The Sun.
London, England, 1818-01-13 00:00:00

CONDUC OF SOLICITORS,

The Lora) CHANCELLOII, in thecourte.of this
I day's business), observed, that there was a case
Hwhich stood tor deeision at the next seal, involv-
ing a very important .ptinciple, which it might be
as well to settle immediately. It was a case in
which Troward, a solicitor of that Court,
was the defendant ; and the simple queStlon was,
whether a Solicitor hail such a lien upon his
client's-papers, for the payment of his costs, as
authorised hint to keep possession of them, and
refuse to deliver them to another Attorney, at the
same time that he declined proceeding in the suit.
it ought to be understood that no Solicitor• was
justifiable in so acting, and that as long as he re-
tained the papers of any party, it was strictly in-
cumbent on him to prosecute the suit through all
its stages, and attend at every hearing, whether in
that Court or before the Master.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, JAN. 12.

Before Lord ELLENBOROUGH and a Special Jury.

LIBEL.—BRowN V. CROOME.

This was an action against a Solicitor, for pub-
lishing an alleged scandalous and defamatory libel,
of and concerning the conduct of the plaintiff
towards his creditors, after he had become liable
to a commission of bankruptcy:
Mr. TOPPING, GURNEY, and Mr. CAMPBELL
were for the plaintiff, and Mr. 6CARLETT was for
the defendant.

It appeared that the plaintiff had been concern-
ed in two mercantile houses, one under the firm
of Brown and Co., in the county of Gloucester,
end the other of Tozer and Co., in London. Both
houses had become bankrupts, and the defendant,
as, solicitor for the Gloucestershire commission,
published an advertisement in the Gloucester
Paper, purporting to he a notice to the creditors
in the country, affirming as matter which had
been proved, that the plaintiff had cpilosiVely
dr3wn bills to the amount Of six or 8,0001.
in the name of Brown and Co., for the pur-
pose of favouring particular London creditors, in
order to induce them fraudnlent/y to supersede
the country commission, anti pass his examination
without dilliculty before the London Cutm»ission-
trs ; and also, that he had, on the I7th of June,
1816, fraudulently withdrawn, without the know-
ledge of his partner, property from the Giouces-
tet•bire concern to the amount of 16,0001. which
he had raised by tot ced sales.—The defendant
pleaded the general issue, not guilty, and
Mr. Seti kLETT said, lie was in a condition to
prove the truth of the facts charged in the alleged
libel, but—

Lord ELLFNBOROUGH Was deaily of opinion,
that as the defendant had not pleaded a justifica-
tion, ii was not competent for him to go into any
such evidence. if there was any doubt etitertain-
i.d of t:le correctness of his opittiou, he should be
very happy to have the question put into any
shape roost agreeable to the parties. Had the
matters contained in the advertisement been com-
municated exclusively to the creditors of the
bankrupt, in the shape of a circular, he was not
prepared to say that the conduct Of the defendant
was penal, but Inasmuch as it was a publication
to the whole tvorld, who could not he interested
in the supposed conduct of the plaintiff towards
his creditors; the advertisement was, strictly
speaking, libellous, and the defendant was amen-
able to the law.

Mr. TOPPING then proceeded with the plaintiff's
case.

Mr. SCARLETT then contended, that the de-
fendant, as a I►rofessional n►an, was iustifiable in
making.the publication, as he I►a:l done no►hing
more than %Omit an honest zeal for the interests
of hip Clients required ; and lie likened it to the
case of a brief delivered to Counsel, containing
defamatory words against one of the parties to
a suit. But—

Lord ELLENBOROOCH dissented from the com-
parison, as in stick a case there would be no pub-
lication. Lie was not prepared to say, that if the
advertisement had been drawn up mole guardedly,
that it would be liable to legal cognizance, but lie
was clearly of opinion, that in its present form it
was libellous. •

The Jury manifes(ed
,a wish to give the plain.
tits lON. damages, but—

The Co►rnsel on both sides haring consulted
together, it was agreed that a nominal verdict
should be taken for One Shilling, which was re-
corded.

SCOTCH BANKRUPTS.

SEQUESTRATIONS.

January 5, Roderick Ormond, brewer, Dundee—Creditors
meet in hood's Inn there, 21st January and 11th February,
at 12.

Jamnary 6, Robert Berrie, drover and cattle dealer, 'rho..
rnaston—Creditorc meet in the King's Arms Inn, Glasgow,
t‘ith and 28th January, at 12.
MEETINGS, DIVIDENDS, &c.

Creditors of James Miller, merchant, Glasgow, meet in the
Lyceum Rooms there, tOth January, at 2.
Creditors of John Cochran and Co. manufacturers and
merchants, Paisley, meet in the office of John and James
Wylie, writers these, 18th January, at I.

, - -
Creditors of John Ross, distiller at Ilalblair, Ross-shire,
meet hi Ellison 's Inn, 'fain, 15th January, at 12.
Creditors of John Stewart, manufacturer, Sneddon, of
Paisley, will receive a final dividend at the counting-house of
Patrick Dungan, merchant, Glasgow, 2d Fehrnary.
States of the affairs of David Grant, merchant, Lochgil-
pbead, lie with trustee—No dividend.

States'of the affairs of Robert Boyd, merchant, Edinburgh,
lie with trustee—N-° dividend.

States of the affairs of Thomas Andrew, brewer in Linlith-
gow, lie with the trustee—No dividend.

States of the affairs of Alexander Smith, writer, builder,
and cattle-dealer, Ayr, lie with the tiustee.
Alexander and I)utican Buchanan, unnufacturers, Glas-
gow, have applied for a discharge.
Thomas Ritchie, cattle-dealer, . Glenahurrich,
trontian, to be examined in •the Sheriff Court-house,
Inverary, 17th January and 5111 February, at 12.
States of the affairs of Richard Hogg, late merchant in
Edinburgh, lie with the Trustee—No dividend.

Behr

A proposition has been submitted to the Public
for building► a New Free Church at Bath, the
area of which shall be eutircly devoted to the
poor. _