The Sun.
London, England, 1842-01-29 00:00:00

VICE-CHANCELLORS' COURT, Jan. 28.

(Before Vice-Chancellor BnucE.)
OLIVER V. LATI3LAX.

//7

Unopposed petitions and short causes occupied his
Honour, the Vice-Chancellor of England, the whole
morning.

The Court was engaged the entire day, to the time of
its rising, with the arguments in this case.
(Before Vice-Chancellor WIGRAM.)
THE EAST INDIA COMPANY V. THE COOPERS' COMPANY.
The arguments in this cause were resumed.
His Ilosouu, after expressing his opinion on some of
the points raised in argument, requested the Counsel for
the defence to address themselves to the fact of notice
in connection with, and as affected by, the question of
expenditure by the East India Company, that being the
point upon which his ultimate decision would probably
turn.
Mr. COOPER addressed the Court for the defendants.
The Learned Counsel repudiated the imputation of the
plaintiff's Counsel that the Coopers' Company wished,.
by availing themselves of a strict rule of law, to acquire
possession of a site of ground upon which the East
India Company had expended a large sum of
Inaney. It appeared from one of the letters
put in on the other side that the defendants
were acting as trustees for Lady Gibson's charity,
and claimed nothing in their own right. The
Learned Counsel, after going at length into all the facts
of the cast', submitted that there was not the slightest
pretence for any of the equities set up by the bill, and
that it must therefore be dismissed.
Mr. Sutton Sharpe, 'err. Montague, and Mr. Willock
followed on the same side.
.Mr. Buaca replied fur the plaintiffs, contending that
there had been a clear agreement to grant an under lease
to 'Frieder ; that the defendants had notice of what took
pl,ace. and suffered the plaintiffs to expend large sums
on the property, and that there had, been no interposi-
tion whatevtr on the part of the Coopers' Company for
the purpose pf insistin g that the East India Company had
forfeited their lease.
,rhe expenditure took place under
-the eye of the Coopers Company, and wi •
th a knowledg©
on their part, accordniz, to their own proposition, that
the lease had been forfeited. On these grounds, there-
fore, he claimed relief at the hands of the Court.
His Hosoutt_ ordered the cause to stand in the paper
for judgment on Monday next.

_ ----------
COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, Jan. 28.
THE QUEEN V. THE PROPRIETOR AND PRINTER OF THE
" NORTHERN STAR" NEWSPAPER.
Mr. THESIOER said in this case his Learned Friend
titt;)Altrnmey-General had obtained a rule for a criminal
n
eto'rrT"- /asp.inst Mr. Feargus O'Connor, the propri-
the orthern Star newspaper, and Mr. Wright,
the printer and publisher, for an alleged libel He did

not
rrise
e,onbutthehcfrweassenuat
eocetcaauxsioinel which Air. O'Connor
was placed with regard to
teothshatowthceiaruLese against
should understand the position
the
publication of the article
in question. Mr. O'ConnorF.e_ae
N, rhvaesutheinparlloy asprie wellto as
proprietor of the
paper, and knew that he
civilly beenis
extremely ws
published
responsiblemhiapapefror;
buteverhye
haardtic
desirous since he became the owner of the paper to pre-
vent the insertion of any attack upon private character,
and for the four years during which he bad been pro-
prietor of the paper, he (Mr. Thesiger) would venture
to say, on no one occasion had there been any such at-
tack upon private character. At the time of the inser-
tion of the article Mr. O'Connor was absent, and was
not aware of what had been introduced into the paper ;
but when he returned he expressed his disapprobation
in the strongest possible terms, and insisted that an im-
mediate apology should be made. Of -course there was
not the slightest desire on Mr. O'Connor's part to defend
in any way the insertion of the article so improperly
published, and which undoubtedly conveyed imputations
of a very unjustifiable nature, and which he had
no desire of making. He was on the contrary clt!sirous
of making the most public as well as the earliest atone-
ment
for the insertion of the article. As for the printer,
White, Mr. O'Connor insisted that he likewise should
throw himself upon the mercy of the person he had
offended, and make au apology for having permitted such
an article to be inserted. He had much 0-r atification in
making that apology to his Learned Friend,b and he
trusted under the circumstances that he would not press
the rule. _ _

Lord DENMAN—The rule was obtained, I believe, in
the other Court.

MY. THESIGER—Yes, my Lord.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said it wopld be necessary
for him to occupy the time of '.:ne Court for a few
minutes, in stating the cir47:anstances under which the
attack was made upon t.'.-ae character of Mr. Anstey, who
was master of a sch,-,,,,t at Rugby.
Lord DENM ;.N—The matter is entirely in your own
hands.

Thq ATTORNEY-GE.NEUAL said, in order that the
'!.:-rangement might .be satisfactory, it would be neces-
sary to refer to some of the circumstances of the case,
and to leave it to the Court to say whether the apology
ought to be accepted. Mr. Anstey was the master of a
school at Rugby ; he was the father of a large family ;
had always lived in the utmost harmony with his wife
and children, and had testimonials of the highest descrip-
tion as to his general character. He himself personally,
and his wife, performed various acts of kindness to the wife
of an individual who was left destitute in the town where
they live. These acts of kindness were misrepresented,
and used as the basis of truth. for the purpose of casting
upon that gentleman the vilest slanders—he was charged
with having seduced the woman, and making the pre-
tence of charity the means of gratifying his lawless pas-
sions. It was impossible for Mr. Anstey not to have
brought the matter forward; at the same time Mr. An-
stey had no desire to do anything beyond setting himself
right with the public, and vindicating his character as
the master of a school and the father of a family. He
had not, therefore, the slightest objection to receive the
public retractation and apology that had been made,
their Lordships being of opinion that that was the pro-
per course for him to take, and his Learned Friend un-
dertaking that the costs should be paid by the defendant.
Lord DEsmax—Beyond all doubt the prosecutor
should insist upon these terms, lest there should be any
possibility. of supposing that his forbearance proceeded
from any improper motives.
Mr. THESIGER, of course, had not the slightest objec-
tion to agree to these terms, and had, in fact, omitted to
state them previously.

