The Sun.
London, England, 1844-07-06 00:00:00

r year had been sent, by the Recorder, there could not Vave
aeon any hesitation. in sending it back, on the ground that it
was a mistake. It had been said that a difficulty arose here
from the circumstance that the jury were a special ury, and
one of the Judges had expressed doubts whether :thy chal-
lenge to the array existed in the case of a special jury.
He quoted the case of the King v. Edmunds, in Barnetvalt
and Alderson's Reports. In this case a challenge was inacl.e
to the array on the ground of non-inditlerency on the part
of the Master of the Crown-office. Lord Tenterden de-
livered an elaborate judgment in that case, in which
he stated that the challenge could not be allowed.
The Master of the Crown-office being the person who has, to
strike the jury in the charactor of an also', the Learned
Judges in Ireland seemed to have supposed that tit:: Recorder
stood in the game position of disor, and thereffire his lists
could not be challenged; that the challeng,e to 'his
list must •be in a different character, and. in' a
different mode. But how could that apply to a - case
in which the objection to the challenge was, that the Re-
corder was a person over whom the Court had no power.
His proposition would be, that whoever was entrusted by the
law with the selecting of a jury must necesFarilv, as i'ar as •
those proceedings were concerned, come under the power of.
the Court. The question the Court had to consider was
not how that list came into existence, but whether it was in
itselfa sound document, and whether it gave assis'ance to the
Sheriff, or whether it was calculated to mislead-him. Tlle'r
Lordship? predecessors had thought the power of challenging
the array so great, that no statute law could take itrawty.
He was proceeding to cite the case of the King v. Buiridge,
in Lord Raymond's Reports, when
The LORD CHANCELLOR said—You are now beginning a
fresh point. Are you likely to finish your arguments in a few
minutes?

Mr. HILL—No, my Lord.
The LORD CHANCELLOR—Then we will adjourn till ten
o'clock to-morrow.

THE DERBY DISPUTE.
WOOD v. PEEL.
TO THE EDITOR OF THE SUN.
SIR,—I am, as the solicitor of Mr. Alexander Wood, the
plaintiff in the above issue, desired by him to beg. you will
insert in your Journal the follow ing exculpatory statement :
Mr. Goodman being the owner of the horse called Bunning
Rein, and indebted to Mr. Wood in a considerable sum of
money, sold the horse with his engagements to Mr. Wood,
in consideration of the debt, and of a further advance, upon
the terms that if the horse should be the winner of the
Derby, Mr. Wood should, in addition thereto, pay Mr. Good-
man, or his nominees, so much of the stakes as should excefed
the amount of the debt, the advance, and subsequent ex-
penses. This transaction occurred after the horse had been
proved, to the satisfaction of the stewards at Newmarket, to
be Running Rein, and Mr. Woo I was assured by Mr. Good-
man that there were numerous other witnesses who could
prove that fact, besides the one who was examined at New-
market. The horse having been entered for the Derby in
the name of Mr. Goodman, was, upon the sale taking place,
transferred into -the name of Mr. Wood ; the horse being
afterwards alleged to be fixer years old, Mr. Wood caused hint
to bo examined by an experienced person, who pronounced
him to be three, and not four years old. I refrain froin
mentioning the person's name, as, after he found the tide of
public opinion to set in strongly against the horse, he at first
wavered in the opinion which he had given, and afterwards
retracted it. This and a similar occurrence—of which the
public are well aware—respecting Leander, and the assertion
of one of the highest veterinary surgeons, publishel in the
sporting journals, that the mouth of a horse is a fallible cri-
terion of its age, induced Mr. Wood to Lelieve such to be the
fact, and that an examination of the horse's mouth would not
further the ends of justice. Immediately, however, that it
appeared upon the trial, that the production of the horse was
desired by Colonel Peel's advisers, for the purpose of identity,
and not the mere examination of his mouth, Mr. Wood de-
termined that he should be produced if the trial proceeded,
and his firm resolution on that point produced the sudden
termination of the trial.

Mr. Wood's beneficial interest in the stakes being but
small, he endeavoured to avoid a lawsuit, and to have the
dispute decided by the stewards. But the instant that Col. Peel
commenced the action, in which the issue Wood v. Peel was
framed, Mr. Wood refused, in my presence, and with my ad-
vice, as his solicitor, to litigate a matter in which he had so
little interest, but being most positively assured, and believ-
ing that the horse was Running Rein, he, upon receiving. a
bond of indemnity, permitted those who had a greater inter-
est than himself in the stakes, to use his name for the pur-
pose of trying the question, and to employ theirown attorney,
_the use of Mr. Wood's name being necessary for the purpOse.
In conclusion, I beg to contradict an erroneous impression
which I hear exists, that Mr. Alexander Wood is the same
person as, or related to, or connected with, the plaintiff in
the action, Wood v. Ledbitter, which was tried a few days
since.

Mr. A. Wood is a corn chandler and coal merchant at
Epsom, where he has resided and carried on that business
nearly 20 years, and where his real character as an honest
and upright man is well known.
Mr. A. Wood has been at my office every day this week,
for the purpose of seeing and consulting me on the above
matter, but I have been unavoidably absent, otherwise I
should have been present with him at the trial, and have of-
fered this explanation at a much earlier period.
I am, Sir, your very obedient servant,
1, Lincoln's Inn-fields. A. It. STEELE.

THE REAL METHOD OF SEAL
BREAKING.

Public attention has been of late very properly directed to.
the odious system of espionage which has been long prac-
tised at the Post-office, under the authority of the British
Secretary of State ; and many of the journals have pre-
tended to describe the agency by which the operation of
taking fac-similes of seals has been accomplished, but evi-
dently with little knowledge of the subject. Some of them
have stated that the imitation seal was produced by placing,
a plate of lead on the wax impression, which, when smartly
struck, presented a perfect fac-simile of the original ; but this
is a palpable absurdity. The operation is much simpler;
and by the process adopted at the Post-office, a score of,
spurious seals can be produced in a few minutes, and with
the utmost precision and certainty. The spurious seal by
which it is intended to reseal the opened letters, is taken in
plaster of Paris, and with so much accuracy as to defy de-
tection. It is, in fact, the process by which our beautiful
casts of medals and coins are taken, as well as that by Which
the lower gangs of coiners are enabled to cast exact fac-
similes of our silver coinage in base weal.
It appears that in the secret, or inner bureau of the Post-
office, the appropriate apparatus for casting is always in
readiness. It simply consists of a small cylindrical, annular
brass mould, about an inch in height, which opens and shuts
like a bullet mould. After the seal has been oiled, to prevent
the plaster adhering, this mould is placed upon it, and
the plaster of Paris, mixed in the usual way, is poured upon
it. In about five minutes it hardens, or acts, as it is techni-
cally called ; and in about as many minutes more is fit for
re-sealing the letter, which has been opened by the applica-
tion of a hot iron to the seal, and a copy of its contents duly
taken. If a wafer should have been used, a little hot water
or steam will soon remove the obstruction.—Atlas.