Star.
London, England, 1830-05-06 00:00:00

CRIMINAL INFORMATION ON BEHALF OF THE

HON. COLONEL LYGON.
REX F. JZIE.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL, adverting to the delay in
granting the rules to show cause why a criminal infor-
mation should not be Sled against the defendant for gross
imputations on the character and honour of the Hon.
Colonel Lygon of the Ist Foot Guards (the rule was be-
fore granted, in the case of Col. Hanmer,) now stated,
that he had made a mistake as to the year in which the
last letter had been sent, having mentioned 1829, whereas
it ought to have been March, 1830.
_ _ _

_
Lord TENTERD EN—Then there has been no delay in
making the application, and no explanation is required.—
Rule granted.

CRIMINAL INFORMATION ON BEHALF OF MR.
HOLMES, TREASURER OP THE ORDNANCE.
REX V. WESTMACOTT.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL applied to the Court in
behalf of William Holmes, Esq. Treasurer of the Ord-
nance, for a rule to show cause why a criminal information
should not be Eled against Molloy Westmacott, as pro-
prietor and publisher of a Sunday paper called the Age,
for a libel—a gross libel on Mr. Holmes, inserted in the
paper in question of the 28th March last. The Courier
newspaper had published a paragraph, in which it was
stated that Prince Leopold had refused to guarantee the
Greek loan ; and on another occasion that Count Capo
d'lstria was embroiling the affairs of Greece. This was
contradicted, and the Courier replied that the statement
of the 18th of March was correct, and came from good
authority ; whereupon the following paragraph appeared
in the Age of the 28th of March :—" About a fortnight
ago the Courier newspaper put forward, on the best
authority, a statement that Prince Leopold was deter-
mined not to guarantee the payment of the Greek loan ;
and on another occasion, that Cape d'lstria was taking
measures to embroil matters in Greece. These reports,
particularly the former, had, of course, great effect on the
Greek Stock, which tumbled down seven or eight per
cent. in two or three hours, and they have never entirely
recovered since. It is now pretty generally believed that
the whole was a lie from beginning to end, got up for stock-
jobbing purposes ; and the Courier finding itself some-
what in ill odour in consequence, endeavours to brazen it
out on Friday night as follows :—' With respect to the
article of the 18th March, we repeat that the information
it contained was derived from good authority on the
spot. We believed the statement at the time, and con-
tinue to believe it now.' No doubt, it was derived from
very good authority on the spot ; that is, a spot in The
Courier office—a most excellent authority, and an old
and well-known Greek he is. In plain English, the ar-
ticle was written, actually written, by the illustrious Billy
Holmes himself, the identical whipper-in of the House of
Commons. This was the authority—the magnificent Billy
Hohnesios, a Greek of the island of Sligo; and William
having done this feat, marched off to the Stock Exchange,
and began doing a bit of Greek for himself, when he had
them at the due point of depression, and will eventually
make a good thing of it.—This is all very well for Billy
Holmes, but not quite so well for the Courier. The
people might recollect the scrapes it got into in Mud-
ford's time, in this way."
This was the libel of which Mr. Holmes complained,
and he stated that he never wrote the paragraph in ques-1
tion in The Courier, and never authorised its publication,
and, in short, had no connection with it in any way or
manner ; that he had never meddled with Greek Bonds
nor any other Stock whatever, that he never was in the
Stock Exchange to his knowledge, and certainly never
was there on any matter of business ; and that the state-
ment in the Courier could have no application to him.—
The denial, therefore, was complete. Mr. Holmes fur-
ther said in his affidavit, that in his situation of Treasurer
of the Ordnance, a great deal of money passed through his
hands, and that such an imputation on his character and
honour was calculated to do him more injury than it
could have done to most other persons ; and this cer-
tainly was to be considered, in addition to the base
falsehood of the libel. Then, as to the connection of
Westmacott with this paper, he had to state, that the
name of Anne Durham was entered and sworn to at the
Stamp-office as the sole proprietor of the paper ; and it
was understood that Anne Durham and Westmacott were
living together as husband and wife; and the way in
which he meant to prove his being proprietor of the
Raper was this, and he had affidavits to verify the facts :
A suit in Chancery had been lately instituted, in which
Anne Durham was a defendant ; and a solicitor's clerk
went to Westmacott's to serve her with process, and
inquired for Anne Durham, and was told she was not
there; he then inquired for Mr. Westmacott, and was
informed that he was not at home, but that Mrs. West-
!Decoct was, and Mrs. Westmacott appeared, and the
clerk said that she was Anne Durham ; she said No, but
he said she was, and served her, ; and Mr. Westmacott
answered in that lent as proprietor or editor of the paper.
He also in a late proceeding in the Court of Common
Pleas admitted himself to be the proprietor or editor.—
This evidence would have been sufficient, but he had,
besides, evidence to show that Mr. Westmacott was the
author of the libel in question. He met Mr. Scanlan, a
gentleman connected with the Courier,- et Drury Lane
Theatre, and spoke to him about the paragraph in the
Courier, and said that he knew the authority there men-
tioned was Mr. Holmes, and that he would publish the
circumstance Mr. Scanlan told him he was mistaken,

