The Sun.
London, England, 1827-07-14 00:00:00

DIVIDENDS.

T. Phillips, Fenchurch-street, boot-maker, Aug. s, at
eleven, at the Court of Commissioners—M. Haywood,
Wood-street, Cheapside, warehouseman, Aug. 3, at ele-
ven, at the Court of Commissioners—M. Jacobs, Charles-
street, Soho-square, glass-merchant, Aug. 3, at twelve, at
the Court of Cominissionerl—J. Blomfield, Fleet-market,
innkeeper, Aug. 2, at six, at the Court of Commissioners—T.
White, Lower Brook-street, Grosvenor-square, ta:lor, Aug.
3, at eleven, at the Court of Commissioners—T. H. Ro-
binson, Manchester, cotton-merchant, Aug. 13, at two, at
the Star Inn, Manchester—_J. Jones, Eccles, Lancashire,
alehouse-keeper, Aug. 8. at two, at the Star Inn, Man-
chester—W. H. and G. Carr, Over Darwen, Lancashire,
cotton-spinners, Aug. 6, at twelve, at the office of Messrs.
wiostaniey and Catterall, Preston—C. Ainsworth, R. Hol-
den, J. Catlow, A. Crawshaw, and T. Lonsdale, Barrow,
Lancashire, calico-printers, Aug. 9, at twelve, at the Hotel,
Blackb u W
art he Dockhead, linen-draper, Nev. 9. at
eleven,
CCrtouurt of Commissioners—A. Mackenzie,
Hammond's-court, Illincing-lane, wine-merchant, Aug. 3,
at twelve, at the Court of Commissioners—P. Kelly,
Finsbury-square, bookseller, Aug. 3, at twelve, at the
Court of Commissioners—T. Miles, Gun-alley, Bermond-
sey, fellmonger, Aug. 3, at eleven, at the Court of Com-
missioners—P. missioners—P. Burkinyoung, Old Kent-road, Surrey,
coach-maker, July 17, at eleven, at the Court of Commis-
sioners—J. Fisher, Taunton, Somersetshire, draper, Aug.
3, at eleven, at the Court of Commissioners--D. Boyn,
Winchester-street, merchant, Aug. 3, at eleven, at the Court
of Commissioners—H. Brown, Twickenham, cabinet-
maker, August 3, at ten, at the Court of Commissioners
_C. Fisher, Ramsgate, chemist, Aug. 3, at eleven,
at the Court of Commissioners—C. Fearnley, Crutched-
friars, wine-merchant, Aug. 3, at twelve, at the Court
of Commissioners—J. Mundell, Liverpool, draper,
Aug- 6, at eleven, at the George Inn, Liverpool-0.
Bridge, Marple, Cheshire, cotton-manufacturer, Aug. 4,
at foul, at the White Lion Inn, Stockport—T. H. Higgin-
„n, Liverpool, merchant, Aug. '7, at twelve, at the office
of Y. Woods, Liverpool—T. Swift, Fenchurch-street,
hosier, Aug. 3, at one, at the Court of Commissioners-8.
Evans, Ryeford-mill, Gloucester, clothier, Aug. 6, at
twelve, at the office of Rotton and Bush, solicitors, Frome-
Selwood, Somersetshire—J. Leaver, Reading, shoe-maker,
Aug. 13, at eleven, at the Upper Ship Inn, Reading--
AI. Fidler, Norbury, innkeeper, Aug. '7, at two, at White's
Hotel, Manchester—M. Holt and R. Holt, Hulme, Man-
chester, dyers, Aug. 6, at twelve, at the Biackfriars Inn,
Ilanchester—T. Eddison, Rumford, linen-draper, July 20,
at ten, at the Court of Commissioners.
CERTIFICATES, Auc. 3.

