The Sun.
London, England, 1827-01-27 00:00:00

farther communication took place between the parties, conveyed by
Dr. 8., and it was attempted to be made out, that as he had been
the bearer of these hostile communications, he had wished Mr.
W. to meet Mr. 8., and to have been his murderer, but this he
had denied. As to the verdict in this country against Mr. W.,
that showed that it was pretty clear that the Jury had been satis-
fied of Mr. B.'s ground of complaint.
His Lottostur observed, that if the adultery had been made
out at the trial, as it had been now alleged it existed, from its al-
leged commencement at Naples, there could be no doubt of that
having been a circumstance calculated considerably to en•
hance the amount of damages ; but if the conduct of Mr. B.
was such to his wife, as had been now stated, in favour of Mr.
W.'s case, there could be no doubt that that ought to have dimi-
nished the amount; but this Court could not help thinking other
witnesses ought to have been called at the trial. His Lordship
well knew, that many cases were tried at law, as the foundation of
proceedings elsewhere, but which had been tried in such a way as
not to give authenticity to nine of the verdicts out of every ten of
such cases that were tried.

Mr. ATTORNEY-GENERAL was content to take the case at law
as it stood, and if the other side had been dissatisfied with the re-
sult of it, it was for them to have made the complaint in the
proper mode and quarter.
Mr. HORNE said, that that trial had been conducted in the
most hostile manner, as well as the mode taken of recovering the
amount of damages.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL now thought he had kept the Court
in the Bay of Naples long enough ; and' therefore he proceeded to
convey his Lordship from Naples to Florence, where Mrs. W. had
been entirely undeceived, where the conduct between Mr. W. and
Mrs. 8., and that of Mr. W. to Mrs. W., was of the most gross,
improper, and indecent kind, and where Mrs. W. separated her-
self from Mrs. B.

The learned counsel was pursuing, with as much zeal and power
of argument, when we left the Court, his case against the claim
of Mr. Wellesley to have the care and custody of his children, as
that with which he had set out.

VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT—(Tnis DAY.)

THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL V. THE EARL OF LONSDALE.

This was an information filed by ,the Attorney-General ;;;Inst
the defendant, for the purpose of establishing a certain charity, al-
leged to have been founded by Viscount Lonsdale, in May, 1697,
and of procuring the application to the maintenance of that charity
of certain funds originally appropriated to it.
(The arguments of Counsel, which contained little interest, oc-
cupied the Court to a late hour.)

