The Sun.
London, England, 1827-07-03 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, JULY 2.
SANDY/HAN V. BREACH.
This was an action against the owner of a Clap-
ton stage-coach, for a breach of contract, in neglect-
ing to carry the plaintiff and his wife from Clapton
to London, for hire and reward, pursuant to his un-
dertaking. The defendant having neglected to call
'poll the plaintiff and his wife, they took a post-
chaise to carry them to London, which cost them
thirteen shillings. For this sum the Jury, under
the Learned Judge's directions, found for the
plaintiff. In Easter Term, a Rule Nisi was
granted, to enter a non-suit, on the ground that
the alleged contract in question was void, and could
not be enforced, by operation of the Statutes, 3
Carl. 1. c. 1., and 29 Car. 2. c. 7, which were
enacted for the due observance of the Lord's Day,
and preventing persons from exercising their worldly
calling on Sunday.
The COURT took time to consider of the case,
and said they would deliver their judgment on ano-
ther day.

THE KING V. BETTISS AND WILLIAMS.
Lord TENTERDEN--Mr. Whately, will you
move ?

Mr. WHATELY—In a case of the King against
George Bettiss and Williams Williams, Mr. Brougham
moved for a rule to show cause why a criminal in-
formation should not be filed against them. Mr.
Richards was on the other side.
Mr. RICHARDs—My Lords, in this case, on the
part of my clients, I must say they have published a
libel on Colonel Hughes, of a most serious and im-
proper description, at a period when a considerable
degree of feeling was excited on the part of the sup-
porters and opposers of this Bill, imputing to Col.
Hughes that he had sided with their adversaries.
Since they have published this libel they have ex-
pressed their sincere regret that they ever lent
themselves to such a publication ; and they admit,
as they are bound to admit, that the circumstances
imputed to Colonel Hughes have no foundation
whatever. The libel imputes to Colonel Hughes
misconduct as a Member of Parliament, and general
misconduct in a particular transaction; and these
imputations my clients most unequivocally retract.
Mr. BROUGHAM.—On the part of Col. Hughes,
my Lords, he is perfectly satisfied with this apology.
At the same time I must observe, that the costs are
of no manner of importance to him—they cannot be
an object to him. It appeared, however, to his Coun-
sel, that the defendants ought to pay them; and
that they, on the part of Colonel Hughes, owed it
to the public, for the sake of example, not to con-
sent to this rule being discharged, except upon pay-
ment of costs.
Lord TENTERDEN.-1 think Colonel Hughes has
acted perfectly right. Then the rule will be dis-
charged on payment of costs—Rule discharged.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.—JuLy 2.
SCOTT AND WIFE V. I. W. CLEMENT, ESQ.
Mr. Sergeant WILDE moved for a rule to show
cause why the attorney of the plaintiffs in this ac-
tion should not render an account to the defendant,
the proprietor of the Morning Chronicle and the
Observer newspapers, of the place of abode of his
clients. _ _ .

