The Sun.
London, England, 1818-11-26 00:00:00

:41AAILFUL OUTUAGE.

On ToesdaY e'vening, a soldier, in the nndres s
of the Csnatth, went into the Black Boy public-
house, ',tale Tower-hill, and after drinkin,! some
beer, tendered sixpence in pay m: !it, and received
'the change He Shortly afterwards insisted that
the change had not been given to him, and al-
though several of the persons who were pres,,Ait
and saw the money handed to him endeavoured to
convince hint that he was mistaken, he persisted
in his demand, and at last went out of the house,
threatening vengeance against every person in it.
In less than five minutes he returned with twelve
of his comrades, who were quartered in the neigh-
bourhood, and who immediately forced theinsekes
into the various apartments of the house, armed
themselVes with the fire irons, and commenced a
general attack upon the family, Icustosoers„and
prOperty. Several persons effected their escape at
the back part of 'he premises; others were dread-
lully and wounded. On their entrance they
took possession of the bar, broke all the bottles,
and wasted the liquor. A man, his wife and child,
were sitting these at supper----the child was torn
front the mother, and thrown into the fire-place,
the mother knocked down, and the father inhu-
manly beaten. Several neighbours hearing the
cry of minder, assembled in front of the house,
but were intimidated by the violence of the sol-
, triers, and witnessed their thatneful conduct, with-
out being able to prevent it. After demolishing
the rvindows-, door, and the trading stock of the
house, and compelling every person to fly, they
quitted the place. Mr. Arnold, the landlord,
collected his friends and 'several watchmen, ants
went in pursuit of the rioters. After ,diligent
search tie succeeded in taking nine of them into
custody, and lodged them in a watch-house.—
Yesterday they were sent to Lambeth=street Of-
lite for examination, when the landlord applied
to the sentinel, but lie refused to admit him to
snake a complaint to the Commanding Officer at
the Tower. The Magistrates ordered the Serjeant
of the Guard to take the prisoners to the Guard-
house, in order to be dealt, with by military law
and the Corporal, who was charged with assault-
ing a Constable who was called in, was ordered
to find bail.

TUB GREAT PUGILISTIC MATcHES.—No pugi-
listic combats within the itcollection of our ip-
formant, and certainly not since that of Big Ban
and Johnson, has ever caused so much anxiety as
to the result, as that between Turner and Ran-
dall, and next to it, that oi Scropgins and Martin.
It was impossible that the first battle could take
place on the mournful day which was fixed by the
iicles (Tuesday next), and consequently the
match in fact vas of, euntil renewed by the con-
sent of the backers, which has been done.—The
principal amateurs met ytverday, , to fix upon an-
'-ther day, and it was settled that the battle should
take place to-morrow se'nnight (Fridays instead
of Tuesday. Thousands of bets pending tiFon the
event are void, and at the making good of stakes be-
tween Martin and Scroggins, on Tuesday night,
such was publicly declared. The new betting eras as
follows:—Guineas to pounds upon ; II
to 8 upon illartin ; 5 to 2 the two favour ices
not win ;31 to 1 Turner and Scroggins did not
both win ; 5 to 4 Martin's winning against Ran-
dall's winning; and even betting that the first filth;
lasted 50 minutes, and the second 40 minutes.

FATAL Puctusm.—A few days since J. Dough
and E. Smith quarrelled, while d►inking at the
Ca•tle Inn Tap, Tonbridge•%Vclls, and left the
house to decide tl►e dispute by a battle. After
fighting for a considerable time, Smith received a
blow in the pit of the stomach, fell with his head
against some hard ground, and never spoke after-
wards ; but was conveyed hume,•and d►ed the
next day.

