The Sun.
London, England, 1819-11-16 00:00:00

LAMBETH CHAITY.

In this ease a motion had been made before Sir
Thomas Plumer, and several orders made by him
relative to a Charily left to the Parish of Lam-
beth. and the case .sobserphently came before Sir
John Leach, the present Vice-Chancellor, who
ordered a Receiver to be appointed for the
estates of the Charity. From this decision there
leas an appeal by mo of the tenants of the estates,
Who contended that no Receiver shookd be ap-
pointed, as there was not a legal Trustee to the
Charity.
Alt. AVETEII3IIIII.I, made a most able and lumi
non' s.peech for the plaintiffs, and was followed
by i•lr. Moottu- on the same side.
Mr. HART, and Messrs. HOUPELL and HoRNE,
Were heard for the defendants.

The LORD CHANCELLOR-1 am now obliged to
leave Court ; I shall thi:retore trouble you to go on
lo.morrow morning..

SXDGMICK AND BROTHER V, WALLACR.

Mr. HORNE—I am extremely sorry to detain
your Lordship one moment, but the motion

have to make is one of considerable importance.
The LORD CEIANCEi.LOR (who by this time had
lett his seat) replied, " Why,l Shull hear it with
pleasure, if it is a short motion, as I must go,
'am sorry I say, elsewhere."

iIoRNE—It will nut, rny Lord, take up
`much time.

'l'h LORD CHANCELLOR—Then go on.
[His Lordship came back to his seat, but stood
the whole time with his official bat in his hand
Mr. limit.tve then said; that the plaintiffs had
been executors to a Mr. Davies, who bad given
them several' legacies, in which was included a
iiiimbtqL of slave's. The defendant, Mr. Wallace,
was their agent in the West India Islands, and he
had not accounted for the 'money he had now re-
.ceived, but that he was about to leave the king-
4luin,- avid therefore the present application was
to prevent
his -doing so by a writ of Ne exeot.
I?egno.

The LORD CHANCELLOR—To what amount do
loit swear that he has defrAnded you ?
Mr. aoßtiE—lle says himself he has received
'7OO/.

The LORD CHANCRLLOR—Then take the Writ
as yon have moved for it.

His Lordship rose before two o'clock.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, Nov. 15.

THE BOWDITCHES.
Mr. Serjeant l'eu. moved for a rule to slew
cause why a criminal information should not be
Bed against James flowditch and James Sutton.
.His motion was made on affidavits which disclosed
facts of a very extraordinary nature, and which,
lie thought, would All the Court witri astonish.
)nent and indignation. The facts were shortly
these :—.lll last Hilary Teirn a tule was before
their Lordships, calling on the prosecutrix Maria
(ikon (in the indictment fora conspiracy, which
teas fresh in the recollection of every one), to
chew cause why the verdict should not be set
.aside, and a new trial granted to the several de-
feodants. The affidavits on that occasion on the
our stile and the other were not lets than 180.
.The case in question produced a very strong sett-
nation and interest in the town of Taunton, with
respect to the Lady ; much too strong, it turned
out, for her tranquillity or peace. Their Lord-
ships decided agaiu,t a new trial, and immediate-
ly after, papers of a most scandalous description,
nod most injurious consequence to the character
of the young Lady, wet e circulated through that
town; meetings were held, and subscriptions en-
tered iuto for the defendants,. and many other
circumstances took place, very discreditable to
the parties concerned, and by no means favour.
able to the course of public justice. But if they
had stopped there, he should not have advised the
present measure; because from a regard to the
peace of the young Lady and her connections,
'be thought it better that the whole affair should,
if possible, be suffered to die away, At the Oc-
tober Sessions for the City of London, bills were
preferred against Miss Glenn, and the servant
who had lived with her at the time the offence
was perpetrated, for perjury, committed in the
affidavits put in, in sheaving cause against the rule
for a new trial.

The CHIEF JUSTICE inquired the name of the
servant.

Mr. MARRY AT answered, Mary Whitby. He
should forbear saying one word with respect to
the innocence or guilt of either party. The clues-

lion was to Ile again brought before a Court of
Ju,tice—it w•as noT, therttore., for liirn to anti-
cil►ate a verdict favour4l►le to the -foritier prosecu-
tors, •or otherwise. But he complained most
grievously of certain publications which appear-
ed at Taunton, but three days alter the finding of
the hills.

