The Sun.
London, England, 1842-12-09 00:00:00

LITERARY INSTITUTIONS.

1,000 ........ London, with Bronze Ticket ...75gs. sh. 12
1.;,00 ..... ..... London University 1301.3h all pd 8
700 .»...... Ru55c1r........ .................... :25gs. ,h. 53
King' C011ege..... 1001. 15
MISCELLANEOUS.
IP,COO 358. Australian Agricnitural.lool.rsh. 101 pd 26
6,. u 1. percent. British American Land Company 351/. pd 9
IO,OCC 6!. per ce,.t. Canada Company lOW. sh. 324/. pd 31
30,c00 51. per cent. Upper Canada Loan
City Bonds, 4 1,, cent lOO
000 IL 6s. General Steam Navigation 151.; h.:14/. pd 25%
10/.percent. Hudson's Bay Stock ...... ...... ..... ... ..... . 254
11. London Com. Sale Rooms ....Av. '751. sh . 19;4
....... Caoutchauc Company 12f, Lpd 12%
New Brunswick Land Compa • y...5r/ pd 12
on 4/. per cent. Reversionary Int. Soc...inni. sh. leo/. rii 9
.2,633 5/. per cent. Ditto New 100/. sh. 1004 pd 107
4.'10.1 ..... .... Thames Tunnel .. ..... .......50/, sh. nil d•.. 7
101;1'0 &. Van Dte-ner.'s Land 1001. oh. ITO!. IA s',£

LIST of SCOTTISH COIIIPANIES' PRICES
DEC. 7. 18.12.
BANKS.

10:. %now si. p. ct. Bank of Scotland ...831. ils. lid.:h all pd 102
!,^o!i ^OO4 Pl. p. et. Ileyal of Scotland 101'1.sh. allpd 161%
f:00.0001. 8/. p. et. British Lißen Company 106/.5h.,110 2(-3
Ce0,011)1. 71. ?. ct. Commercial 5Olll. vh. 1 not. IA :63
son,non, I; r. ct. 11/41tional lOtl.ch. it'!. pd 14N
500,0601. El!. p. ct. 01.1sgow Union 2301. sh. 50/. pd 81 ty
1.000,0tA11. 6p. ct. Western of Scotland 2OOl. sh 401. pd 71
INSURANCE COMPANIES.
2511.0005 h. (11p. ct. :':cottish Unton 20/. sh. I/. pd -0.01.
7,500 10 p. ct. Hercules PUG/. sh. 101. pd 1254
1110,000 10 p. et. Insurance Co. of Scotland .10:.• h. all pd Sy,
50,0011 10 p. ct. North tritish W/0/. sh. 101. pd 19 yZ
1.000 in p. et. Ca;edonign 1,. re 'OO/. sh. 10/. pd 20
5,000 lop. et. E.! i nbu rg h Li;',. lOO/.0. 10/, p.l . ibss,
,r 4
100,0i:0 3i C. et. We:.: of Scotland
~. 101. pd

IdISCELLANEOL,
4,818 ..... Edin. znd alas. Un. Canal:101. ah. all pa in
0
Ditto AlloAllocate;ch all pd 4
125,40(. ft.l per cent. Edinh..inint it, ek Water.2.s/. sh aaspd 30
10011th 2j per cent. Shoti% Iron loundorv :Ml.sh 48/,pd
0,000 3 per cent. Edinburgh St LsithGlass VO/.5h. Irw. pd :334
4,500 10 per cent. FAinburgh Coil Gas .251.5 h. all r' fGk
coo 10 per tent. Glasgow Gas sh. all pd 53
130 71 per cent. Leith Ceal Gas 2ll/, sh. all pd 273 i
1.154 kAiinburgli and D'alllelth del:ray 50/.sh 25

AN EXTRAORDINARY KICK.— Jack Johnson there-
upon -whispered to his friend that if he, Mr. John
Bernard, put on the same expression again, he would
give him such an extraordinary kick, that he should
keep it to take it to the British Museum as a curiosity
when he got home.--Mr. Ledbury's Adventures in
Bentley's Miscellanyfor December.