DISTURBERS OP THE DEAD.7-.A hackney-coach-
man, in whose coach were found t tvo dead bodies,
and a labouring man were yesterday examined at
Union Hall. It appeared that. the bodies had
been stolen from Lambeth Church-yard, where
they were again iiverred, but that the coachman
was ignorant of what the persons who .bited hint
(and who effected their escape) had put into his
coach, There was no evidence of guilt either
against the coachman or the labourer, and they
were consequently discharged.
SaGAcfovs ric.—A pig, bred by Mr. Moore, of
Asp Farm, at South Wraxall, in Wiltshire, about
3 months old, was driven a few days ago to Bath,
and purchased by Mr. Evill, brewer, at Bailiwick,
to which place it was conveyed in a sack, and secur-
ed in a well-fenced stye, from which it somehow
contrived to effect its escape. A few days after,
Mr. Evill was surpr4ed to leant that the poor ani-
mal haul found its way to its old habitation, to do
Which it must have swam the river Avon. It has
since been proved, that it was pounded at Ba-
theaston, whence it also contrived to escape, and
reach its native home the same day.
CORONER'S INQUEST.—Yesterday Afternoon an
Inquest was held at the sign of the Hope, in
Black moor-street, Clare-market, before ANTHONY
GEL", Esq. Coroner fur the City of West-
minster, on the body of Robert Reeve, who had
been formerly Guard, but lately Driver of a Stage
coach, who put a pet iocl to his existence, by blot% -
ing his btains out «ith a pistol on Tuesday
morning, at his lodgings, N. 6, Clare-court,
Druly•lane•—Verdict, '' That he came to his
tkrith by shooting himself, being at the time in iu
state of mental derangement."
'The Middlesex Sessions will commence or,
Monday next, the 30th inst. and the Old Baile',
Sessions on the W,chtestlay following

The gas-pipes already laid dowi in London
measure sixiy•five

As soon as the account of her MAJESTY'S death
was received at Liverpool, the journeymen tailors
demanded dotdde wages, which the miasters no'
co7,,plying with, the men immediately left thei,
employ ; but as several of them had left their
work in a ur►tinished state, they %Ter,• brought
by summons, on Fri,fay, before the NlagiSirates at
the Town-hall. Alter having heard the case. The
Magistrates stated that the men were bound to
finis!► the work they had begot', aunt Awide
order to that effect, with which the men re-
luctantly complied.

LA W RL G 1117\1-C .

TAT OF CT-LINCEBX, Nov. 25.

THE LORD CHSNCELLOCS INDiSPOSITION.

It is now certaii, that the Lott° CHANCELLOR
Will not duriag the present Terui.—The
answer to (tie inquiries this day was, that his
I. tr:fsltifi "gas a butter, but still experienced
(..tisiderahle inconvenie;',ce frt>th his late attack.
His Lordship's 1)0(14 health is perfectly restored.

VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT, Nor. 25.

TEbt•E'Esi V. ORD.

Mr: Bct.t. requested his Honour to. fit some
slay, for the hearing at the motions in ,this case.
As Friday trus the day for short causes, probably
they thigtit be put clown for hearing after the
causes were disposed of.
The ricti-CtraNCEwitt bad no objection to hear
them that day, but he begged leave to .state Mat
he must have been muck misunderstood in what
he had formerly said on this case helot.; mention-
ed to bun. He certainly did not eulogize site
Lord Chancellor, for he did not think the seat of
justice a proper place for doing so. He was
anxious, as touch as possible, so discourage ap-
plications for removing cases from this Court to
that ot the Lord Chancellor, because be knew
Eris Lordship had such a weight of business on his
handsx taud which tto person could dispose of but
himself. He, therefore, felt that it was his duty
to reheve his Lordship as muck as he could, tor
the number of appeals before his Lordship was
very great. This was what he stated Gimlet-lye
and it was therefore a kind of raisundetstattding
to say be praised the Lord Chancellor, Inc nicely
such praise would be improper front the seat Le
had the honour to 611.

Mr. BELL said no person scireiyemilit have can-
det.•:load his Hoctota otherwise. He was glad his
Hanour bad fix.ed the cnotidsos (Gr Frialay.

The other cuts were of do ittteress.

GOURT OF KING'S BENCH, Noc. 23.

THU KING- V. FRANCIS GORE, ESQ.

