The Sun.
London, England, 1842-02-07 00:00:00

EMIGRATION SCHEME.

BRADFORD, WILTS, FEB. 4.—Pursuant to a requisition to
the churchwardens, who acceeded to the request, a public
meeting of the ratepayers and owners of this parish was held
this day at the vestry, to take into consideration the propriety
of granting money from the poor-rafes for the purpose of
emigration. The meeting was so numerously attended that
an adjournment took place to the churchyard, where the Rev.
11. Hervey, the Vicar, being called to the Chair, the proceed.
ings commenced by the Chairman stating the object : it was
then movt dby Mr. Merrick, and seconded by Mr. Edwards;
that the sum of 1,0001. be granted for the purpose of emigre-
tion, to be raised by a mortgage on the poor-rates.
An amendment was proposed by Mr. J. R. Jones, and
seconded by Mr. A. Wilkins, " That large sums of money hay--
ing been already raised by mortgage on the poor-rates, and to
carry out the New Poor-law Act; and it having failed in re-
ducing the number of paupers, but produced greater misery.
and want, this meeting is decidedly aj.ainst any further
grant, particularly for the purpose of emigration." On the
question being put but few hands were held up for the original
motion, whilst for the amendment hundreds were raised.
Another motion, proposed by_Mr. Edwards, that 5001. should
be granted, was negatived in a similar manner. After thanks
to the Chairman, the meeting separated.
In reference to this subject, our Correspondent makes the
following remarks :—" The town had been in a state of great
excitement until the matter was taken in hand by a few well-
known Reformers, when the result is as I have stated. The
fact is we had strong suspicions that this place was selected to
try one of the Government's first schemes of emigration on ;
and if it had succeeded here, no doubt other places would have
been tried."

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, Feb. 5.
THE QUEEN V. CHATMAN AND OTHERS.-JUDGMENT.

On the Attorney-General entering the Court,
Lord DErfADI proceeded to give judgment in the above
case, in which an application had been made, on the part of
Mr. Grove, the Magistrate of the Greenwich Police-court,
against the editor, printer, and proprietors of the Sunday
Times newspaper, for tie publication of a libel reflecting on
his character. The Court had considered the affidavits filed
in this case with the most anxious attention, and had come
to the opinion that the rule ought not to be made
absolute, but must be discharged on payment of costs.
The Court was fully sensible of the great injustice
which was done to Magistrates by the making severe and unjust
remarks on their conduct in the execution of the extremely
delicate and unpleasant duties that frequently devolved upon
them, and highly disapproved of the placarding the walls with
these attacks on a Sunday, a day on which, more than any
other, they would be likely to attract public attention,
as they would be seen by so many more persons
than on any other day; but still no Magistrate was entitled to a
rule for a criminal information, who could not show that he
had, in the execution of his duty, acted with proper caution
and temper. He was sorry to say that, in the present instance,
the Magistrate appeared to have acted with some degree of
harshness in the execution of the warrant of ejectment, more
particularly in his conduct to the medical man,who, itappeared,
was a disinterested person, who had come forward to hive
evidence, to which he should have thought a Magistrate would
have been glad to listen. Under all tho circumstances of the
ca,e, the Court was of opinion that the rule must be discharged.
The ATTORNEY.GENERAL—Do I understand your Lord-
ship to say that the rule is to be discharged on payment of
costs ; otherwise to be made absolute ?

Lord DENMAN—Yes. The rule to be discharged on pay-
ment of costs, otherwise the rule to be absolute.

BAIL COURT, Feb. 5.
BOLCOTT V. WOODAM.

This was an action for goods sold and delivered to the amount
of 281. by the plaintiff, to which the defendant pleaded non-de-
livery of the goods and payment.
The plaintiff, who is a timber-merchant, having received an
order of the 15th Sept., 18.39, fur 100 pine deals from the de-
fendant, who is a timber-dealer residing in Holborn, sent them
by a town carman of the name of Clements. This person,
having said he lost the order. of the 18th übsequently
received a second 100 of
spine deals from Mr. Sept.,Bolcott. Both
lots of pine were taken from the Hindostan vessel, and it was
not till the vessel was cleared out, and the clerk of Mr. Bolcott
had made up the accounts, that he found a mistake had oc-
curred to the amount of 100 deals, and finding, from the en-
tries, that 200 had been given to Clements, and that payment
had been made for only 100, the plaintiff concluded that the
defendant was the person with whom the mistake occurred.
Mr. Bolcott's clerk called in consequence upon the defendant
to arrange the matter, which he refused to do.

Evidence on the part of the plaintiff was produced in support
of these facts, which Mr. Thesiger, who appeared for the de-
fendant, finding to be at variance with ihis instructions and
those of his attorney, both of whom it took by surprise, de-
clared that he felt it his duty not to prosecute the case any fur-
ther, and a verdict was accordingly entered for the plaintiff.
Messrs. James and Chambers were counsel for the plaintiff.