•
J. Taylor, Halifax, innkeeper—H. Jacobs, Phoenix-
street, p,lass-merchant—T. Caffal, Rickmansworth, tneal-
man - -I:Y4 . Beard, Bromley, common-brewer--A. C. Marsh,
Great Scotland-yard, navy agent—:M. Howitt, High Hol-
born, ironmonger.
PARTNERSHIPS DISSOLVED.
E. Maguire, R. Trowler, and J. Hassell, Garrat,
Surrey, caico-printers—J. Smith and J. Nicholson,
Chapel-Allercon, Leeds, stone-merchants--G. and C. Cetti,
Red Lion-street, Holborn, merchants—R. Hutton and A.
Duncan, Liverpool, agents—S. Munday and I. Maynard,
Leadenhall-market, meat-salesmen—P. Williamson and J.
Ivory, Norwich, dyers—J. Rodger and G. Wragg, Mae_
bro', Yorkshire, iron-founders—J. Beveridge and J. Hay,
Newgate-street, surgeons—F. Richardson and W. Wood,
Horncastle, Lincolnshire, mercers—J. Bentley, W. Forster,
and J. F. Paweon, Cheapside, warehousemen—W. and J.
Teasdale, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, grocers—J. Durham and
J. Froggatt, Worksop, Nottinghamshire, millers—S. Unw in
pud J. Ball, Stoney-Middleton-Dale, Derbyshire, silk-
throwsters-:-J. Manly and G. Houghton, Ely-place, mer-
chants—J. Valiance and H. Sony, Hove,
Sussex, brick
makers—R. Ewsters and B. Slee, Silver-street, Fleet-
street, dressing-case-manufacturers—W. Sutton and W.
Pennock, dealers--J. Thorp A. Hamilton, Hampstead,
job-masters—J. Morris and S. Parsons, Ashburne, Derby-
sh're, mercers—T. Dale and T. Leech, Salford, Lanca-
shire, painters—H. Harris and W. Swann, jun. Birmina,
ham, lead-merchants—J. Stroud and J. H. Smith, Min-
cing-lane, wine-merchants.

VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT, Jinx 13.
YHILLIFS V. FRAZER.
This was an application for an injunction. The
plaintiff had given a note of hand for 3,7001; to the
late Mr. Farquhar, and he now prayed an injunction
to restrain the defendant from proceeding at law for
the recovery of the amount of the note.
The VICE-CHANCELLOR said, the plaintiff had no
right to an injunction.

COURT OF KT-NG'S BENCH, WasTainarrsx, JULY 1S

MURRELL V. WHITE.

This was an action to recover a sum which the
plaintiff claimed under a written agreement, for the
purchase of five ricks of hay, at 31. per ton, upon
which the plaintiff, estimating the quantity of hay at
100 tons, had paid 300/.,with a proviso that if the ha)
exceeded that quantity the plaintiff was to pay for
the excess, and if it fell short, the defendant was to
refund at the same rate of 31. per ton. The decla-
ration averred that the quantity was only 11l tons..
To recover the value of the difference between that.
quantity and 100 tons, at N. per ton, tine i%ctien was
brought.
Verdict for the plaintiff—Damages 60/.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, duty 13,
SCOTT AND wire v. CLZMINT.
(Concluded from our Paper of yesterday.)
- Mr. Sergeant BOSANQUET then replied.--He com•
plained that his clients had been placed in a very
disadvantageous situation in consequence of the line
of defence which had been adopted. The defendant
had, in fact, brought a new charge against the female
plaintiff. His learned brother on the other side had
said, in the course of his address, that the Editor of
a. Newspaper must in many instances rely on the
' credit of others for the correctness of the informa-
tion which he inserted in his paper. If that were
so, the Editors of Newspapers must abide by the
consequences of such a pactice. In some cases of
little importance the Editor of a Newspaper might,
without impropriety, take a statement upon the
credit of another person; bnt when an article wa,
sent to him which contained an attack upon the
character, he ought to be prepared to substantiate ii
to the utmost. The Learned Counsel was proceed-
ing to contend that the alleged libel could not be
considered part of an impartal report of the pro-
ceeding in the Court of Chancery, when
TEL,: LORD CHIEF JUSTICE observed, no one could
maintain that the publication in question was sucl-
as could be permitted under the pretence that. it‘r&
a fair report of the proceedings of a Court of Justice.
Mr. Serjeant BOSANQUET said, that such beir4
his Lordship's opinion, he would abstain from am
further observations on this point. He then pro-
ceeded to comment upon and contrast the evidence
of the witnesses on both sides. He reminded the
jury of the surprise which the defendant's :!ounse!
had manifested at hearing the evidence of Saral.
Little with respect to the commission of adultery
by Mrs. Scott, and how that evidence was opposed
to the contents of her affidavit made in the Court
of Chancery, and also to the evidence of Mrs. Biigh.
With respect to the evidence of Mrs. Bligh
and Mr. Wellesley, he would merely request the jur3
to dismiss from their minds all consideration of the
rank of the parties, and to judge of them only ac-
cording to the propriety of their conduct. The
cause was one of the deepest interest to the plaintiff. t,
Ali to the defer-lant, he had. voluntarily taker, th,
whole I.latter on himself. He had thought pro7l
to publish, unquestionably against the law of the
land, and in contempt of one oi toe Courts of Justice,
certain documents, and by so doing deeply injuret
the character of an individual. It might have bees.
expected, that when the defendant found he had
done what could not be justified, he would have
acknowledged his error,—that he would have made
some apology—have offered some compensation ;
but instead of that, he had now put her on trial, for
a charge which she could only completely disprove
by the testimony of persons who were on the conti-
nent and elsewhere out of her reach.