COURT OF KING'S BENCH.—(Tnis Day.)
CRIMINAL INFORMATION.
Mr. CAMPBELL move fcir a rule, calling upon a Magistrate of
the county of Stafford (whose name he declined to mention) to
show cause why criminal information should not be filed against
him for illegally, maliciously, and corruptly committing to prison
two children, one a boy, ten years old, the other a girl, only
, seven years of age. The father of these children was a labouring
man, residing in Staffordshire. He and their mother having left
home on business on the 12th of October last, the children
were left in the care of their aunt. In the course of the day they
, went to a common, which was about one hundred yards dis-
tant, in which there was a pool, with ducks swimming in it,
partly belonging to their father, and the rest to several of the
neighbours. The boy and girl took off their shoes and stockings,
walked into the pool, caught two of the ducks, took them to the
bank, and were trying to make them fight, when the prosecutor,
who owned some of the ducks, came up. The chit•
dren, on seeing him, threw the ducks away, and ran
off, without their shoes and stockings. The prose-
cutor prevailed on a person named John Ward, by giv-
ing him his dinner and a pint of beer, to run after them and
bring them to him. Ward accordingly went to the mother's house
and insisted on having the children brought to the prosecutor's ;
the mother accompanied the boy thither, end the prosecutor took
him before a Magistrate, who on hearing the prosecutor's state-
ment, without any further investigation, directed him to keep
the boy in his custody until next day, and then to bring'him
and the girl before him, the prosecutor accordingly kept
the boy, and put him to sleep with his cow-mean ; when
they were in bed, the prosecutor came with a rope and a
candle in his hand, and asked the boy what he was doing with
the ducks? He replied, that he was only playing with -them.
"If you don't confess," said the prosecutor, " that your father
desired you to steal them, I shall hang you with this rope." The
boy still persevered in adhering to the truth. Next day the boy
and the girl were brought before the Magistrate, who asked them
separately, " what they were doing with the ducks ?" they both
made the same reply, viz. that they were fighting them ;
on which he said that lie would send them to gaol._
The mother was about to remonstrate against the hardship of
such a proceeding, when the Magistrate told her, that if she said
a word be would send her to gaol too; then addressing himself
to the prosecutor, he said, " I am sorry you did not wait until
they had taken the ducks away, and then I should send both the
father and mother to gaol." The children were accordingly com-
mitted to prison on the 13th of October, where they were kept
until the 25th, when they were tried for felony and acquitted.
The cause which warranted the conclusion that the prosecutor
had been actuated by malice, was a previous quarrel which he
had with the father of the children, during which he killed one
of the father's geese, and threw it before his door. The corrup-
tion of the Magistrate was inferred from his being on intimate
terms with the prosecutor, and consequently disposed, however
unwarrantably, to promote his purposes. It was also alleged, as
a cause of his being influenced by malice, that a sister-in-law of
the father had given evidence in an action in which the Magistrate
was concerned. The facts as above stated were corroborated by
the affidavits of the-mother and the boy—the girl being too tender
in years to have an oath administered to her.—Rule granted.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS—(Tuts DAY.)
STOCIELEY V. CLEMENT.
This was an action for a libel contained in an Advertisement,
published in the Morning Chronicle, of which the defendant is
proprietor. The Advertisement was signed by Mr. Binns, Attor-
ney for the Dowager Lady Turner, and stated, " that, whereas
information had been given to him (Binns), that attempts had
been made to obtain the discount of a bill of exchange for 6,000/.
dated the 26th day of May, 1825, and payable twelve months
after date, drawn by the plaintiff Stockley upon and ac-
cepted by the said Dowager Lady Turner ; he (Binns) thereby
gave notice that she had not accepted such bill, and that if her
name appeared in it, it was forged, or, if genuine, was obtained
of
fu
fy
herra signature."
and
, in total
The
h ignorance,eeaneon h
swas
tried
pi e
d aartt ,
t of
he the
Sitting
intendedafter
effectrleacett
Term, before Lord Chief Justice Best, at Westminster, and a ver-
dict found for the defendant. It appeared in evidence that the
plaintiff was a tenant of Lady Turner's and also manager
of one of her farms in Kent. His brother was examined,
from whose testimony it appeared that the plaintiff had
become embarrassed in his circumstances, and had applied for the
benefit of the Insolvent Act, but without success ; he was indebted
to Lady Turner to a considerable extent, but got her to sign the
bill in question, as an accommodation for him, on which he
procured 1000/. It appeared also that Lady Turner was old, and
sometimes not capable of transacting business.
Mr. Sergeant WILDE, for the plaintiff, now moved for a rule
to spew cause why the verdict should not be set aside and a new
trial granted, on the ground of the Judge having misdirected the
Jury, and admitted evidence which ought not to have been al-
lowed. The Learned Counsel contended, that the evidence of the
plaintiff's brother, as to his circumstances, ought not to have been
received. The plaintiff was charged with baying forged or
fraudulently obtained the bill, but of this there was no evi-
dence ; and therefore the advertisement had stated more than was
sufficient, in order to protect Lady Turner. He further con-
tended, that as the charges in the advertisement were not proved,
the defendant had been guilty of malice in the legal sense
of the term in having given circulation to them, and that there-
fore the verdict ought to have been for the plaintiff.
The CHIEF JUSTICE said, that he was still of the same opinion
as at the trial, viz., that Mr. Binns having suspected that the
bill was obtained fraudulently, was entitled to publish the adver-
tisement in question.
All the Judges, however, were of opinion that it was a question
of importance, and therefore granted the rule.