Mr. Sergeant WILDE proceeded to detail the circum
stances of the case. It was an action for libel brough
in consequence of the publication of certain affidavits,
which had been read and filed in the Court of Chan-
cery, which contained charges of the grossest mis-
conduct against the female plaintiff. Pleas of justi-
fication had been filed, and one of the issues to be
tried would be, whether the female plaintiff was or
was not guilty of the various acts of misconduct
imquted to her. In order to establish these al-
legations, it would be necessary that she should
be seen by the witnesses, that the question of her
indentity might be put beyond all possible doubt.
By the affidavits filed in this action, it appeared
that the place of abode of Scott and his wife was at
No. 3, Grove-street, Lisson-grove ; but when ap-
vlication was made at that house, the owner stated,
they bacrremovedOrCrErYUtli brWflitith 'fffi
not since returned. There was reason to believe
that the female plaintiff was residing in Paris. It
was deposed that her identity very materially affec-
ted the nature of the issues to be tried; for it was
upon her character that the imputations of miscon-
duct complained of had been made. As respected
her husband, inquiries had been made during the
last two months, and the deponents had been infor-
med, and believed, that he was passing under a false
name, and they were consequently unable to trace
him. The name under which he was believed to
be living was that of Johnson. He thought that
these facts afforded sufficient ground for the present
motion, and he trusted the Court would be of the
same opinion, and would grant the rule.
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE said, that the ground
of application he understood to be, that the defen-
dant should have an opportunity afforded him of
identifying the female plaintiff, and for that purpose
he wished that she might be seen by his witnesses;
but would not that object be attained by serving
notices on the plaintiffs to appear in Court at the
trial. One difficulty which presented itself in this
application was, that the parties being known,
might be arrested. His Lordship wished to know
if there was any objection to shaping the rule, so as
that when it was made absolute, it would only have
the effect of causing the female plaintiff to shew her-
self. She could not be arrested, she being a mar-
ried woman.
Mr. Serjeant WILDE readily assented to that
course.—Rule granted.
SCOTT AND WIFE V. LAWSON AND OTHERS.
Mr. Serjeant WILDE made a similar application to
the Court on behalf of the defendants, the proprie-
tors of The Times newspaper.
The Court granted the rule.
COCKER V. SIDNEY.
Mr. Serjeant TARDY showed cause against a rule
obtained on a former day by Mr. Sergeant Wilde,
calling upon the defendant to show cause why the
venue in the cause should not be removed from
Stafford to Surrey or to some other county. The
facts were these :—The plaintiff, an officer of the
Court, had been assaulted by the defendant, who
resides at Stafford, while in the act of serving a
notice of ejectment upon him, at the suit of Mr.
James Stamp Sutton Cooke, and the plaintiff stated
in his affidavit that he was pursued through the
town by persons hired by the defendant, who were
armed with pitchforks, and such was the extra-
ordinary excitation created in Stafford by the inha-
bitants being sued with ejectments, that it was im-
possible to obtain a fair trial in that county.
Mr. Sergeant TARDY, in showing cause against
the rule, said that the affidavit of his client corn-
pletely negatived the plaintiff's statement.
Mr. Sergeant WIL;ou replied, that the Coroner of
the county and the Under Sheriff, who was also the
defendant's attorney, had themselves been served
with ejectments, and the Court would see the justice
of the case required that interested persons should
not stri;.e the Jury to try the cause.
!After some conversation, the Court changed the
venue to Warwick.
THE B.IRONY OF STAFFORD.
Mr. James Stamp Sutton Coolie, the brother of
Mr. Stafford Cooke, the claimant f the Barony of
Stafford, appeared on the floor of the Court, with a
her of affidavits in his hand, and moved " for judg-
merit against the casual ejectors" in about 30 causes.
Ile stated, that-he had discovered that Stafford was
held by tenure Borough English, and as the next
brother to •Mr. Stafford Cooke, the Baron, he had
heen advised to assert his right to the property at
Stafford. :Upon serving :;00 notices of ejectment
upon the inhabitants and householders, the officer of
the Court had been as,sattite'di: and ' the reason why
he applied in person to ino.ke the present motions
was because he had not the means of engaging
Counsel.
The Court granted rules to show cause.
HE3I.IIINGS V. ROTHSCHILD.
The Court gave its judgment in this cause. On
a former day it had been argued at some length, It

was an action'brought by the plaintiff against Mr.
Rothschild, to recover the amount of certain certifi-
cates of Neapolitan Stock, which had been subscribed
for by a person named Lowe, and which the plaintiff,
Hemmings, had purchased of him. It appeared
that the whole amount of the Stock was not paid up
by Lowe, it being reduced; but after it rose, Ole
plaintiff claimed the whole amount of the certificates
at the market price. This was resisted by Mr.
Rothschild, and the Court had now to decide upon
a special case, as to his liability.
Judgment for the plaintiff.
EX-PARTE STONE, WIDOW, V. JOHN DAY, GENT. ONE, &C.

Mr. Sergeant LUDLOW this day moved for a rule
to show cause why the defendant should not be or-
dered to render an account of various sums of money
which he had received and paid in the arrangement
of the affairs of John Longdon and Richard Long-
don, late of Rittisford, in the county of Somerset,
Esqrs., deceased.
Mr. Justice PARK—Take a rule to show cause.