IThe LORD CHIEF JUSTICE said, that after the
great patience which the Jury had manifested, it was
most painful to him to be compelled to occupy their
time by any observations from him. Nevertheless,
he felt it incumbent upon him to address to them
some remarks. There could be no doubt that this
was a most impertant cause to somebody or other.
He doubted whether the real parties in the cause
were before the Court—whether, in fact, this was
not a continuance of the contest which some time
ago was heard in the Court of Chancery. When
he said this, he was far from doubting the credit ot
the very respectable gentleman (so far as he had
come under his observation) who had stated that
the Editor of the Morning Chronicle was to pay the
costs of the action. He had no doubt whatever that
that gentleman firmly believed what he stated; but
the Jury and himself, who had witnessed the anxiety
manifested by some persons in Court, and the eager-
ness displayed by Counsel (somewhat improperly,
he must be allowed to say) to allude to what had
passed in another place, could not avoid entertaining
some doubts on the subject. Here he felt himself
bound to take notice of an expression which escaped
from the Learned Counsel for the defendant, because
he would never hear any thing said improperly of ti
Judge in another Court without remarking upon it.
The Learned Counsel, in his address to the Jury,
had talked about " robbing a father of his children."
Robbing a father of his children ! If the Learned
Judge who decided the question referred to in that
observation had seen what passed in that Court at
the close of yesterday, it would (had he previously
felt any inclination to alter his opinion of the expe-
diency of the judgment which he had pronounced)
have carried conviction to his mind, and have satis-
fied him during the remainder of his life, that he had
done an act of justice in the case alluded to. Rob
a father of his children ! Yes, when he was not in
a situation to give them a virtuous education. It
was not the begetting of children merely which was
the sole duty of a parent. He ought likewise to
bring them up virtuously and religiously. But could
a father do that who had come into Court yesterday,
avowing—showing—that he was still connected with
a person who had, lately been proved in that Court
to have been guilty of adultery with him—lavishing
upon her attentions which would have appeared ri-
diculous even if they had been been bestowed upon
his legitimate wife ? Was such a person as this to
be said to be robbed of his children ? How must ,
he king them up ? He had felt it his duty to sa)
thus much, after the strong expression made use of
by the Learned Counsel—an expression which he
was sure he would himself be sorry for, because it
was repugnant to his usual good taste and moral
feeling.
Mr. Sergeant WILDE said he had not applied the
observation to the late Lord Chancellor; but used it
abstractedly merely. He certainly never meant to
refer to the particular case alluded to, and was stir-
prised he should have been so mistaken by his
•
Lordship.
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE was glad to find that
the Learned Counsel did not intend to make the
impression which his words conveyed. He now
came to consider the question to be tried in the
cause. The action was brought for three libels pub-
lished in two papers. the Morning Chronicle and
the Observer, which, it seemed, were both the pro-
perty and under the direction of the same editor.
The first libel was the affidavit of Joseph Burge,
the second the affidavit of Maria Evans, and the
third the publication of a police report. The two

