The Sun.
London, England, 1845-06-25 00:00:00

GROUP X.

The Committee then adjourned till twelve o'clock tomorrow,

GROUP Z.
IRISH GREAT WESTERN PROJECT.
THE DUBLIN AND GALWAY LINE.
(Continued from our Afternoon Edition of yesterday.)
_ _

Mr. Tavtoe replied, and in doing so recapitulated the evidence
of the Canal Company at great length, which he contended was a
monopolising company, and was anything but a useful company to
the public, The Learned Counsel closed his address at 3 o'clock,
when the room was cleared. After about a quarter of an hour the
room was re-opened, and

The CHAIRMAN stated that the Committee had agreed that the
preamble of the Bill had been proved ; but they would require a
clause to be inserted in the Bill, binding the Company to complete
the rullamore and Portarlington line.
The COUNSEL said they would not have the slightest objection
to do so.
The Committee then adjourned.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, June 24.
(Before Lord DENMAN and a Special Jury.)
ROSE V. GOMPERTZ AND OTHERS.
This case—an indictment at the prosecution of Captain Rose
for a conspiracy to obtain from him certain bills of exchange to
the amount of upwards of 17,0001. by fraudulent representations—
was resumed this morning by the examination of witnesses for the
defence.
Mr. CocKauttN, Q.C., in a most able and ingenious address,
replied on the part of the plaintiff, commenting severely on the
course adopted by counsel on the other ride In attempting to shield
the defendants under insinuations cast upon the plaintiff, and
stigmatising the conduct of the former as of the most guilty and
nefarious character.
Lord DENMAN, in summing up, expressed a very strong opinion
on the guilt of the defendant Gompertz, and urged on the jury the
extremely suspicious nature of the transaclons of the others tic..
cured ; but leaving it to their decision whether the evidence was
sufficient to fix positive guilty participation upon all. Unless,
however, they thought that Francis Witham (the defendant,
against whom the evidence was apparently more conclusive than
against the others, with the exception of Gompertz), or
some one of the accusNl was jointly concerned in the
fraud with Gompertz, all must alike be acquitted, as one alone
could not be found guilty of conspiracy.

The jury, after an absence of an hour and a half, returned a
verdict of Guilty against Gompertz, Not Guilty against William
Witham, and Guilty against Robert Witham, but accompanied
with a recommendation to mercy in consequence of his youth. No
vernict was returned against Francis Witham, he being dead, and
his name having been introduced in the indictment to tix the guilt
of conspiracy on any one of the other defendants, on whom alone,
in connexion with the deceased, the Jury might think the guilt
was attachable.

Exceptions were then taken by counsel to the verdict, and
sentence was deferred.

THE QUEEN AT THE PROSECUTION OF THE DUKE OP BRUNSWICK V.

BARNARD GRIIGORY, OF THE " SATIRIST."
Mr. Sergeant TALFOURD (with whom was Mr. Wordsworth)
stated the case for the prosecution. On the 2d day of De-
cember, 1842, the Duke of Brunswick preferred an indictment,
at the Central Criminal Court, against the present defendant, for
eleven separate libels, published In the Satirist newspaper, against
the prosecutor's character. The grand jury at that time found
true bills, and by certiorari, the case being subsequently removed
to the Court of Queen's Bench, a verdict was obtained against the
defendant. This result was followed up by a series of the most
unfounded libels, commencing on Dec. 4, 1842. The Jury might
remember that a few years since a most revolting murder was corn.
mitted in the neighbourhood of Waterloo.bridge on a female (Eliza
Grimwood), on which occasion a person was charged with the
commission of the murder, but was subsequently, from want of suf
ficicnt implicatory evidence, liberated. On the sth of March, 1843, an
article was published in the Satirist mysteriously imputing the
guilt of that murder to the Duke of Brunswick, The next article
set out in the information was one published on the 12th of March.
followed up by another still more explicit of the 16th of April,
and the last complained of, of the 7th of May, 1843.
All these, without making any specific charge, insinuated that the
murder of the unhappy woman was committed by the presont pro.
-ecutor, and it was for this disgracoul suggestion, for which he
need not say there was not even the slightest shadow of foundation,
and which were made doubtlessly for the purpose of extorting
money, he asked the jury to give a verdict consis,ent with the atro.
city of the case and the ends of public justice.
Mr. William Carter, examined by Mr. WORDSWORTH, deposed
to having held an inquest on the body of Eliza Grimwood, on the
28th May, 1838, in his capacity as Coroner for the county of
Surrey, and that a verdict of " Guilty of Wilful Murder against
some person or persons unknown" was returned.