QUEEN'S BENCH.—(THIS DAY.) I
(Continued from our Afternoon Edition.)
LIBEL.—BAKER V. WILKINSON.
This was an action brought by the High Sheriff of i
Rutlandshire, against the proprietat of the Leicester
Herald, for the publication of a libel. It appeared
that the plaintiff was 'a great agriculturist and a
feeder of stock, and that he had obtained several 'prizes
for a certain fat steer which he had fed. There was
afterwards an accusation brought against him that he
had misrepresented the age and feeding of the steer,
and in the course of the controversy, frequent
allusions were made to the plaintiff's stock-
book. Meetings were held on the suhject, at Leices-
ter and Stamford. Pamphlets were published, and
while the controversy was at its height, the alleged
libel appeared in defendant's paper. It was in the
form of a letter to the Editor, and was headed "The
Cheating Sheriff of Rutland." The letter itself was
dated Limpston, April 6, 1842, and purported
to be written by F. Brown. It stated, that as
regarded Mr. Buffer's herd book, the writer who
had lived in plaintiff's service for upwards of
six years, had made frequent entries in it, and
that to the best of the writer's recollection
that book contained something mucll more like 300
pages than only 6, as had been represented in the
Times of March 30. The letter was followed by a
paragraph, in which the plaintiff was denominated the
mean, lying sheriff.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL (with whom was Mr.
IIill), for the plaintiff, stated the circumstances con-
nected with the controversy relating to the age, and
said that the plaintiff had nnly brought this action for
the purpose of vindicating his character.
The clerk from the Stamp-office was called to prove
the proprietorship of the paper. It appeared, however,
that there was a verbal difference between the Stamp-
office record and the statement in the declaration as
to the residence of the defendant and the place cf pub-
lication of the paper.
Mr. KELLY objected that that variance was fatal to
the action.
Lord DExmAN having heard the Solicitor-General in
reply, directed the cause to proceed, but stated that he
would reserve the point.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL objected to the point
being reserved.
Lord DENMAN could not reserve it if the Solicitor-'
General objected.
Witnesses were then called to prove the purchase of
the paper at defendant's office, who were cross-exa-
mined as to the meetings held about ',:the steer,
but from which nothing of importance was elicited.
A letter from defendant to plaintiff, dated June last,
and apologising for the insertion of the libel, was then
put in, and also an article in November last, in defend-
ant's paper, relating to the action, and stating that
Sir W. Follett was retained for plaintiff, and Mr.
Kelly for defendant.
Tile case for the plaintiff having been concluded,
Mr. KELLY, for the defendant, admitted that the
verdict must go against his client, but he submitted
that the smallest possible amount of damages
would fully satisfy the justice of the case.
He denied that the plaintiff had brought this action
bona fide for the vindication of his character, because
if that had been his intention he would have put wit-
nesses into the box, who.could have told the Jury
what had occurred at the Walton and other agricul-
tural associations, who could have given the same in-
sight into the transaction. On the contrary, the
plaintiff had taken advantage of one strong expression
in the heading of an article in a local newspaper, in
order to snap a verdict. The plaintiff himself had pub-
lished a pamphlet on.the subject, and what right had
he to complain of another person publishing an article
in a newspaper on the same subject. He submitted
that nominal damages were all that the plaintiff was
entitled to recover. With regard to the apologetical
letter that expressed defendant's regret for the publi
cation of the libel, the defendant stated that if he had
been aware of plaintiff's defence at Leicester and
Stamford the article would never have been published,
founded, as it had been, entirely on the report of the
'Walton Committee, and yet after thatplaintiff continued
his prosecution. It appeared that at the meeting at Stam-
ford Mr. Baker had been unanimously acquitted of the
charge of misrepresenting the age of the steer, but
why had he not brought his action against the Wal-
ton Committee instead of against: the present de-
fendant, who had merely published an article founded
on the report of the Committee. The defendant had,
in his letter of the 14th June, offered to let
judgment go by default ; and he did not envy
the feelings of the then prosecutor, who, after
such a letter could have continued this action. The
only reason why judgment had not been suffered to
go by default was, because the defendant had been
advised that it would be better for him to have this
case tried before a Judge with a special Jury, than
before an Under Sheriff, and the difference of ex-
pense would not be more than 101. or 201.
Lord DENA& in summing up said, that the letter
complained of a libel was wholly unintelli-
gible when taken by itself, but unfortunately
it was headed " The cheating Sheriff of Rutland,"
concluding with these expressions, " We wonder what
the lying Sheriff will say to this, how will he wriggle
out of it." Will his friends assist him. They are
underdone brown." And with this witticism, for the
Jury would recollect that the writer of the article
signed his name P. Brown, the article concluded.
Now, it really was a miserable thing that the Jury
and Court should have their time occupied by, stuff
like this. He could not help expressing his regret
that persons occupying the station filled by•
the defendants, who must be men of education,
and of intellectual attainment, and who ought
to have the feelings and manners of gentlemen in-
dulging in the use of abusive and vulgar language
such as that which he had just read. It seemed as if
the editors of papers thought it incumbent on them to
follow the example set them by two persons in a
work of fiction' with which, no doubt, all who heard
him had been frequently delighted, and wllb, because
they happened to be editors of rival newspapers,
thought themselves privileged to indulge in the
lowest and most abusive expressions against each other.
The question was to what damages was the plaintiff
entitled. He could not help expressing his opinion
that all such language ought to be treated with con-
tempt by men of character. With regard to the man-
ner in which the case for the plaintiff 'had been
brought before them, he must say that he never saw
a voyage of reputation embarked' on with sails so
closely reefed. It was absurd for the Sheriff of Rut-
land to come here to vindicate his character before a
Special Jury of the county of Middlesex, who
had never heard of his name before, and no one of
whom knew anything about him. With regard to the
defendant's letter of the 14th June, he considered that
was a very proper letter ; and if the plaintiff had not
thought that a sufficient apology, he might have re-
quired a fuller apology, or have called for the name of
the person who had written the letter; but instead of
that, after reading that letter deprecating his anger,
and apologising for the insertion of the letter, plaintiff
brought defendant here to meet the visitation of the law.
The Learned Counsel for the defendant said, that he
was glad the case had been heard in that Court, and
that the expense would only be a little different from
what it would have been if judgment had gone by
default, and the case had been heard before the
Under Sheriff. He. was afraid the Learned Gentle-
man's client would not find such to be the case, and
he was desirous that it should not go forth to the
public that persons were not doing themselves any
injury by proceeding to trial in the superior Courts,
when they had no grounds of defence to offer. He
thought a Sheriff and a Sheriff's Jury would
done, ample enough justice in the present case.
The question now was, whether they thought the
plaintiff entitled to any damages at all bej,:ondiutshtomse_
nominal damages which every person was. entitled to
in cases of this nature, where there was

