Star.
London, England, 1829-07-03 00:00:00

. .
IN THE MATTER OF THE SUITORS OF THE COURT.

Mr. BEAUEB stated :kat this was the petition of the
representatives of the late Mr. Burroughs, the junior
Registrars, and Clerks in Court, praying that the salary
due to Mr. Burroughs at the time of his decease might
be paid to his representatives; that the salary due to
three Junior Registrars might be paid, and that they
might have such increase as was usual upon their ad-
vancement. The Learned Counsel believed the order

prayed was a matter of course, the Solicitor on the part
'of the suitors appearing by Counsel and consenting.
His LORDSHIP inquired if the Learned Counsel who
was to consent was in Court, and upon being answered
in the negative, made the order, subject to the produc-
tion of his brief.
VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT, JILT S.
The VICE CHANCELLOR this morning heard and dis-
posed of a treat number of motions, most of which were
either praying for liberty to pay money in, or to take
money out of Court, not one of which possessed the
least interest, except to the parties concerned.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, JULY 2.
LIBEL ON THE LORD CHANCELLOR.
Till KING V. BELL.

The ATTORNRY•GBNERAL moved to make the rule
absolute for filing an information against the Editor of
the Atlas, for the publication of a libel on the Lord
Chancellor and his Lady. The libel imputed to Lord
and Lady Lyndhurst corrupt conduct in the disposal of
ecclesiastical promotion.
Mr. Pou.ock appeared for Mr. Bell, not with a view
of opposing the rule being made absolute. Mr. Bell
was anxious that his motives should stand well before
the public. He had Mr. Bell's affidavit relating how
the paragraph got inserted in his paper. He disclaimed
any intention to avoid a full disclosure of the facts. The
paragraph had not been inserted to answer any malig-
nant purpose, and he was ready to admit that the re-
sponsibility attached solely to himself. It was conveyed
to him on Saturday evening, and was inserted as the
latest news. • His duty required him to see the article
inserted. His affidavit stated, that having been in Co.
vent Garden Theatre, he heard a rumour with respect

to some imputation on the Lord Chancellor and his
Lady which he committed to paper. When he got to the
office he gave it up for insertion. It was delivered in haste.
If he had had time to reflect he should not have given
it insertion. He took the whole responsibility which
might attach to the paper upon himself. acting as the
editor. He cast no imputation whatever on the pro-
prietors, and he was desirous of saying that he had not
gone oot of his way to introduce the article. The paper
he conducted had observed upon political questions a
strict neutrality. It gave no opinion on such matters,
but was chiefly devoted to science and literature. In
preparing articles of that description his time was gene-
rally occupied. The paragraph in question was not in-
serted with a calumnious intention, but be took it as a
matter of news, and inserted it inadvertently, having
no view of gain or remuneration. Mr. F. Pou.oce
said he had another affidavit, swearing that there was
no foundation for the imputation cast on Lord and
Lady Lyndhurst ; but he should not read it, because he
would not do the character of the Lord Chancellor and
his Lady so much injustice as to suppose it required any
support. He concluded by expressing the contrition
of Nit. Bell, who did not solicit the Court to discharge
the rule. His object was to state that he had not gone
out of his way to insert the article under a corrupt or
malicious motive.
The ATTORSZT Ganzasr. said as Mt. Pollock did not
oppose the rule he should say but little about it. The
affidavit which had been read was of great importance,
because it showed the manner in which such paragraphs i
foond their way into Newspapers. It appeared that a
Gentleman returning from :he Theatre found this para-
graph, which he thought proper to publish without
reflection, although it contained charges against one
of the highest personages in the State. He (the At-
torney-General) was glad the affidavit had been made,
because it would put the Court and the public in pos-
session of the way in which these articles were intro-
duced into the Papers. If a person belonging to a Paper
came through the Strand, and obtained information
from any one conveying a charge against the Lord
Chancellor, it was published, with an observation that
the Lord Chancellor's friends did not believe it. In be-
half of the public he had to hope that the Court would
make the rule absolute.

Lord TENTERDEN—Let the rule be made absolute.

TAS KING V. EDWARDS.
The defendant, a young man preparing to follow the
profession of the law, appeared on the floor of the Court
to receive judgment, having been found guilty of as-
saulting a watchman in the streets of Derby. The pro-
srcutinn was preferred by the Commissioners of Paving
for the town of Derby, the assault having been attended
by circumstances cf great violence and impropriety.—
It appeared that this was not the first Tom and Jerry
prank which the defendant had played off. At the
period when the assault was committed he was under a
recognizance to keep the peace towards another watch-
man. The guardian of the night assaulted in the last
case was going about his business, unconscious of harm,
when he received a blow which lett him streaming
with blood, and confined him for a week.
Mr. Justice BATLEY animadverted upon the irregu-
larity of the defendant's conduct, and the pain he must
have given his respectable friends.
The Cower sentenced the de'endant to be imprisoned
four months in Derby gaol.
COTTON SPINNERS.—THE KING V. RATNER.
Mr. Sergeant Caoss moved to file a criminal infor-
mation against Robert Rayner, a druggist in the town
of Stockport, for the publication of a libel injurious to
the masters engaged in cotton, factories fa that neigh-
bourhood. The Learned Sergeant read the affidavits

~:i~.

:

•
of several masters in the cotton trade, residing at Stock-
port, who stated that towards the close of last year the
deponents, in consequence of a diminution of theirs
profits, were compelled to reduce the wages of their
working people. They accordingly settled the wages
of men at from twenty four to thirty shillings per week ;
those of women from eighteen to twenty-four shillings;
boys from twelve to thirteen shillings. Such were the
wages in April last, but several thousands of work peo
ple refused to work on those 'elms, and threw them.
selves out of employ. There was no less than 7,000 out
of employ who might be employed if they would con-
sent to receive the above wages. The affidavits went on to
state that riots and disturbances ensued in consequence
of so many being out of employment. During those un-
pleasant scenes the public mind has been excited against
the masters by a publication made by the person against
whom this application was made. Among the facts
which the defendant made the subject of improper
comments was the following—Five or six hundred per-
' sons, consisting of men and women, met at Hitbe, near
Stockport (as they were allowed by law to do), to agree
about their wages. Unfortunately, on that occasion the
building in which they assembled fell about their ears,
and SO or 40 lives were lost. In that state of things the
defendant held up the masters to public odium, by
charging them with a design to stat ye the labourers.
The defendant was indicted at the Quarter Sessions, but
had not taken his trial. He had recently republished
the pamphlet, with a placard, in the following terms—
" In commemoration of the noble stand made against
reduction of wages in 1828." The offensive publication
was sold by the defendant in his shop in the town of
Stockport, where it was exhibited in the window.
Lord TawraaDaN—Take a rule to show cause.

Mr. ERMINE applied for a writ of mandamus corn.
manding the Dean of Winchester to swear in a Mr.
Duff to the office of churchwarden of a parish in that
diocese.—The Court granted the writ.

16,