The Sun.
London, England, 1826-06-24 00:00:00

FROM, LLOYDS'.

Drat., Julie 23.--Wind N.E.--Arrived and remain the
Warren Hastings; RaWS, ft niri China ; and Briton, Forster,
from Jamaica. Passed throughfrom the River, the ..lames Sib-
bald, Forbes ; and Mercedes, Vaughan, for Madras ; Richinond,
Crabtree, fur New York ; New York, Graves, for Philadel-
phia; •Rosa, Johnson, for Miramichi ; anti Malcolm, Eyleo, for
Bengal.

Pottpsatounr, JUNE 28. —WI nd E.—Arrived the Minor,
Carter, from London. Sailed the Maitland,. Stmid. for London.

LIVERPOOL, Jura 22.—Wind E.--Arrived the David Milne,
Corot, from Lisbon.

THE LONDON JOURNALS.

DAILY EXTRACTS FROM THE MORNING PAPERS.

JttNE 24, 1826.

[TUE MORNING CHRONICLE.]

_ .
There is one feature in the present No-Popery warfare which
we are not a little delighted to 80, as it affords a pretty satisfac-
tory proof that fanaticism has very little to do with the business.
It may be safelylaid down, that where fanaticism exists in any
country, it is nearly confined to the lower orders, and that part
of the middle (lasts immediately above them. Enthusiaim of
any kind is seldom found in the higher ranks, and least of all re-
ligious enthusiasin. When, therefore, we find in a country
,a
strong manifestation of sectarian zeal in the upper classes of so-
ciety, we may be almost certain that it is assumed. for purposes
of ambition, and with a view to effect on the'minds of the lower
orders. Now, in this warfare, we find that the lower orders have
been on the side of Emancipation, and that, if ". No .Popery"
has been any where successful--as at Leicester for instance,--this
result has been brought about by the manufacturing of half the
Parsons and Justices of the country into honorary freemen,
whereby the real freemen have been out-voted. This proves
that the lower orders have not been the .dupes of the hypocrisy
of those who raised the cry of "No Popery ;" and as we
give the most of the latter credit for too much sense to be sincere
in their professions, when they find that their tricks have been una-
vailing, they will cease to give themselves fruitless trouble. They
will confine themselves to the legitimate influence of property, to
bribing and bullying those whose consciences are weak, or whose ne-
cessities are great, or who are placed in dependent circumstances.
In the meantime the Aristocracy of lreland seem deitined to re-
ceive a new light from the fruits of the interference of the Catho-
lic Clergy in the present 'election.. The Catholic peasantry of
Ireland are in that state of civilization in which the Priest has
necessarily touch iefluence; and there can be little doubt that if
that influence be exerted with a view to effect' the return of Mem-
bers friendly to Emancipation in those counties of which the great
body of the Freeholdera are Catholics, they must succeed in their
object. In fact, when the Priests put this plain question to the
Catholic Freeholders,—‘.‘ Will you vote fiu' a Member, who pre-
nounceto your religion superstitious and idolatrous?" and tell them
that such a vote would be stigmatizing their religion, we do not
see how they could hold up their heads, if, after this solemn
warning, they should vote flir the enemies of Emancipation.
—lt is , clear, therefore, that, in all but one or two
counties of Ireland, a Candidate professing himself friendly
to emancipation is sure to triumph. The consequence of
this, connected as the Irish Aristocracy are with the Aristocracy
of England, cannot fail to be very serious. It would be rather
too much for the present day. to see a family supporting the advo-
cates of Emancipation in Ireland, and opposing them in England.
Something is due to appearances, however' much they might be
disposed to laugh in their sleeves et the difference betwixt tuvedle
dum and tweedle-dee, In the meantime, it is no small consolation
to fir.d in this country, that the lower orders are so far over-edu-
cated, that the stale tricks of the "No Popery" stagers cease to de-
ceive them. We are not such enthusiasts as to suppose that edts-
-1 cation will give all men good consciences, or prevent mean and
hungry rogues from filling their bellies at the expellee of rids and
hypocritical candidates ; hut fools are necessary to the success of
knaves, and education certainly has diminished the number of
fools.