Other evidence was then adduced, including the formal proof
of the inquest and verdict on the murder, the connexion of
Gregory with the Satirist, and the interpretation put upon the
libels.

Mr. COCKBURN then addressed the jury for the defence, and con.
tended that the libels complained of could not be construed as
pointing at any one as the murderer, and certainly not at the Duke
of Brunswick.

The jury returned a verdict of Guilty.

COURT OF I:LATCHEQUER, June 24.
isi Prius Sittings, before the Loan CHIEF BARON and a Special
Jury.)
LACY V. BUNN.

This was an action by Mr. W. Lacy, the comedian, to recover
damages from Mr. Bunn, the lessee of Covent-garden Theatre, for
the breach of an engagement under which the defendant undertook
to permit the plaintiff to perform the principal parts in light comedy,
and the plaintiff undertook to enact those characters at Covent.
garden Theatre during the season of 1R43.
Mr. MLR-FIN (with whom were Mr. M. Chambers and Mr. Saun-
ders) opened the plaintiff's case. The real question that was to
be submitted to the jury was, whether the part of Ferdinand, in
The Tempest, was light comedy or not, arid ridiculous as this ques-
tion might seem in the first instance, it became in this case one of
importance to the members of the theatrical profession, and espe-
cially to the plaintiff. Mr. Lacy had undertaken an engagement
at Covent-garden at a very small salary (we understood 6/. a week)
with the understanding that he was only to be called upon to per-
form the principal parts in light comedy. The engagement
was entered into on the 9th of December, 1842, but Mr. Bunn
did not begin to perform on his own account until January
in the next year. Mr. Charles Kemble resigned the manage.
silent early in December, and from that time until Christmas,
the performers acted for their own profit and at their own
risk ; but in January, 1843, Mr, Bunn's management com-
menced. The first part performed by Mr. Lacy, under his agree.
ment with Mr. Bunn, was a character in a piece called The High-
wayman, written by Mr. Morton, a dramatic author of reputa-
tion. The plaintiff was next called upon to perform Ferdinand in
The Tempest, which he declined, upon the ground that it was not
a character within the terms of his engagement. Mr. Bunn in-
sisted that the character of Ferdinand fell within the description
of light comedy, and upon this misunderstanding refused to suffer
Mr. Lacy to complete his engagement. The consequence of this
was, that Mr. Lacy not only lost his salary for the season, but also
was deprived of the advantage of being admitted upon the
Theatrical Fund, which he would have been entitled to had he
completed a second engagement at Covent.garden. In support of
the plaintiff's case it was proposed to call many performers of great
eminence, who would give their opinion as to what were properly car led
"light comedy" parts. If the jury had visited the theatres occa-
sionally, they were probably not unacquainted with the characters
of Charles Surface, in the School for Scandal, Captain Absolute,
in the Rivals, and Lord Trinket, in the Hunchback. These
were properly described as " light comedy." Characters of this
description were usually performed at the great theatres by Mr.
Jones, Mr. Charles Mathews, Mr. Vining, and Mr. Wrench.
Some of these gentlemen would be called before the jury,
to state whether such a part as that of Ferdinand fell within
the range of their line of characters. There were in every theatre
a class of characters which properly fell to the "juvenile tra-
gedian " and the " walking gentleman."—(A laugh.) Ferdinand,
he understood, was always performed either by the juvenile tra.
gedian or the walking gentleman, and the only exception to this
rule was in the case of Mr. Charles Kemble, who belonged to a
gifted family, and was himself a performer of great versatility.
The Learned Counsel then read Ariel's description of Ferdinand,
and other passages from The Tempest, to show that Ferdinand was
a grave and serious character, and not one well adapted to a light
comedian.

Before the plaintiff's witnesses were called, Mr. JERVIS, who
appeared for the defendant, appeared to the Lard Chief Baron to
say If he did not think this cause would be better disposed of else.
where, though by so doing he felt he was somewhat marring the
amusement of the Court and the public.
_ _

The Loan CHM F BARON certainly doubted if this was the fittest
place or the fittest tribunal for deciding whether Ferdinand was
light or heavy comedy. He did not know how it was to be proved
to the jury, unless Mr. Martin produced one performer who would
enact the part In the most lugubrious tones, whilst another would
perform it with the greatest vivacity, and then the jury might judge
which was nearest to nature.—(Laughter.)