The ArIORNEY-GENERAL - Under these circum,
stances, and with your Lordship's permission, Mr. Anstey
having no wish beyond that of vindicating his character
and placing it before the public as it ought to stand, I
have no objection that the rule should be discharged.
The rule was then discharged.

BAIL COURT, Jan. 28.

THE QUEEN V. REV. G. HOBSON.-QUO WARRANT?.

Mr. COLE moved for a rule for a quo warranto, calling
upon the Rev. George Hobson to show cause by what
right he exercised the functions of a burgess of the borough
of Lichfield. The affidavits set forth that the Rev.
Gentleman did not possess any one of the quali-
fications necessary under the Municipal Corpora-
tions Act.; He had not occupied any house, ware-
house, or premises within the borough for
two years. He was not an inhabitant householder, he
was not rated to the'pooi., and he had not paid any rates.
Under these circumstances he 'trusted the application
would be grated.—Rule nisi granted.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER, Jan. 28.
THE QUEEN v. THE SHERIFF OF HERTFORD.

This was a motion to discharge a rule obtained for
the purpose of setting aside an order of the Court on
payment of costs. The order was an attachment against
the Sheriff of Hertford for not having returned a writ of
fiere facia; in pursuance of an order of the Court.
The question was, whether the reasons alleged in the
affidavit upon which the rule was obtained were sufficient
to entitle the Sheriff to the relief sought for? The affi-
davit was made by the Sheriff's officer, who stated that
the here facias was delivered on the 27th of November,
and the warrant was given to him on the day after.
Upon the Ist of December he entered the plantiff 's pre-
mises, and on the next day he sold part of his goods.
He then stated that he also seized s quantity of bricks
belonging to the plaintiff, upon which a claim of wharfage
had been made, and that he found a purchaser for these,but
that they could not be removed immediately in conse-
quence of the state of the weather. On the 30th of Dec.
1 the Sheriff was ruled peremptorily to return the writ on
7th of January. But upon that day, and with the consent
of the plaintiff's attorney, an order was made for further
time, for the space of a week. The Sheriff's officer pro-
ceeded to state that on the Bth of January, the day after
the original writ expired, he received from London a let-
ter stating that a week's delay had been obtained; and then
he went on to say that he believed the time of that
delay expired on the 15th of January; upon which day
the return was mace by the Sheriff. The:time, how-
ever had, in reality, expired on the 14th, ' the day be-
fore. Another reason assigned by the officer for the de-
lay was that he had not been able before the 15th to give
to the plaintiff or his Solicitor any proper or satisfac-
tory account of the proceeds of the said levy, he having
received the money for the bricks only upon that day.
There was an affidavit on the part of:the plaintiff which
stated that on the 9th of December an application
was made to the Sheriff's officer, upon which
he called on the plaintiff's attorney, stating. that he had
seized. and sold certain goods of the plaintiff to the
amount of 20/., but that he had not received cash for the
same, but that he expected it in a day or two ; and he
promised to remit it to deponent within a week.
These circumstances having been stated to the Court,
The COURT observed that if the Sheriff had done any-
thing wrong the plaintiff's remedy was to proceed by
action; and the late rule of the Court would not prevent
him from pursuing such a course. The rule was there-
fore made absolute.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Jan. 28.
CRANE V. PRICE.
CLUTTERBITCR V. COFFIN.

The plaintiff was engaged by the defendant (the Cap-
tain of her Majesty's ship Triuculo) as cook, not only to
his own cabin especially, but generally to the ship. The
plaintiff on one occasion having fried a dish of fish instsad
of boiling it, was dismissed, and the defendant refused- to
pay him his wages. For this the action was brought,
and the Jury found for the plaintiff in the amount
claimed, 351. V Mr. Sergeant Channell afterwards ob-
tained a rule nisi flr a new trial.

Mr. Sergeant BOMPAS this day showed cause against
the rule, which, after hearing Mr. Sergeant Channell in
reply, the Court dismissed, being cf opinion that the ille-
gality of the contract could not now be made an objection
to the verdict, as it was not pleaded at the trial.
RAIIN V. HARDING,.
This was an action to recover an alleged arrear of
tithes, due for the year 1838. The defendant, a 'farmer,
in. Berkshire, produced at the trial a number of receipts,
amounting to the whole value of tithes,_ for several years
prior and subsequent to that year ; but none referring
I specifically to that year. The Jury found for the de-
fendants, and subsequently Mr. Sergeant Ludlow ob-
tained a rule nisi for a new trial, against which Mr.
Sergeant Ludlow this day showed cause.
RAHN V. HARDING.

The Court were of opinion that although the amount
was small, the case ought to go to another Jury, as,
on looking over the evidence, it did not appear that the
former Jury had been rightly directed.