• Prirtil MdIINING HERALD.]
A. sort of it appears, has been formed at Home,
for the editeation of liopish Priests to undertake the duties
of that religion in behind, and to et bible the Pope himself is a
eoutributor. A good de,l of eonseqoelle* has 'been heretofore at-
taclosl to the reverse of this t, the necessity of the, Catholic
Clergy hying-educated at house; and we believe that the large
and frequent grants which have from time to time been made. by
Parliament towards the support of the Catholic's Seminary at
Maynooth, have been mainly justified on the ground of the great
desirableness of the Catholic 'Priesthood being kept clear of fo-
reign influence. It is to be hoped, therefore, at any rate, that if
the Catholic Priests are hereafter to be educated at Rolile, we shall
be relieved from the expellee of maintaining the home establish-
ment. For ourselves we do not attach any vast importance to
the matter. If the morals of Maynooth are no better than those
of Oxford and Cambridge, neither the Catholic nor the Mother
Church would lose much by .their Clergy being educated else-
where. But there is one point of view in which the education of
the former at Rome, instead of Douay, St. Cheers, &c. may he of
a more questionable and suspicions nature. We mean in the
more immediate connection it is calculated to estahlish rind maintain
with the Vatican. It is this supposed foreign interference and
,
dependence which forms the main objection to the admission of
Catholics to the full enjoyment of civil rights; and therefori, if
those who have the direction of their affairs posaessed one atom
of discretion, they would prudently have abstained from adding
to their difficulties by a step so injudicious and nneelled-flo as
this. It is an additional instance of that kind of
.pio-de..seism
by which the leaders of the Catholic Body are for ever defeating
their own object. Generally speaking, a noire lila.) al education,
both in matters of science and of the world, would be a great-ad-
vantage both the Catholic Priesthood anti their flocks ; forthough
there doubtless are among them some few persons of highly cid-
tivatNi understandings, the mass of them are a low-minded, bigot-
ed race, in whom cunning supplies the plate of wisdom, and
.whose influence over their followers jal mischievous just in pro-
portion as it is wattling in those.powers of the mind which give a
just and useful pre-eminence to men in every state of life. If
then the Catholic priests are to he better educated than they have
been, that would he so far a point gained both ttl those of their
own communion, as well as to society in' general ; but that ad-
vantage, we suspect, will be more than counteracted, Why being
educated at the seat of the Papal power, an impression is proditc-
ed, however erroneously, that the foreign connection and depen-
dence is strengthened, vOtitch can never, under any eireumstaneea,
be other thin an objeet of eib•eme jealousy and alarm in this
country.

[ThP. BRITISH' I'ItESS.]

The elections in the tieighbourhood of 1,004 mi being now al-
most all clfocted, the interest excited by the different contests in
other polls of the country is comparatively inconsiderable. The
two points to which tine attention of the public it now directed
are the two northern counties of Northumberland and West:intim,
lands but mire particularly the latter. Neither or them is of any
consequence, however, in those respects for which elections in
general are remarkable; for the conflict of opinioos which usually
takes place upon such occasions seeins, in the, changed
into a mere rivalry of individuals and families ; and, without
meaning disrespect to any of the parties, We ',silly feel very
little concern about the preservation of the influence of par-
ticular families, whether 'Whig or Tory. So long as the real
interests of the country are pursued, it is Of little importance to its
whether the instruments of legislation art thin the Whig or Tory
portion of the community ; and if they w,re not pursued, the
name of Whig and Tory would be *golly obtuisious to us, There
tire Members enough already returned on iei t side or:*4lo***
ti""' to insure us afoingt the possibility or Ape
,-. 'lttaaatirea
heing carried which email °perm,' dgainst abet sr4f,'orttstuder to
r
Its the sound principles of etwerlumuti and we 1".3.):..et he
liertfore
excused if WP give ourselves very little
the ?tle►ti-
hers vet to be returned in tile coin,* elf
mi "r,"::"urtatut 4"4
Northumberland. We think,' ho wevetffil,
that tumult alight
the eicePtions which
r been' reducen to the
l'otenr; The Noble Lord 1444,‘ 10.4*-Or .30
th:rVisaws,lBted the remark which he tuitO iZzik:nl_',,d:,474:t4tlsi°llol!4'Hett.;e'sl;
Awe subterfnees thttugh last on ))011
wa,,..04/fothilistit'hO had 'a,mujorit.P.: The
is, that th,• biititeU, wherever they havovome-
Th„ people !we nothing in the party itself to autho_
rise theta tit i ii'lui,, tune suffrages to the members of it; and if
\tlyttzglicsavtemoiltst,o7ettiirecyclishaitvoeis cut
Bonet so, ot ifitreolmitutatinoyn
atpopts:lpaploroti,
their party, hut vu ;Account of their respect for the indivithials.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

VIM CHANCELLOR'S COURT, Jurrx 29.

CLASSINGTON C. THWAITEI,

Mr. Rourm 'moved, an behalf of the plaintiff, that the an-
swer and disclaimer of Mr. Philip', one of the defendants in the
cause, betaken off the file.
Mr. AGAR, on the other side objected in limine to the mo-
tion, on the ground that it had already bon made, and refused by
his Honour, with costs.

