of a gentleman at Bic" tivolN
worth, and it seemed that the defendant had taloLvial,
himself to state publicly that she was in the fanokY silt
by her master, or that she had hail a child by biter
for which scandalous imputation there did not
to be the slightest foundation. /. is
e
The jury found for the plaintiff—Damages, -°
amount at which they were laid in the cleclarati°l'.
fl
viz
THE NEW EDITION OF _BURKE'S PE-ft#6), 01-!!
BA RONET AGB FOR 1845, just published, is certainil ---ed
perfect and comprehensive Encyclopmdia of personal 30094
tional history ever given to the public, combining surgovitY
accuracy and important information with the greatest,.
rip the
and clearness, and exhibiting in a condensed and lucid I°o halsi
lives and achievements of the many emjuent men ,"..1..e1e
shed lustre on the roll of our nobility, from the s',—,heini
Barons of Crescy and Agincourt, to the heroes of Etie.,, die
and Waterloo. this new edition has evidently underg_% re'
most searching revision, s.eWial of the lineages have been
written—all remodelled and improved ; —and the intrnord the
of much interesting matter referential to the Baronets %obi°
collateral branches, renders the impression far
than any of the former ones. Inr'eed there is not a ,aca past
more la coy'
netted with leer or Baronet that is not displayed in 'ha', bni'
and yet, by the judicious plan that has been adopted, t
of the volume is not increased.