•
. .
I affidavits imputed to ^the female. plaintiff adultery and
theft in the moat distinct and 'unqualified terms, and
the police report imputed their and other miscon-
duct. Now he came to the defence. In toe hest
place, the defendant pleaded the general issue, that
was " not guilty." The defendant next pleaded a
justification to the twelve first counts of the indict-
ment, or, in other words, he justified the charges of
tadulteryhat h e andhadg
theft.iven a
In
full,fair, a
hisplea, thei
me ptdahreettmei
al account,
as defendant, said
as well of the matters contained in the effidavas, as
hnsisuplhn
ordship to state,
defendant
pre
tohaeveti
eegiirt:tcesn
in
ott.
that
la
Mr. Pt
hearings
paLlnAe and impartial
Tialleged
andipenga
tic.etdridar intishpcaei.
account
ot Gf theun
the Court of Chancery, " and, iii so doing, of the
affidavits." •
The Lora) CettEhßr seE observed, that teh e al-
legation was negatived by the evidence produ: ea l'y
the defendant himself, for that proved that •at the
time the two affidavits which formed the subject of
action were published, a great number o' other efe
davits were on the file of the Court of Chancery,
and if the defendant had meant to publish a full and
fair account of those affidavits, he would have pub-
lished them all—the bane with the antidote. He,
however, chose to publish only two out of a great
number. It was true that as the matter went on to
be discussed, the defendant, from time „to time, Puh-
lisked other affidavit., with the observations of
Counsel upon them; but he never published them
from the file of the Court, as lie had the two which
the plaintiff complained of. Was this a fair and
impartial proceeding ?—to publish one or two
afii-
davits--to leave them unanswered, with the sting
rankling in the character of indii ideal, aild, when
it suited the conveniteice of the editor, to publish
others to contradict or explain t}l former? yt would
be absurd fur any person of common sense to call
this a fair and impartial proceeding.. It was the most
partial, the most impure, he had ever witnessed. It
was a strong circumstance in this case that the pub-
lication complained of was no part of the proceedings
of a Court of Justice—it was an offence against the
Court—a gross contempt of it. No one had a right
to publish affidavits in a newspaper or otherwise be-
fore they had been submitted to the Court in -.llich
they were filed. It was no part of a fair pnblicatieet
of the proceedings in a Court of Justice to publish
affidavits which by some meens or other had been
taken from the file of the Court. He was most
anxious to know how they found their way into thh
hands of the printer. It appeared from the evie
dance of the officer of the Court, that nc one had
office copies of the affidavits but the parti,:s in the
cause. He would have liked to have seen the man
in the box who delivered them to the prii ter, that
they might have known who had sent these. Some-
thing had been said about the liberty of the pres.--
No man valued the liberty of the press x lore than
le did; but the liberty of the press must not be
confounded with its gross and abominalle abuse.
No man entertained a stiunger opinion than he
did of the propriety of publishing proceedings in
Courts f Justice, when judiciously selected and ac-
curately reported. Much useful information was to
be derived from such publications. All the most
important and useful transactions of human life be-
came the subjects of inquir; in Courts of Justice,
and so long as
" The proper study of mankind is man,"
so long must the publications which he alluded to
prove eminently useful. Whilst, however, he stated
this. he never could admit the usefulness of such
neotications as those which formed the grcund of
the present action, which might be the eFsct (as
there was strong reason to suppose her.) or a paper
lending itself to one of the parties in ti. s cause. On
this account it was, that he had put it to the
Learned Counsel for the defendant to show how the
affidavits had travel'A from the file of the Court of
Chancery to the office of the newspaper. If any
witness had been brouget forward for this purpose,
they (the Court) would have • eung from him the
terms on which they had been received at the office
of _..e paper. There was nothing
teresting in them—nothing calculated co excite much