Mr. Rouritra said, that tiros and circumstances might alter
the grounds on which it was made. The suit had been origi-
nally instituted by Mr. Glarsington, a part proprietor of the
Morainti Herald newspaper, for an account against several dt-
fondants, who were joint proprietors of that establishment. In
the progress of the cause one of them assigned his interest to Mr.
Philips; in consequence of which it became necessary to file an
amended bill, to which Mr. Philips appeared, and put in what he
called an answer and disclaimer, but which was, in point of fact,
no answer, but merely a dry disclaimer. Exceptions, however,
Were taken to it as an answer, end it was referred to the Master to
look into them. Ths Master reported, that be could sot look
into the exceptions to the answer, for that there was no newer
upon the file, a mere disclaimer not being an answer. This re-
port of the Master'a was excepted to by the plaintiff, and the ex-
ceptions Set down for hearing; but upon consideration, the plain-
tiff 's advisers thought it prudent to wave the exceptions, which
were accordingly taken off the file. They then applied to the
Court for an order, calling upon the defendant to put in an an-
swer in a reasonable time, but the Court thought that was not
the proper course to pursue; and they therefor. now applied to
have the disclaimer taken off the file.

The Vlca-Citatectuna said, there was no such thing as a
disclaimer ; it was an answer, and he therefore thought it unfor-
tunate that they did not persevere in their exceptions to the Mas-
ter's report. A disclaimer would not protect a party from an-
swering, unless he not only disclaimed having any present inte-
rest, but also having ever had interest in the property in ques-
tion. He cthe Vice-Chancellor) was of opinion that the Master
had been mistaken in his report.
Mr. Roumt, thought that in that cue the disclaimer ought
to be ordered to be taken off the file.
The VICX-CHANCILLOR could not do that,

Mr. Rover=s, cited several eases, to show that where an eve.
lion bad been resorted to, the Court bad ordered it to L•e taken
off the file.

The Vzot-CwAnzttoe. said, that this tnlght be mistake, and
not 01111013. The best course for the plaintiff to adopt would be,
to apply for liberty to refills the exception,.

'IC.XIORT asked for tbut arder.now.

The VICZ-C3SANCSK.LOI4 could not grunt :such an order with-
out a formal application. He thought the lfaster's opinion was
erroneous.

MAX observed, that his Honour had not hear) what the
defendant's case wu.
The Vor-Cirsuctuon said no ; all he stated now was, that
the plaintiff might have had redress, by pi oceeding with the ex-
ceptions.
Mr. ROVtILL said, he knew a cast in which Lord Eldon him-
self had put in an answer and disclaimer in a suit in which his
Lordship was made defendant, and be (Mr. Roupell) assisted in
settling it.

Mr: APAR applied for the costs of this motion. They had
made the same motion before, and it had been refused with costs.

Mr. XXICHT said, that when the former motion was made, the
exceptions were then on the file,
The VICE.CICA.NCEI.T.OI. observed, that that 'altered the case
materially ; because. now, having withdrawn their exceptions,
they came forward supported by the Master's report. however,
being of opinion that that report was wrung, he would refuse
the motion, but without costs.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, „lulu; it

41.144pA11t V. KLMILIC AK) OTHIMS.