Mr. MARTIN said the plaintiff was most anxious to adopt any
suggestion from the Lord Chief Baron, and it was finally agreed
(apparently much to the disappointment of a crowded Court),
that the case should be referred to a gentleman at the bar, on the
usual terms,

The Committee to whom this group was referred met in Room
No. 8, at twelve o'clock, Lord Courtenay in the chair. Present,
Mr. Baring Wall, Mr. Poulett Scrope, and Mr. Darby.
LINCOLN AND CAMBRIDGE RAILWAY.
The cross-examination of Mr. Parks, who had taken the traffic
on the line, was then resumed by Mr. Sergeant WRANGHAM,
this being the third day he has been under examina-
tion. He was cross-examined at great length with
respect to the coach traffic which he had deposed on his direct ex
amination es existing at present, and for some time past, on the
proposed line, also to the amount of intermediate traffic, and, in.
ferentially, to the traffic which might reasonably be expected from
both these sources, for the proposed railway, if it were carried.
Mr. DARBY took exception to the promoters claiming 64,000/.
as probable traffic revenue unless they were prepared to state that
they had included that sum in the traffic tables.
Mr. DILDYARD said that, even excluding that sum, they had a
clear revenue, which returned nine per cent., and this, in his
opinion, was sufficient to induce the Committee to pass the
line, as it was a larger amount of traffic than was usually
proved oil projected railways. They had only mentioned this
other traffic as likely to pass by this line, in which case the re-
turns would be 121/2 per cent., but, excluding it altogether, they
would have 9 per cent.
The Committee then retired for a few minutes, to deliberate
whether they would allow this traffic to be assumed.
On their return, the CHAIRMAN said the Committee were anxious
to ascertain whether the promoters intended to include the 64,000/.
as part of the revenue or not ?

Mr. HILDYARD said that, after the explanation he gave, it was
thcir intention to do so.

The cross.examination of Mr. Parks was then resumed. The
number of fat cattle which the Cambridge and Lincoln line took
credit for as traffic from Lincolnshire to Smithfield and Islington
was 20.000, and of lean cattle 6,040. Mr. Hubbard, Mr. Dixon.
and Mr. Hoad made up the tables. He expected to carry cattle
from Nottingham to London, because the line from Nottingham
crossed the proposed line. They expected 3,000 cattle
and 61,000 sheep from Leicestershire. Thrse calcula-
tions were all made up by persons opt whom they could rely
There were at present 250 horses passing yearly between Doncaster
and Newmarket, and he calculated that double that number would
pass if the proposed railroad existed. They might not be all race.
horses, other horses for training having the facilities of conveyance
which the railway would give, would also pass to and fro. If I
36,0001. represented the traffic in cattle of 83 miles, the Cambridge
and Lincoln line, he did not know whether 56,0001. was an ex.
cessive traffic to claim for the London and York line.
The 6,040 cattle from Lincolnshire, and the 4,680 claimed
from other parts as anticipated to pass by the proposed line had
nothing whatever to do with the 10,000 cattle alluded to by Mr.
Mullins. In point of quantity he considered that as they had
claimed credit for 14,135 tons of wool from London to York, 9,040
tons claimed by the London and York line was a moderate estimate.
He could not prove the tables of coal, general merchandise, or
grain. They were drawn up by Mr. Lane, who wouldgive evidence
upon them, The witness was then subjected to a minute gross.
examination on the coach traffic, which he stated in his direct exa-
mination the London and York line had no right to claim credit for.
There was a coach passing from Stamford to Leicester. He deducted
that coach, because he considered that the passenger going by it
would not take the London or York line, going either north or
south. If upon 124 Irish coaches the number of passengers ex-
ceeded nine, he was not able to say whether that was an
excessive average number to form a calculation on with re-
spect to the English coaches. He considered that seven was
a fair proportion.

After a short re-examination by Mr. WEBSTER,
Mr. Pare, a railway traffic calculator, was then examined by Mr.
LEE at considerable length, but his evidence was of a similar nature
a the last witness.