cation.
The Jury retired to consider the verdict at one
o'clock, and at half-past four o'clock returned a verdict
for plaintiff—Damages, 40s.
KENDILLON V. MALTBY, ESQ.
This was ;an action broughtbytthe the plaintiff,
the,mo
had been a police sergeant, against
police Magistrate of the Marlborough-street Police
Court, for slander.
Mr. C. CLARK opened the proceedings.
Mr. KELLY, in stating the case to the Jury, said,
that the plaintiff, who had always borne an irre-
•
proachable character, held the situation of sergeant in
the police force in the month of June, 1841, and
that his beat was in the parish • of . St.
George's, Hanover-square. It appeared that at
that time, a number of persons of abandoned cha-
racter resided in Woodstock-street, which was
on the plaintiff's beat. The plaintiff had beep. very.
active in endeavouring to get these. women of
,aban-
doned character out of that locality, and at length he
had succeeded in clearing the street. On the 21st
June, there was a disturbance in Shepherd-street, to
which these women had removed from Woodstock-
street. The plaintiff in quelling the disturbance had
been assaulted: by a person named Woolridge, who
was charged before Mr. Maltby with the assault ; in
fict he had given the plaintiff a very severe blow.
Some of these abandoned women h-ad been called
by Woolridge, and Mr. Maltby had dismissed
the complaint. On the 29th of June another
disturbance had occurred at the same spot. Two gen-
tlemen, Sir Thomas Moncrieff and Captain .Ormiby,
had complained to the plaintiff that one of them had
been robbed. The plaintiff made inquiries on the
spot, and offered to take any one into custody whom
they would charge as having robbed them. One of
the gentlemen immediately afterwards found the arti-
cle of which he stated he had been robbed, and with-
drew the complaint. The women became very vio-
lent, and attacked the plaintiff, and Sir Thomas Mon-
crieff and Captain Ormsby took part with the women,
and gave the plaintiff a blow. They were taken
into custody, and on being brought before the defend-
ant they denied the assault. Now, Captain 'Ormsby
had not been in a state, at the time the transaction