panenoet opened the pleadings. This was an action
brought by. the plaintiff to recover from the defendants a cow-
perisetion in damages, in bonsequence of their having violated a
contract which they had entered into with him : the defendants
had pleaded that they were not liable, and thereupon isms was joined.
The ATTOttlirr*UliNIRAL stated the case to the jury. The
plaintiff, in this case, (the celebrated singer) was under the ne-
cessity of bringing this action against the defendants, the manners '
and proprietors of Covent %antra Theatre, to recover from them
anemepensatinn in damages Vor the lose he had sustained, in come-
SUMO of their refusing en (11141 their engagement with him. In
the year 1828,,the plaintiff was residing in Italy, when an app.
cetion wee made to him, no the part of the defendant*, to perform
at Covent Garden Theatre during tbe follareing .season. That
arrangement was ooncluilittiliy a Bettor • from Mr. XoOtkolo to
the plaintiff, dated the (30th of January, wherein he stated that the
committee of roanageroent bad acceded to Mr. Sinclair's terms,
via. 201. per night for 40 nights, with a benefit, leave of absence
at Christmas and taster, and liberty to sing at concerts and ora-
torios, when not interfering with the theatrical arrangements...—
In consequence of this engagement, Mr. iiinclair came to this
country at the elan of the month of September, to be in attend-
ance when required, but he was not celled upon to perform till
the 19th of November, when be continued ea perform the forty-
iv. nights; at the expiration of that time he went to Dublin,
sacrificing the remaining lye nights, and the salary attached
to them. While there, the defindants being desirous of en-
gaging
hint for the following sewn, he received a letter from
Mr. Fawcett; the stage manager, and it was out of that letter
that the =treat arose which the defendants were now charged
with the breach of. The letter stated that he (Mr. Fawcett) had
received front Mr. Trotter (Mr. Sinclair's father-in-law) thetertne
*you which Mr. Sinclair would engefe for the following season.
Those term were the same as thole of the limner year, end were
acceded to the season to commence at the latter end of Sept.,
and Mr. Sinclair to be in attendance—" my the first week in
October," when a new opera would be brought out. To this
Mr. Sinclair replied, by stating be should consider himself en-
gaged for the following seem ; and while in Scotland, in Sept.
1924, ho received from Mr, Fawcett a letter, calling on hint to
say on what day it would be convenient for him to he in London:
to this he returned for answer that it would not be convenient
for hint to be in London before the lOth of October; and hear-
ing nothing further on the subject, he concluded that time
would do: lie arrived in London on the loth of October, and
what was his surprise to find that the opera of Der Freisclattr
bed been brought out, and that a very respectable gentlemen of
the name of Peartrillin had been employed to represent that cha-
racter which the plaintiff had been given to understand he was
to perform. On the Sd of November he received the usual
call to attend a rehearsal, and en application from Mr. Few-
nett, requesting to know what character he would choose to
appear in. MI. Sinclair selected that of Prince Orlando, in
the opera of the Cabinet, and be appeared in that character six
or seven times, pereuent to his engagement ; and in the month
of June Mr. Arnold, of the Lyceum Theatre, proposed to en-
gage Mr. Sinclair fee the !summer season to perform three
nights a week at SOL per night, and to receive 401, if he per.
formed a tburth night. Tide edvaritegeoes proposal Mr. Sin-
clair accepted, provided it received the 'auction of the proprietors
of Covent Carden Theatre, without whose consent I+,lr. Sin-
clair did not consider himself at liherte to ratify null an en-
gaetenent. In consequence of this 1)1, Niteiiceer waited
spun Mr. Charles Remble to obtain hoe permission, .;hen
that gent;ernan said lie was very sorry, but 1 e could not per-
mit Mr. Sinclair to engage with Mr. Arnold, as he expected
a new opera and an oratorio, which that highlygifted com-
poser Von Wither (whose premature death every lover of music
Must lament) had engaged to prepare for Covent-garden Theatre.
The opera was subsequently produced, and after two or three
nights' ensuccesiful performances was drawn. Mr. Sinclair
was; only nelled in to perform nine nights dui ing the season, in-
stead of fifty, but Inc was in attendance during the whole of
the season as required by his eneagement, and it is therefore
for the jury to say whether, uniler these circumstances, he is
not entitled to receive the full benefit of hie contract, the same
as if be bad performed the fifty night* that had been stipu-
lated for.
The different lettere having been read,
Dr. titcheeer, examined y the ATTORlirkv-Giszits.L.-lani
not a doctor of tomtit, hut of medicine. lam acquainted with
Mr. Arnold kid Mr. Sinclair. In the nennib of January, 1925,
Mr. Arnold was desirous of entering into ..n engagement with
Mr, Sinclair for the tummer reason. In ray opinion the terms
nropoted were very advantageous to Mr. Sineleir. In com
e-
`ehce of Mr. Arnold's offer, I waited no 111 r. C. 'Kete
v
um". if the of Covent-garden Theatre would
M. Kembl in re-
mr, s:qclair to accept of thatlengagement.,
,au r
id not allow, him to
said ,hat be vial very terry, but be ply'
go to ,111%, old, as they were in daily expectation of a new
121:1( tint, ill which they should want him to perform. 1
nieces ;.1 t} • plaintiff, in cooler of which he
cnmmunicateel this Co '"1"
declined Mr. .krnold'" On'''''
f admit that Mr. Sinclair pesformed nine
Mr. Sceltinerrsen-
nights.
:1m...Ad1 admit that he received 20/.
The ATIOIXTY.CitttIA
The defendants were &leo etl-
per night for the nine nights, of
witted to be the proprietors and niralagt" C°"11140116n
Theatre, and Mr. Fawcett to have been the etage-manager at the
period in question. ,
-144 5C40247411 with WhOM Wu Mr, BINCIMAL, .ml, ureairifi

