The Sun.
London, England, 1829-04-18 00:00:00

position to.come to. any reasonable terms with his
creditors have vanished. Viewed, therefore, either
as a matter of policy or of justice, nothing can be
more contrary to either, in its practice and. effects,
than our present law of insolvency is; but if any
thing be more mischievous and vicious still, it is:the
system of indiscriminate credit to which it gives
rise.—Morning Herald.
It gives us much pleasure that Mr. Hume in-
tends, early after the recess, to move for an altera-
tion in the Corn Laws, to the effect that there shall
be a fixed duty (tax) on Corn, in preference to the
present variety of duties. We hope that Mr. Peel
and the Ministilt will second Mr. Hume. In all le-
gislation there is nothing like simplicity. A fixed
tax would do away with all the nonsense 'of ave-
rages; and the importers of corn would better know
what they were about than they can at present.
The manufacturers of silk, cotton, anti other goods,
say that 30 per cent. is a sufficient "protection"
for their goods ;—we would name the same per
centum for wheat, which latter, we should, on the
average, consider worth 555. the quarter. Th;rty
per cent. on 555. would amount to about 10s. a
quarter; but, as in all matters of figures, it is best
to calculate at round numbers. We should say tax
wheat 15s. the quarter, and other grain in propor-
tion, keeping, as it respected the latter, to round
numbers as much as possible.—lbid.
The subject of the Currency, and the distressed
state of trade throughout the country, now occupy
the attention of all reflecting minds; and it is be-
coming daily more evident that some measure must
be adopted in order to ward off the consequences
of the Small Note Bill coming into operation,
and re-establish the trade of the country on its
former footing. We have already expressed our
own sentiments upon the subject, namely, that a
return must be made to a paper currency until the,
wealth of the country has so far advanced as to ren-
der payments in the sterling coin of the country
easy; but we are not so bigotted in our own opinion
as to consider that of others wholly unentitled -to
consideration ; and next week we shall lay before
our readers a series of letters on the Currency,.
which, although they differ from us in some respects,
contain many sound observations and able argu-
ments.—Horning Advertiser.

LENT ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.

CHESTER, APRIL 16.
NEWSPAPER LIBEL-MAYNE V. PLETCHER.

Mr. J..JERVIS opened the pleadings, and stated
that the damages were laid at 10001.
The defendant pleaded the general issue.
Mr. WILLIAMS stated the case. The plaintiff,
Mr. Wm. Mayne, was a Lieutenant in the navy,
and most respectably connected ; the defendant, Mr.
John Fletcher, was the proprietor, printer, and pub-
lisher of the newspaper called the Chester Chronicle.
After indulging in some remarks, the Learned Gen-
tleman proceeded to read the libel complained of.
CAUTION.-(From a Correspondent.)—A tall thin fel-
low, out of health apparently, and calling himself Captain
Mayne, dressed sometimes in an old drab great coat
turned, at other times in either an old blue or black one
turned also, and the latter dyed, accompanied by a short,
squat, vulgar, and loquacious Irishwoman, with one eye,
are travelling the country, imposing upon, and taking in
the unsuspecting and unwary; they commence by stating
that they are in expectation of a large sum of money from
Ireland, that the gentleman is a cousin of Judge Maynes,
and the lady a near relative of Lord Gort. By these.and
similar representations they have imposed upon numbers of
credulous shopkeepers, (the thing being quite novel in
Wales.) Their route has hitherto been Wrexham, Ruthin,
and Flint. nearly to Holywell ; in the former place the
Captain, by some unlucky event, got into In idewell.
Scarvely a person in Flint has escaped these notorious
characters. •

The plaintiff did not bring this action for the
purpose of making a profit of his character : he
sought only to have reparation made him in the
face of the Court, and in order to evince the sin-
cerity of the plaintiff he would then propose that
if the defendant would make a suitable apology, a
verdict for nominal damages should be taken.
Mr. Serjeant JONES.—My Lord, Mr. Fletcher,
at the time that the paragraph complained of was
inserted in the newspaper, was ill and confined to
his bed, and knew nothing of the composing, print-
ing, or publishing, with which he is charged; and
the next week he did that which every honourable-
minded man would have done—he inserted a para-
graph expressing his regret that any thing should
have appeared in his paper that could give pain to
any individual. The plaintiff was an entire stranger
to him, and he had not even seen him ; and he
would not now repeat the charges in the paragraph.
Mr. WILLIAMS.—Ay ! Mr. Fletcher, it would
appear, is always ill in bed on those occasions. I
have a recollection be was so on a former occasion
of this sort. The cause must go on.
Proof was then given of the defendant being the
printer and the publisher of the Chester Chronicle.'
It was proposed to put in the newspaper from
which the Learned Counsel had read the alleged libel.
Mr. Serjeant JONES objected that the publication
of that particular paper was not provel
Mr. WILLIAMS contended, that the 11th sec. of
the 38th of George 111. c. 78, did not render that
necessary.
Mr. Serjeant JONES—That section goes on to
say, that it shall Rot be necessary to trace.the publi-
cation to the individual by the purchase of the par-
ticular paper containing the matter complained of at
the usual place of business and publication of the
defendant.

Mr. Justice JERVlS—Certainly.
After some further discussion, Mr. Huxley, from
the Stamp-office, produced a copy of the paper of
the 28th of March, 1828, which was read by Mr.
Prothonotory Lloyd. On coming to the word
captain,"
Mr. Serjeant JONES—What ! what ! what !
Captain what ? Mr. LLOYD—Captain Blank !
Mr. Sajeanl JONES—Captain Blank ! why I have
no stich name here on the record.

It appeared that all the names in this copy of the
paper were in blank.
Mr. WILLIAMS then looked to the former paper:
its admissibility was re-argued : after which,
Mr. Justice JERVIS said, that as the Lord Chief
Justice and himself differed as to the admissibility
of the first paper, it would be admitted as evidence,
giving the defendant leave to move, in case a ver-
dict passed against him, to enter a nonsuit. He
would take care to put the case that there was
no evidence of publication in Cheshire, except by
the title.

Mr. Thomas Jones, examined by Mr. Justice
JERVIS.—I am a solicitor at Holywell. I know the
plaintiff, Mr. (not Captain) Mayne. I read the
paragraph now in my hand in the Chester Chronicle,
at Holywell, on the day of publication. The de-
scription corresponds in every particular with his
appearance.
Mr. Justice JERVIS.—Did you, Sir, in conse-
quence of that paragraph, discontinue to associate
with him ?—Witness: I never did associate with
him. I had only a casual acquaintance with him.
Cross-examined by Mr. sergeant JONES—I do
not mean to say that I read the paragraph in this
particular copy of the paper. I h; d only a slight
knowledge of the plaintiff. I think I saw him first
at the King's Arms, in Holywell. I cannot say
whether the description of the lady is equally exact.
The nature of my acquaintance was a professional
one. I was professionally concerned against him;
it was to obtain payment of a surgeon's bill. I had
some other engagements with him, which it would
be a professional breach of faith to state. He might
have been three weeks at Holywell. I have heard
that he is now at Kirkdale, near Liverpool. I cannot
say by what means he lived at Holywell.
The CHIEF JUSTICE summed Hp (after Mr. Ser-
geant -•
T.2n..s had addressed the Jury for the defend-
ant) rather in favour of the plaintiff.
The Jury instanter found for the plaintiff—Da-
mages 51.