had taken place, to know anything about it. In fact,
he was drunk—he had 1 eenfined Mr. by Maltby him-
self for drunkenness. The case was then adjourned
to procure further evidence ; and on the ad of July,
when the case came on for final hearing, evidence
having been given corroborating the evidence of the
plaintiff, Mr. Maltby fined Captain Ormsby ss. for
being drunk, and ss. for assaulting the plaintiff, and
dismissed the case against Sir Thomas Moncriefr.
At the conclusion of the case Mr. Maltby made use Of
the language which was the subject of the present
action. The words made use of by defendant were,
"I feel myself bound to say, with reference to this
charge, and also to one before me a few days since,
from the same spot, that I do not believe Sergeant
Kendillon on his oath ? " This was said in the open
Court, in the presence of men belonging to the Me-
tropolitan Police, and of new reporters, who would
report the words to the public. lie would defy Mr.
Maltby to prove the truth of the words he had uttered.
The nature of the pleadings was such as to allow of a
justification being put upon the record, but the de-
fendant had not attempted to justify. These words
of the Magistrate had been communicated to the
Commissioners of Police, who in consequence had
dismissed the plaintiff. He had remained for some
time out of a situation, but had at length been for-
tunate enough to obtain employment in the Surrey
police. _ _ •. _ _

The Learned Counsel then called witnesses to
prove the use of the words by defendant, and the
dismassal of plaintiff by Mr. Mayne, the Police
Commissioner.

The case for the plaintiff having closed,
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL, for defendant, said that
as no evidence had been given of malice on the part of
Mr. Maltby, as the observations had been uttered by
him on the Bench in the execution of his duty as
Magistrate, and as there was no evidence of special
damage, for the evidence of Mr. Mayne did not go to
that extent, he submitted to the C,,lurt that there was
no case to go to the Jury, for the observations had
been made by him in his judicial capacity in giving
judgment in a case before him, and he was entitled to
the protection of the Act of Parliament.
Mr. KELLY, in reply, contended that the expres-
sions themselves were sufficient to show malice from
the manner in which they were used. It was neither
decorous nor right in a Magistrate, because the per-
sons brought before him happened to move in the
sphere of gentlemen, and denied the truth of the
charge, to state that he did not believe a witness on
his oath, when at the same time there was nothing
whatever to impeach the veracity of the witness.
Mr. CLARK followed on the same side.
Lord DENIeAN said that in his opinion no Judge
was entitled to any protection for uttering slander,
and if he uttered it either during a. case or beside a
case, he must be held responsible, but in this case it
appeared to him that Mr. Maltby was acting in some
measure both as judge and jury, and in the exercise of
his discretion as a magistrate, having to form an
opinion of the conduct of the officers under him, it
appeared to the Court that Mr. Maltby was bound to
state, as his reason for dismissing the case, that he did
not believe the officer on his oath, if such was really
the case, and he was-also bound to make that observa-
tion in the hearing of the superintendent, in order that
information might be conveyed to the Commissioners.
Under these circumstances he thought plaintiff could
not maintain his action without giving express proof
of malice. None such had been given, and therefore
there was no case to go to the Jury.
Plaintiff nonsuited.

BANKRUPTCY.-(TIIIS DAY.)

IN RE JOHN GOODERED-THE PICCADILLY SALOON.

This day being appointed for the final examination
of the bankrupt, who was the proprietor of the above
notorious place of resort, the Courts was crowded with
creditors of the estate, and others anxious to hear the
details of the case.