I the jury for the defendants, observed, that although Mr. Sinclair
considered he had fulfilled his part of the contract, it would be
shown by the evidence that it was he alone who had failed to
fulfil his engagement, and that in consequence of the incon-
, venience to which the defendants had been subjected by hie not
;arriving in London in time to study the difficult music of the
Opera which they had engaged to produce to the public,
they had been under the necessity of supplying his place
with another performer; and it would be also shown, that
I immediately after his arrival in London, he was by the defendants
apprised that the engagement they had entered into with him
was at an end, in consequence of his having delayed his ar-
rival in London to so late a period after the commencement of the
season. He (Mr. Scarlett) had nn doubt that this error had
arisen from misapprehending the terms of the contract,
and was not intentional; but nevertheless the plaintiff was not
now entitled to avail himself of that contract which had long since
ceased, and ceased through inattention to it.
John Fawcett examined by Mr. Bletostese.—l was the stage-
manager of Covent-garden Theatre for the seasons of 1824 and
1825. The performances commenced on Monday the 27th of
September. On the 14th of October the opera of .Der Freirehutz
was performed. We began to rehearse that opera almost as soon
as tlas theatre opened for the season,-:-u soon as we could get our
performers together. The principal character in that opera
(Wilhelm) was destined for Mr. Sinclair. That character was
performed by Mr. Pearman, in 'consequence of Mr. Sinclair not
arriving in time. The opera was performed upwards of 50 nights.
I don't know on what day the plaintiff arrived, but I saw him a few
days after his arrival ; it was after Der Freisautz was performed.
The moment we met we talked of the engagement. 1 told him
bow he bed distressed us—he said it did nut appear so, as neither
the part or music was fit for him. He asked me by letter to fix
the night for his benefit. I received that letter two months be-
fore the close of our season, and, by hie request, I fixed his benefit
to take place on the 25th of May, the last night of his perform-
since. We never called him on behalf of the theatre to perform
after that night.
Cross-examined by the ATTORNEY-C6245kAL.....1 don't remem-
ber having any conversation with Mr. Pearman previous to the
21st of September about his taking the principal character in the
opera of Der Frei:auto. He had performed that character so
often at the Lyceum, that he was quite au fait at it. The managers
did not determine that he should take that part until they ascer-
tained that it was impossible for Mr. Sinclair to arrive in time to
study the part, after receiving Mr. Sinelair'a letter, stating that he
could not be in London before the 15th of October. 1 did not
write to him again after the receipt of this litter. We calculated
the possibility and probability of his arriving in time to study his
part sufficiently to enable us to get the opera out before the end of
October. We then considered it would require a week to study
the music, and it was only then determined that Mr. Pearman
should perform the part. We were very anxious to have had Mr.
Sinclair. The opera had been announced as forthcoming in our
first bill of the 27th of September.
Mr. Robinson, treasurer of Covent-garden Theatre-1 saw
Mr. Sinclair at my office shortly after he came to town in
October. The Opera of. Der Frieschutz bad then been perform-
ed. I was present at an interview he had with Mr. Charles
Kemble, and Captain Forbes. Mr. Kemble said, that in cones-
' quence of Mr. Sinclair not having arrived at the time he was
expected, their engagement with him was at an end, and they
would not undertake to employ him for b 0 nights, but were
willing to employ him as many nights during the season as
they might be able; and if he was disposed to accede to that
proposition, they would give him all the employ in their power.
I don't remember anything being said about terms; that propo-
sal was acceded to by Mr. Sinclair, and there was nothing said
about his benefit during the course of the season. I conversed
several time. with Mr. Sinclair on the subject. Once he expres-
sed his regret at his folly in not coming to town, having received
only 1801., a sum less than he bad ever received. He was paid
$Ol. per night for the night. he performed.
Cross examined by the ATTORPEY^GINERAL.—Captain Forbes
was at that time a proprietor of the theatre. The principal per-
formers are always engaged by letter. or by printed forms.—
There are some exceptions, I believe Mr. Fawcett is one. The
plaintiff complained that he was not employed. A new Opera (IMO
out, which was unsuccessful. We expected one of %bete.
Der Freisehutz wet the favourite opera of the season.
Mr. Alexander Olivier remembered Mr. Sinclair, on the oc-
casion of his benefit taking place, saying that he regretted very
much he had not been up in time to fulfil hie engagement; and
not only on account of his having received so small an income by
way of salary, but on account of his having beenso seldom before
the public.

The Arronuse-IQenas.4.l,. for the plaintiff. stood, Ihiat on a.
renew of the facts of the cue, be considered he ehrrithl be entitled
to their verdict. In the letter, try which 'Mr. Kinds& was en-
gaged, it was stated that he would he *squired to be in attendance
early in October, the expression was—" say the first week,"
which was generally understood to mean somewhere about that
period, without reference to any day in particular. Mr. Fawcett
then wrote to Mr. Sinclair to inquire at what time it would be
convenient for him to be in London ; lie does not say, in reference
to your engagement, we require you to be in attendance by a cer-
tain day,—he merely inquired when it would be convenient for
him to attend ; and by the return of post, Mr. Sinclair replied,
that, in consequence of an engagement he had made, he should not
he able to arrive in town before the 16th of October, and as no
answer bad been sent to that intimation, be bad not the slightest
reason to understand that he would be wanted before that day, the
question having been put to him as a mere matter of convenience.
If the subsequent arrangement had been entered into which was
mentioned by the witness, Mr. Robinson, was there any thing,
to bind either party? Was there any engagement on the
part of the Managers to employ Mr. Sinclair, except when
it might suit their convenience? Was there any thing, there-
fore„, to prevent Mr. Sinclair from entering into any other
engagement? Then how was it possible to reconcile this with the
fact of Mr. Sinclair having refused Mr Arnold's offer, in conse-
quence of his considering himself engaged to the managers of
Covent-garden Theatre, and with the fact of Mr. Kemple having
refused to Dr. Kitchener to allow Mr. Sinclair to accept of that
engagement ? The conduct of the parties themselves is sufficient to
prove, that they considered the engagement as not at an end ; and
as they had each of them to a certain extent availed themselves of
it, the jury will decide, whether the defendants are not bound by
that contract, and the plaintiff, consequently, entitled to recover.
The Loan Cuter Justus having recapitulated the evidence,
stated it as his opinion, that if the defendants had required Mr.
Sinclair's attendance before the Ibth of October, they were
bound to have informed him of it.

The Jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff —Damages 420/.

ROBINSON V. CI,EIIYNT.

This was an action by the plaintiff, who is an attorney of the
Court of King's Bench, to recover from the defendant, the pro-
prietor and publisher of the Morning Chronicle, The English-
man, and The Observer newspapers, a compensation in damages,
fur an injury sustained by the plaintiff in consequence of the de-
fendant having published in those newspapers on the 28d and 24th
of Or,:tober, 1824, libels reflecting on the plaintiff's professional
character,

Mr. Gusher, in addressing the jury for the plaintiff, stated, •
that they hail already heard from his learned friend who opened
the pleadings, that the libel complained of by the plaintiff had ap-
peared in what purported to be a report of a trial which had taken
pine at Guildhall before the Lord Chief Justice. It was en
action for a libel, brought by the plaintiff at the suit of a person
named Rebeck v. Knight, the editor and proprietor of a newspaper
called the Windsor and Eton Express. No one could doubt
the importance and utility of publishing reports of the proceedings
in courts of justice, but to have those reports useful or im-
portant they should be impartial, and not published for the
promotion of any sinister purpose, or for the gratification
of private malice. if an individual reporting
.for a news-
paper was influenced by private malice against a person
appeariug in any shape in a court of justice, it was impossible to
adopt a more convenient or effectual mode of blackening the cha-
racter of the person against whom he might entertain such feel-
ings of hostility, than by misrepresenting what passed during. the
trial of any action in which that person might appear; and by
way of apology for such conduct, the defendant should this day
state who the reporter was, he (Mr. Gurney) was instructed to
state that he should be able to prove that the reporter bad been
influenced by feelings of private malice towards the plaintiff, and
that he would prove it from his own mouth if they dared to pro-
duce him. The libel of which the plaintiff now complained was
contained in these words..--" CJ,uct of King's v.
Knight.--This was a paltry action, brought by an attorney, J.
W. Robinson, of Clement's-inn, on the part oft poor cow-feeder
and Pig-driver residing at Windsor, to recover from the defend-
ant comperniation in damages for the injury done to the character
and honour of the said pig-driver, by publishing a libel in the de-
fi!ndant's newspaper, the 'Windsor and Eton Express." The
libel went on to detail what purported to be a report of the °Wet-
s:hens of coUnael and the evidence, and concluded by stating
that the case went to the jury, when, after a strong charge from
the Judge, the jury foUnd a verdict for the plaintiff—Aaron", SC/I'
trial learned to tacit, the. greatest contempt, anti the verdict
was received with surprise and dissatisfaction." That the repor-
ter was not justified in tieing the words, "paltry,
dissatisfaction," there was no doubt by
the verdict f
and that such an imputation tlawas cast on the plaintiff's charge-
contempt,
o f t hed
jury,an
ter by this repo/1A(44 not bt prejudicial to a afessi°llll

man was quite clear : the plaintiff therefore was under the a/cu-
shy of seeking in this court a reparation at the hands of a jury of
his countrymen for the injury he had sustained.
The libel and judgment in the action of " Rebeck v. Knight"
having been read, and the defendant proved to be proprietor of
the newspaper in question in the usual way,
. _

The ATioriNxv-Gertram., for the defendant, addressed the
jury, and stated that his learned friend (Mr. Gurney) had in his
opening assumed that the report which was the subject of the
present action was incorrect, but he was surprised that to esta-
blish that position his learned friend bad not produced one tittle
of evidence. The jury were therefore bound to take it for granted
that the report was a correct account of what took place on the
trial. That the elitor of a newspaper had a right to publish a
correct account of what passed in a court of justice no man
could doubt ; indeed, if that right had not been acknowledged on
All hands, some of the most splendid effusions of eloquence could
not have been handed down to posterity, and yet effusions bitter
in invective. The editors of newspapers, in publishing the
speeches of the most distinguished advocates that had ever ap-
peared in England (he meant the late Lord Erskine and Mr. Cur-
ran), had published the bitterest invectives, pronounced in the
most eloquent language, against parties upon whom they would
not fail to make the deepest and most painful impressions;.
but no person had ever thought of bringing such actions against
the publishers of those speeches. He had read this alleged libel,
and must confess that he could not discover in it any passage
which could he construed into a libel for which the defendant
ought to be called to answer iu an action for damages. The pas-
sages reflecting upon the plaintiff were contained in the speech
of his learned friend, Mr. Scarlett, to the jury; it was those
passages on which the plaintiff seemed to rely in his declaration.
His learned friend was representei to have stated that the action
was a paltry one, brought by the attorney for the purpose of put-
ting costs into his own pocket. If Mr. Sc,arlett had not made
use of those expressions, the plaintiff ought to have produced evi-
dence to that effect ; but if the Learned Counsel had used those
words, the defendant was justified in publishing them. Ile would
now direct the attention of the Jury to,the allegations contained in
the plaintiff's declaration. He there states that he has always been
distinguished for the integrity of his professional conduct, and had
never been distinguished for bringing paltry actions for the sake
of costs, or for any improper motives. Of the truth of that alle-
gation the Jury would judge when he should lay before them evi-
dence, that the plaintiff had for the alleged libels, which were the
grounds of the present action, brought actions in his own name,
and in Rebeck's name, against the Morning Herald, the Morning
Post, the British Press, end the Morning Advertiser news-
papers. If the object of the plaintiff was to justify his conduct,
and not to increase his costa, would he not have been satisfied with
an action against the defendant in whose newspaper the alleged
libels had been first published ? The plaintiff was well aware
that in an action for libel a verdict for any damages would carry
full costs ; and therefore if an attorney could get eight or ten ver-
dicts, ha would put into his pocket a considerable sum of money
in the shape of costs. Such conduct plainly proved what the
plaintiff's object was. The Learned Counsel then concluded by
expressing his firm opinion that the Jury would concur with him
in considering the report a true account of the proceedings, and
that therefore the defendant would be entitled to their verdict.