The CHIBF JUSTICB—What is the date, of the

Mr. Seri-cant YELL said, the 20th September;
gild the affidavit stated, that the handbills itt
question appeared on the 23(1. He most read a
copy to his Lordship, and whatever opinion
might be entertained of the merits of the case,
he was persuaded all persons must feel that the
circulation of such a paper was highly criminal,
with reference to Miss Glenn, as well as calcu-
lated to make a most undue impression, and alto-
gether inconsistent with the ends of public jus-
tice. It was swot n that the paper was rioted
by de•ircand at the request of James liOwditch,
and that lie was the person who applied to the
printer for the purpose of procuring ti thousand
copies, arid that these were given by him to James
Sutton, who distributed them in various quarters,
and posted them up in all parts of Taunton. This
was the town in which the young lady resided
with her uncle, so that it was not possible for
her to take a- walk, or leave her uncles house
without having her eyes saluted with baud-bilis
on every wall, reflecting on herself in the most
wanton and slanderous manner, and in terms the
most insulting.
The Learned Counsel then read the hand-bill,
which was nearly in the following terms :

" Fate of Miss Glenn and her infamous accom-
plice Mary Whitby.--True bills have been this
week returned by the Grand Jury of the City of
London, fur wilful and corrupt perjury, commit-
ted by these persons in the infamous prosecution
lately conducted against the Bowdirches...*Thi's is
a convincing proof of the treachery, villainy, anti
cruelty practised against the unfortunate indivi-
duals who have beet► so basely persecuted, and
who are note innocently suffering in the Court of
King's Bench."
Ile asserted there was not a line of this which
was not slanderous and libellous to the individuals
against whom it was levelled. Ile should not go
so tar as to
.say that it calumniated the proceed-
ings of a Court of Justice, though the last sen-
tence asset red the innocence of the defendants not-
withstanding their suffering by the sentence of
such a Court. •,
. .

The CHM JIJ Ttcc—l think you said that
both Bo‘%ditch and Sutton were concerned in the
circulation of the hand-bilk •

:Mr. MA It Wl' AT—Yes, my Lord.
The CHIEF JUSTICE—Take a Rule to sliew
cause.

EX-PARTS SMITH.

The Souct:rott•GatiettaL moved for -a rule to
slim cause why this person, no attorney Of the
Court, should not ans‘vcr the nn of an affi-
davit containing alleged mal-practices in putting
in fi'clitions bail in an action commenced in the
lio•rough Court of Nottingham. As the ease was
highly injurious to the character of the individual,
we forbear, in this stage of the, proceedings, to
enter into a partial detail of the 'circumstances.—
After the case had been fully stated,
'The CHIEF JUSTICE interposed, and said, the
only doubt we entertain is, Whether your motion
is rightly framed. Your affidavits accuse thematt
of a crime, and you call on hint to answer them,
'kat is to say, whether he is guilty or not guilty
_ Yon should moved for a rule to
shear cause why be should not be struck off the
roll of rummies.

of a crime.

The SoLimo:a-GENERAL Said, he had intended
to follow it tip by a motion of that kind, but
would! be guided by their Lordships' opinion.
The rule was then taken in the form suggested
by the Court.

THE KING V. THE CHURCHWARDEN OF •HORE-

DITCH.

This was a rule to .sbew cause why a Mandamus
should not issue to the Churchwardens of the
Parish of Shoredirch, to coiopel than to admit
William Lamming to the office of Clerk of that
Parish, be having brew elected thereto by the
Parishioners. ,

Mr. GuRNRY spewed cause against the rule, and
contended that the right of election did not exist
in the Parish, hilt in the Vicar.
Mr. NoLAtg and Mr. AEMAHAII were heard in
support of the rule ; but

The COURT hel►l that it was not sustainable,
and•consequently it was discharged.

THE KING V. Silt LAUGHTIN MACLEAN, D. M.

This Gentleman, svhom we understood to be
a physician,-practising at Sudbury, in Suffolk,
was brought up to receive the. judgment of the
Court for a violent assault committed upon a
Gentleman named Keating, of that town. The
patties had been at a convivial meeting of Gen-
tlemen of the town, when in the warmth of
wine the prosecutor made some observation to-
wards the defendant which gave [inn great offence.
The conversation hail turned upon the Prince Co.
burg, and the prosecutor, ironically alluding to
the defendant, said, tltat in the event of the de-
mise of that distinguished personage, Sir Laugh-
would make a fit subject for his successor, or
something to that effect, This piece of raillery
irritated, the worthy Doctor's feelings. No-
thing further, however, took. place until a con•
siderable time afterwards, when the. Doctor,
having consulted with some 'friends, it was
resolved to call upon the prosecutor to give
some explanation of what lie meant br.; the obser-
vation above-mentioned. Before, however, the
meeting took place upon the stihject, the defeu-
dant in the irritated state of his feelings met the
prosecutor on a matket day in Sudbury, and
.without any previous intimation, pulled hint
violently by the nose. The prosecutor attempted
to defend himself with his walking stick, which,
however, was wrenched out of his hand, and
broken over his head. A meeting of a (lacteal!
description was afterwards proposed by the pro-
secutor, which, however, was declined by the de-
fendaut.

These were some of the principal circumstances
of the case, and

The COURT sentenced the defendant to pay a