of public attention, though there was sufficient, cer-
tainly, to excite much disgust. The filthy details of
the house in York-street—these were the contents
of the affidavits selected for publication, by a paper
cv;iich was to find its way to the tables of all classes,
to be open to the eyes of persons of all ages and
both sexes. The memoirs which had se repeatedly
been complained of in that and other Courts, con-
tained nothing more disgusting than was to be found
in the affidavits which polluted the pages of the
Chronicle and the Observer. He put it to the jury,
would any of them suffer his Daughter
.to see such
papers—would be suffer them to come into his
house if he suspected them of containing matters
like those to be found in the affidavits ? He wished
not to be misunderstood in what he had stated
regarding the proceedings in Courts or Justice.
His observations must be taken with this qua.
lificaticn—that those publications must not he
of a nature to shock decency, and likeiy to
cortaminate public morals. If the nubikations
ehould be of that description, so far from being au-
thorised and proper, they were indictable, and he was
,sorry that an indictment had not been put on the
files of some of the courts, on account of some of the
scandalous publications which had gone forth. To
return however, to the details of the present case.—
l'he second plea alleged theft and adultery against
the plaintiff. The third plea alleged that the pub-
lication wac a full, fair, and impartial report of the
proceedings in the Court of Chancery. With re-
spect to this plea, he did not hesitate to state now
that a verdict must go for the plaintiff. The fourth
plea went to the whole of the declaration. It al-
leged that the plaintiff had been guilty of theft arid
adultery, but did not attempt to justify the charge
of perjury-. Another point which had been left un-
answered was the police report. Here he would
draw a distinction between the publications of pro-
ceedings in courts of justice and those in police-of
fives. In courts of justice both parties were heard,
and a decision was given on the merits of the case.
It was not so with proceedings in a police-office.—
He was of opinion that it was injurious to the best
interests of society to publish those peoceedings.—
That the practice might be productive of some ad-
vantage he would not deny; but he thought the dis-
advantages infinitely counterbalanced any good that
could result from it. It had more than once been
decided in Westminster-hall that the publication of
proceedings at police-offices was illegal, and that
doubtless was the reason why no attempt to justify
on that point had been made. On the two points
to which he had alluded, the plaintiff must, he thought,
have a verdict. The only question then would le,
the amount of damages. If, however, the plaintiff
,hould be found guilty of theft and adultery. 11-r
character would suffer but little from the charge of
perjury. It had been well re-narked, that " the point
of honour with a woman is chastity." Let it be proved
that theplaintiff was destitute of virtue,aud she would
suffer nothing from the charge of perjury. Amissa
pudicilia, said an eloquent historian, quid salvem erit
whichN hen a
could Nv n
eahtvnheeerdl
absftetetnanderaleecnrs.
tt
,traoo,su she
rrt
lostnzd ethatr ?
Tt
again. If the jury should be of opinio that the
right tinnu
attempt make
to
subject of the charge of adultery and theft, he
ghwd oia plaintiffmoom proper
al
to
dgo e
nvsTa
voluntarily
The
ykuaneoendurtgel
abdworei
good
ydn n t
oh guiltydefendantu
words.s
nm t
make
khoiTe
df
edu
almostt e adultery
nothinga! d
theti) e
o
rifr, jisbtiuntett,haendjussattiifiscfaaetitounryneitivsitdebneeem: de : by
per-
sons who at once thought proper to decide on an
attack having for its object the destruction of the
character of another, was bound to make good the
grounds of his attack. He had no criminal juris-
diction in that Court; but had he been sheing in
the next Court, or in a Court of Assize, winch had
both civil and criminal jurisdiction, he would be au-
thorised, in the event of the justification in the pre-
sent case being found satisfactory by tie jury, to
consider the plaintiff rya a convicted fehre and 'o
treat her accordingly; for it had been laid wave he
the highest authority that ever lived, in Westuhii-