Joseph Sligh proved settling the damages and costs with the
defendant in a similar action, at the suit of " Rebeck v. the pro-
prietors of the Morning Post newspaper." He paid the plaintiff
60/., .for which the plaintiff gave the receipt now produced.
Samuel Monkhouse, clerk to the attorney for the British Press
newspaper, proved that the plaintiff brought two separate actions
(one now pending) against the proprietor of that paper.
Wm. Ashford, clerk to the attorney of the proprietors of the
Morning Herald newspaper, swore that the plaintiff bad institut-
ed two similar actions against the proprietors of that paper.
The reporter to the Morning Chronicle being, by Mr. SCAR-
LXTT, asked whether the report was a true one,
Mr. GUMMY objected to the question. If the defendant had
intended to offer evidence to that effect, he ought to have pleaded
a justification.
The Loan Ciller Jusuct was of opinion that the question
could not be put.
Mr. Whitelock, the defendant's attorney, proved th►t besides
this action the plaintiff was attorney to Rebeck in another action
against the defendant for having published this libel. Notice of
trial had been given of Rebeck's trial.
Mr. Knight, son of the proprietor pt' the Windsor paper, proved
that the plaintiff had brought two actions against his father at the
suit of Rebeck, and received from him 1171. I os. damages and
costs.

Mr. °IMAMY, in reply, contended, that there had been no
,ovidenae offered ore thee. part ref the defendant to entitle him to the
verdict of a Jury. He denied the doctrine Laid down by hie
FLiewned Friend case Attorneir-General), that the Editor of a
newspaper had a right to publish every thing that took place in a
Court of Justice; it was sometimes requisite to enter into the
most disgusting details, which it would be highly improper to
publish in any way. Re was willing to admit generally that
editors were justified in publishing what occurred in Courts of
Justice; but in so doing they must be careful that they did not
publish any statement of Counsel, or any evidence, which would
affect the character or reputation of individuals, without at the
same time publishing the answer given by such parties in justifi-
cation of their character. Editors must be careful that when
they exhibited the poison to the public, they at the same time
presented them with the antidote.

TIIF LORD Can?' JIIATICt, after summing up the evidence, ob-
served that the law, as stated by the Learned Comae( (Mr. Gur-
ney) did not in all cases permit the proceedings of Courts of Jus-
tice to be given to the world. In this case the only question to
which the Jury would have to direct their attention was, whether
they considered this publication to be a libel on the character of
the plaintiff, and whether it was an injury to hie professional
character. If they were of that opinion, be would be entitled to
their verdict ; and the amount of damages was a question entirely
for their consideration.

The )-ury,aftir a very short consultation, returned a verdict for
the defendant.

Tilt EARL Of VCIRVIMOUTIS, BY 111% MAI74I'IIIIE, AGAIN%t MARY
ANN HANSON, TAL•3II" CALLING filfltAILIV COLTNTICAS

FORTSIIOIIrif.