The bankrupt having been sworn, was examined at
great length concerning his connection with, and the
prOts arising out of, the play and betting rooms at
Doncaster. He stated that he had been connected
with them for thirteen years, and the profits, after in-
cidental expenses, amounted to between 400/. and
5001. a-year. Some years they exceeded 7001. or 8001.
but latterly they had fallen off very much.
Mr. Commissioner I' or is but little
to be wondered at, after the numerous exposures that
have latterly taken place in the Law Courts.
Goodered—l have had sometimes as many as thir
teen Members of both Houses of Parliament there at
the same time.—(Loud laughter.)
The bankrupt having answered' the usual questions,
and rendered his accounts, was declared entitled to
pass his examination.

IN RE IJANWAY V. TIIE MARYLEDONE BANK.

The examination of this bankrupt, who was the
principal Manager and Director of the Marylebone
Bank, was again resumed this thy. The subject of
investigation was the general items in the balance-
sheet, in which there appeared no point of public in-
terest.

At the adjournment the further hearing was fixed
for to-morrow morning at 11 o'clock.

ACCIDENT ON THE BIRMING-
HAM RAILWAY.
(ANOTHER ACCOUNT.)
As the train was proceeding down a slight inclina-
tion at twenty-five minutes before twelve o'clock, noar
Northchurch, a village about a mile on the other side
of Berkhampsteacl, and between the latter place and
Tring, some of the passengers became aware that
all was not right, by hearing the stoker raking
out the fire from under the engine. The axle-
tree had in , fact broken, and the stoker with
great presence of mind, took this precautionary
step to prevent the boiler from bursting ; the next
minute the fore wheel flew off, and the engine and
tender were thrown off the line and smashed to pieces.
The first carriage was hurled from the road, and rolled
down the embankment, and the two first-class car-
riages forced right athwart the rails. The last car-
riage received but a comparatively slight shock, the
two fore wheels only being thrown off the line and no
person within receiving any injury.
As soon as the passengers who had providentially
escaped without injury could recover from the mo-
mentary consternation into which they had been
thrown by the terrific occurrence, they ran down the
bank to assist those who had been in the first carriage.
Among those more fortunate persons luckily happened
to be Mr. T. H. Hill, a medical gentleman, who was re-
turning to London from Oxford, and who promptly
rendered all the assistance in his power to his maimed
fellow-passengers, who were found in a state of insensi-
bility, and were at first supposed to be dead. One of the
Company's overlookers, who had been in the first car-
riage, was, in its descent, thrown out at the window, and
left upon the embankment. The stoker was found to
have received a severe concussion of the brain ; and an
old man and women were found lying with their bodies
literally doubled together inside the ill fated carriage,
They were got out with considerable difficulty,
and examined by Mr. Hill ; the heads of Lboth were
covered with blood, and on a closer examination he
found that they had both received severe lacerations
of the scalp. The woman was also much cut about
the eyes, and the small branches of the temporal
arteries had been divided, causing profuse haemorr-
hage. By this time the sufferers had been removed--
the old man and woman to Northchurch, and the
overlooker and stoker to Berkhampstead.:
An engine and some carriages were sent from Berk-
hampstead to convey the ether passengers to town,
but a considerable time elapsed before the obstruction
caused by the broken engine and tender could be
removed from the line, and when that was done a new
rail had to be laid down in place of one which had
been cut asunder by the shock. The only injury
which the first-class carriages received was the de •
struction of the plate-glasS-in the windows.
The cause of the accident, which it is only surpris-
ing was not attended by still more lamentable results
than those which are above detailed, was unquestion-
ably a defect in the iron of which the axle was made ;
for, on examination, it was at once manifest that, not-
withstanding its appearance of strength, it possessed
very little, not more than one-fourth of the apparent
substance being real. A large hollow, like an air
bubble, appeared to have formed from the centre
nearly to the edges of the metal.
The loss which will accrue to the Company 'from
the damage done is estimated at 2,0001.
The train, which should have arrived shortly after
one, did not reach town until near four o'clock.