This was act andicttnent agatost the defendant
for publishing a. filsel of and concerting Dr.
horpe, one of the late Judges en 'atm Court of
Itetx.ta, in the province of Upper Cataada,
of which settlement, at the tittle of the public-a-
tient in tutesticau, the defendant was Lieettereitiat-
GtrOCciACC. At the treee before Mr.. osteeeAbbott,
at the Sittings en Westminster after last Easter
Term, the defendant wits found guilty. In Tti-
ttety Teem, Mr. Se4eant Copley moved for a sole
to shew cense why the verdict shoold not be set
aside, and a new trial granted, ott the ground
that the I.aersed -fudge ought not to have suffered
the libel to he read and submitted to the Jury,
intstooth as the evidence of its publication was
not admissible in point of law, and the case was
now called on for argument.
It will be recollected, that the alleged Mid was
contained in a printed pamphlet, phritort ing to he
the laistotyof the proceedias4,7s of a party which
was 'tipposed t.C9 hare formed itself iii the province
of Conieda, tti .ppn4itittu to the Executive
fliktverntnent et that Calotly ; Dr. Unique having
solo years previous to the nuldicatioo been one of
Ike J.:l;les of the Conti of King's Biomes in that
Seteletneot, anehaUtged in the pamphlet to have
actively lent hirat;cll to the objects of the party
itr qwe'st;tto. The nanaph/et professed to he an
airsever to a state mein which appeared in one of
the provincial panels, called " The Guardian,"
and in various faarts of it reflected strongly
upon the character and conduct of Dr. Thorpe
doting the tense he was ,a Judge eta the Co-
fotty, twributing to hint a turbulent acid sedi-
tious ditz p(tti Osi-6at. he had, in various
charges to ahe Graed Juries of tine Colony, ad-
dressed to them highly inflammatory language,
injurious to his Afaiesty's Goverouseut en the
Sealeateat acid had in utliet• instances been guilty
Of acts of misconduct, which tendered hint au
tont person for the high situation tie bad filled.
At ,the trial, theevidenre offered to prove the pub-
lication of the libel, was that of Mr. Servant
Ft kb, lVha , at the period in question, was Attor-
ney-General of the province, and be stated, that
is the latter coil of 1809, he was at the Govern-
ment House, and in a private conference with the
&defoliant, the latter produced (tons a box, in
which there were several copies of a pamphlet,
the pamphlet in question, which he put into wit-
ness's hand to read. Witness did not consider
this as an official communication in his character
of Attorney-General, as he had within to do
upon et, but as only a communication frotteone
private Geotlemare to another—but he con-
sidered it a confidential communication. He
bait no detections front the defendant to take
any steps upon it. He admitted that unless
his official situation as Attorney-General had in-
troduced him to the confidence and intimacy of
the defendant, such a communication would not
have been matte to him, until he acquired such
coofidence by some other means. The pamphlet
was not delivered to him for his guidance or go-
vernment in his office of Attorney-General, and
he did not think it would have been delivered to
him unless lie bad been Attorney-General, but it
was not put into his hands for the purpose of giv-
ing advice. Mr. Setjeant Copley, subMitted that
this was not admissible evidence of publication to
make the defendant liable, contending that all
communicatious between public functionaries were
in their nature official, and therefore privileged.
`Tice Learned Jrntlge, however, over-ruled the ob-
jectioo, and the defendant was found guilty.