Dr. LUSHINCVM informed the Court, that application, by
petition, bad been made, as suggested, to the Lord Chancellor
in this case, whose order he would communicate ; first stating
the manner in which the property of Lord Portsmouth was si-
tuated. The estates were in the hands of trustees ; over these
trusts the Lord Chancellor exercised no jurisdiction; subject to
them he thus dealt with the estates: He had provided first for the
maintenance of Lord Portsmouth ; secondly, for Lady Portsmouth
and her infant child ; thirdly, fur the costs of the commission of
lunacy and the defence. as well as certain other costs; fourthly,
for the debts incurred by Mr. Coombe for his Lordship's support ;
lastly, fur the debts recovered from Mr. Newton Fellowes, on ac-
count of Lord Portsmouth. On the application for leave to apply
any surplus of the property, after the aforegoing orders had been car-
ried into effect, to the payment of costs incurred by Lady Portsmouth
in defence of the peseta suit, opposition had been made by Mr,
Horne, on behalf of Lady Portsmouth and the creditors. The
Lord Chancellor had said that he would make the order, but it
must be understood as operating only upon the surplus expectant
funds, if such order was approved by this Court. He (Dr.
Luthington), therefore, prayed the Court's opinion. The amount
of the cost* now applied for was 681. ; and he wished for this op-
portunity of stating that there had been a grievous Inistspreeen-
tation in the Court of Chancery on this subject, and he was at a
loss to conceive how it had arisen—a representation which, on
the face of it, was manifestly •false and unfounded. Mr. Horns
was represented to have said, that in this suit there was an array
of doctor" and proctors, and that the costs in this Court would
amount to 50,0001. Now, although this was a calm, which
affected persons of high rank and large property, there were only
one proctor and two counsel on each side. It was an evident
absurdity to suppose that costa to that amount could be incur-
red, were the case to last ever so long. There had been no suit
hi this Court hi which the coats had amounted to one-tenth of
the sum.

After the sentence had been pronounced,
• Dr. Jt14)1.4k was not disposed to recede from the motion he
had made on a former occasion, either that 4 monition of con-
tempt should issue against the Committee, for non-payment of
costs, or that the proceedings should be suspended until the costs
were paid. lie agreed with Dr. Lushington in pretesting against
the misrepresentation in the Court of Chancery, respecting the
array of Doctors and Proctors in this suit. The reason why the
application to the Lord Chancellor, that the surplus funds should
he applicable to the costs, was oppOled by the creditors and Lady
it
Portsmouth, was evident. As the Lord Chancellor himself ex-
It
hey they preferred ready money to what W 34 merely in
prospect.", it had been said that Lady Portsmouth should ac-
cept the lien on the estate offered by the Lord Chantithir ; but
his Lordship said that Mr. Fellowes might take the lien. Lady
Portsmouth was entitled by the rules of this Court to have her
costs payed, and Arndt, provided for the examination of witnesses.
lie (D. r. Jenner) hid no alternative, but to pray the Court to en-
force its order, or to suspend the proceedings.
Sir C. ROUINIION saitl that this was a case of peculiar circum-
stances and very great importance, and he was unwilling to talcsthe responsibility of stopping it by adopting either alternative.--
The Defendant was not debarred from re-stumbling witnesses, it
nagosarY ttud if the nit went went uu imperfectlyi it was not

j-• ! ;,.'
~ '4.;;...
*0
, ...•
her fault. N ,could be done prejudicial to her. He mutt
refuse the trio

COURT OF COMAION PLEAS, JUNI RS
SULLIVAN V. BIXHOP.

This was an action for excessive distress. The Plaintiff was a
weekly tenant to the Defendant, who gave him notice to quit;
but the former held on, consequently the Defendant, considering
himself entitled to double rent, made a demand of 15s. being the
amount. The Plaintiff made a tender of 10s. the old rent. This
was not accepted : but the landlord distrained a table, valued at
tbs. and kept it to himself, as a pledge for the double rent.
The plaintiff's case was conducted by Mr. Sergeant VA MIA N,
and that of the defendant by Mr. Sergeant WILDE.
The Cuter Jusrlcr in charging the jury said, that it bad been
ruled by Lord Ellenborough, that weekly tenants did not come
under the statute which enabled landlords to recover double rent
in case of a tenant holding out after notice to quit ; and as the de-
fendant had been offered the old rent, he was not justified in dis-
training ; he also acted wrong in not telling the distress within
a reasonable time.

The jury gave a verdict for the plaintiff—Datuagee is. costs 40s.

CONSISTORY COURT, Jilta 2S.
WINNINGTON AGAINST VVINNINGTON.

This was a suit for a divorce, by reason of adultery, brought by
Henrietta Antonia Winnington, against John Miles Winnington,
sometimes called Sir John Miles Winnington. The parties were
married in August, 1820, and cohabited till April, 1821, when
Mrs. Winnington left her husband at Paris. In 1823, it was
alleged that the defendant committed adultery with Dame Sarah
Brisco (wife of Sir Waste] Brisco, Bart.), at which period he
passed as Mr. Remington. Additional acts of adultery were also
alleged as committed with other persons.
The Cover proubunced sentence as prayed.
The defendant addressed the Court in person, stating the em-
barrassments he had been involved in, and the hardships be had
sustained, in not being enabled to defend himself in forma
pauperis.

Dr. Leg requested to address the Court on behalf of Sir John
Winnington. He spoke of the injustice he had sustained, as a
British subject, in being denied the privilege of defending himself
in forme pauperis, which was occasioned by the Court itself.
Dr. LUSIUNGTON said, that as the party bad been heard, the
Learned Counsel must hold his tongue.
Dr. Lax, however, continued : he observed to the Court,
" You, Sir, ought to have been here, as Judge, on that occasion,
when you were in another Court as Counsel, where there were
larger fees to he got." He at length became silent.