and cautioned him how he published any such statement.
Mr. S. thought it right to mention the matter to Mr.
M'Entaggart, then editor of the Courier, and notice was
sent to Mr. Holmes of what had passed relative to the
publication in the Age, notwithstanding the denial made
by the gentleman whom he had mentioned. Mr. H. de-
sired that notice might be sent to Mr. Westmacott that he
was utterly mistaken in his notion that Mr. Holmes had
any thing to do with the paragraph in the Courier, and
that if he published anything imputing to him any con-
cern with that paragraph, he would most certainly prose-
cute. Notice was accordingly sent from the Courier
to Westmacott, with an intimation that if lie published
anything to the effect stated, he must do so at his peril.
Westmacott said that he had the fact that the paragraph
was written by Mr. Holmes from the best authority, and
that he would rather lose 1,0001. than not publish it. He
called at the Courier office for a copy of the paper con-
taining the paragraph, which was refused him, and then
he went and got it in another quarter, and the result was
the publication of the libellous statement to which he had
referred.

Lord TENTER DEN—Take your rule to show cause.—
Rule granted.

CASH V. TAYLOR.

This was an action on a Bill of Exchange, tried at
Guildhall, before Lord TENTERDEN, on the 20th Feb-
ruary last. The plaintiff was indorsee of the Bill, and
sued the defendant as acceptor. The defenco was that
the acceptance was written by a clerk of the defend-
ant's without his authority. For the plaintiff a letter was
produced, from which it appeared that the defendant had
paid a bill which had been accepted in the same way;
and it was contended that, from that circumstance, it
might be inferred that the clerk had a general authority
to accept. The Judge, at the trial, did not think this a
proof of general authority, and no special authority was
proved, and therefore the verdict was for the defendant.
On motion to set this verdict aside, the Court said that
the plaintiff was bound to prove the acceptance by the de-
fendant, and had not done so.—Rule refused.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, MAY IL
HAMILTON V. PITT AND TWO OTHERS.
Mr. C. Pitt, Surveyor of the Adelphi Theatre, appear-
ed on the floor of the Court, and moved for the discharge
of the special bail, which had been entered in this action,
and that common bail should be entered. Mr. Pitt pro-
duced an affidavit, in which he stated that be was one of
the assignees under a commission of bankrupt against
Messrs. Jones and Co. bankers, and the plaintiff had ar-
rested him and his two co-assignees, for the sum of 781.
fora debt due to him, as solicitor under the commission.

—The affidavit further stated that the plaintiff had been
paid the full amount of his claim on the defendants, and
that this arrest was illegal.
The LORD CIIIEF JUSTICE asked Mr. Pitt to pro-
duce a copy of the affidavit of debt, on which he and the
other defendants were arrested.

1 Mr. PITT replied that he had not got one, but would
produce an office-copy in an hour.
The CHIEF JUSTICE directed the cause to come on
again to-morrow.