Mr. SCARLET-I' and Mr. TURTON stewed CSUSe
against the rule above-mentioned, and contended
that it was too broad a proposition to say, that
all commuoications were official, becanie they
were made from one official person to another,
sod therefore privileged. The test of the °kite-
tiou taken on behalf ut the defendant was, that in
tn,king this supposed official communication to
ttie Attorney• General, the defendant, as Gover-
-406 gave no directions upon it, nor asked any
atlvice as to what course he should pursue. It
Ehoold be, recollected that this libel, which was a
t i.sue of tie grossest calumny upon the prosecu-
tor, was not ruhlished until two years•after the
Istier left the colony, and therefore it could-not

•
be 'said that the defendant was then comtnuni-
catin.g,.otliciallv .with the Attorney-GentA al, upon
att.) measures ‘v.hich it could be then necessary to
attopt repecting a Gentleman who was in another
part of the world. The Attorney-General, in his
evidence, expressly stated that he considered the
coptnitnicAt tot as private and confidential, as be-
tween one private individual 'and another, because
Ike had Vt•Ceived no instructions upon it, alld was
oot to adopt ally measures in his oaicial character.
The single question was, whether the Learned
Judge ,had done wroni holding that this was
tun art official communication, and not prohibited
any tide ot kw. Unless any sound distinc ion
could he found to bring this within the privilege
claimed, there was no ground for disturbing the

Mr. Serjeant COPLEY- and fir. D'OYLEY, in
suppott of the ride, insisted that all cotillion:lea-
ting made by the Governor of a province, pri-
vately, to (lie Attothey-General, respecting per-
f,4ll4S loulding public situations iii such province,
aaul sihO bad formed, or were supposed to have
formed, a party against the Government, were
facie privileged Co UMW ItiCat jo Its , and that
the mots lay on the other side -to bileW at such
commuoientiotts were not privileged. It was
dear, that iii this case, there had been a party
(soused in the province-of Upper Canada, inimical
to the welfare of the Provincial Government, up-
oft the subject of which it was Most natural that
the Goveroor would cOnfee with the Attorney-
General of tite•province.' If was not necessary
to establish that this was an official communi-
cation, by chewing that the Attorney-General had
received insfiortioos to ...loin legal measures ; it
teas sofficieut that it was a communication be-
tween out official functionary sod another, upon
a subject which was intimately connected with
the public welfare. Upon grounds of public po-
licy, nothing would be more dangerous than to
hold that such communieatioos were not privi-
leged. They likened this to the case of private
communications between the Secretary of State
at home and his Majesty's Attorney-General
in England, ,upon subjects anti persons coll-
imated with public trausactions. Nothing would
he snore dangerous than to hold that such coin- •
mooications were unprotected. lf, then, so
much clearer home, such communications were
privileged, a „fortiori the reason for such privi-
lege was greater in Goverometias at a distance.
Upon groonds of public policy this was a privi-
lel„te of the greatest importance to uphold invio-
late, and therefore they trusted it would receive
the protection of the Court. It was clear that
die Learned Setjeaut who haul given evidence
upon flee point, had only given his opinion as to.
the nature of the commettication ; and did not
profess to state positively that it was not of cial.
In fact his mind was a complete blank as to what
isassed between him and the defendant, and there-
fore, in the absence of any positive testimony as
to the fact, the Court would not assume that it
was any thing but an official Communication.

The CHIEF JUSTICE—The only question is,
whether this publication should have been read at
the trial, and submitted to the consideration of the
Slay. What conclusion they were to draw from
the whole of the evidence is quite a distinct matter.
It is contended that I should not haste received this
publication in evidence, because every contrani-
cation between persons standing in the situation
of the defendant and the witness are prinui facie
privileged, and that the burthen of skewing any .
particular communication lies on the other side.
I confess, however, it seems to me that that
proposition is laid down too broadly. It is
too crotch, to say that every thing which passes
het MeCii persons in their situation is privileged,
although it shall have no relation to the official
(rosiness which either of them have to discharge.
Rut even supposing the proposition contended for
were adopted, still we should have to see whether,
in this case, the burthen said to thrown on the
other side has not been taken op, and whether
they have not proved negatively that- this was
not sock a communication as should be protected.
The whole of the testimony of the only witness
examined upon this subject goes to skew
that this was not an official communication,
because he was 'to do nothing upon it. This
pamphlet was taken from a box in which there
were several others of the same description ; and
therefore the transaction itself skews that it bad
not the appearance of an official commuoication.
If appeited to me at the trial, that to receive this
evidence, was not at all to narrow the privilege
which very properly belongs to persons filling
official situations. This was a very different case
from the one put ley the Learned Counsel for
the defendant. Here a printed pamphlet, re-
lating to a transact iou which hail taken place at
some ansecedent period, is put into the wit-
ness's hands. It was not put into his hands for
the purpose of taking any legal advice, or of.
doing any legal act upon it. Therefore, giving
the fullest latitude to the privilege of communica-
tions passing between parties in the situations
which those two gentlemen filled, it appears to
me, that the prosecutor has completely borne the
onus throwir upon him, by skewing that this was
not a privileged communication. I thought at the
trial, as I think now, that I should not be justi-
fied, if I had not suffered this pamphlet to be read
in evidence, and submitted to the Jury for their
final determination.

Mr. Justice BAYLEYI am of the same opinion.
With respect to privileged communications, I take
the distinction to be this—lf it is a communica-
tion with the law-officer of the Government foe.
public purposes it is privileged ; but if it is a cote 7
munication merely for the gratification of private.
malice, or for other private purposes, it is not pri-
vileged. , It does not appear in this case that the
communication made by the Alefendant to the At-
torney-General was for a private•purpose, and
therefore I think the evidence rightitad-.
milted.

Mr. Justice HOLROYDI am also of the Sallie,
opinion. Here the pamphlet was delivered to the
witness as to a private individual, and nut for the
purpose of founding any legal proceeding upon it
in his official character ; and it appears to me,
that if such pamphlet contained any libellous
matter, it is to be treated as any other libellous
publication of ttte like kind.--,(Rule discharged.)
statute. Aver for
Sentence upon the tiefeudn iu,

another day, as shall he agreed upon between the
parties.

CRIMINAL INFORMATION.-CHEAP \VINE COM"

VANIES.

Mr. SCARLETT moved for a rule to shew cause
why a criminal information should not he filed
against two persons, named Thomas and Richard
Abbott s, cart ying on the business of a Commer-
cial Wine Company in Skinner-street, for a mis-
demeanour, in conspiring to defraud certain mer-
chants of their property. The Learned Counsel
stated, that the nature of the case disclosed upon
the affidavits, which he had in support of the [no-
tion against these Gentlemen, was this :—Messrs.
Ahbotts, brothers, carried on a very extensive
business as wine-merchants, in Skinner-street.
They had been in the habit of employing persons
in embarrassed circumstances to buy wines of dif-
ferent merchants, and then taking such wines ofi
those persons' hands at prices infinitely bel,w the
market price, paying ready money, the real mer-
chants in the result being defrauded of their pro-
perty, never, in fact, receiving the price of their
goods front tine agents employed by Messrs. Ah-
botts in these transactions. The affidavit of a
person named James Wrench, a ba'nkrupt wine-
merchant, one of the principal agents employed
in thi's business, stated a variety of transactions of
this sort, and from his deposition it appeared that
during a period of nine months, viz. from June,

1817, to March, 1818, be, had obtained wines for
this Commercial Company to the amount, at the
regular market price, of 16001. for which they
gave hint no more than 10251. making a difference
in favour of Messrs. Abbotts of 5921. Bs. 7d. In
these transactions Messrs. Abbotts had always
imposed sect ecy upon Mr. Wrench, and they Lad
latterly prevailed upon him to keep back their
names, and use the names of fictitious persons as
a colour to the proceediog. Another person of
the name of Mitchell Joseph, connected with
one Robert Dunn, was also employed to a con-
siderable extent by Messrs. Abbotts i❑ the same
way, to the great injury of several respectable
wine-merchants, amongst whom were Messrs.
Mallett and Co. Messrs. Abbott and Co. of St.
Swithin's-lane, and a Mr. Simpson. The Learned
Counsel likened the conduct of these persons to
the receivers of stolen goods, and prayed that a
criminal information might issue.

The CHIEF Jusrical—Take a rule to spew
cause. I forbear saying any thing more upon the
subject at present.—Rule Nisi granted.