Star.
London, England, 1829-07-09 00:00:00

DUNN V. MURRAY.

Lord 'T&NTERDEN pronounced the judgment of the
Court upon this case, which was argued yesterday at
cnnsid.-cable length.
Ir appeared that the plaiatiff had been employed as
a reporter by the defendant, proprietor of a newspaper,
and having been dismissed from his service in August,
18'27, he brought an action for the amount of his salary
to the end of the year. The cause was referred to a
Barrister, who awarded a sum of 631. to be paid to the
plaintiff for twelve weeks' salary, at five guineas per
week, from the 4th of Angst, 1827, when the dis-
missal took place, to the 27th October following, when
the action was brought. The 631. having been paid,
the plaintiff afterwards brought the present action to
recover the salary which he claimed front the 27th
October to the end of the year. On the cause coming
or, for trial, the parties agreed to a reference to a Bar-
rister, who had nuw made his award, finding that the
plaintiff had cause of action, unless the Court should be
of . pinion that the former action was to be considered
as a bar to the second ; and awarding a sum of 521. to
be paid to the plaintiff for his salary from the 27th Oct.
1827, to the end of the year.
The COURT was of opinion that, is all matters in
difference had been referred to the first arbitrator, the
plaintiff ought to have brought before him the claim,
which formed the subject of the second action. The'
claim urged in the second action came fully within
the terms of the first reference; and if the plaintiff
chose not to bring it forward under the first reference,
it was his• own neglect, and he ought not to be per-
witted to harass the defendant, by keeping back part
of the case for the purpose of bringing a separate,
action for it.

A rule having been obtained to enter up judgment
for '251. the amount of the second award, the Court
discharged the rule.

LIEEL Or THE LORD CHANCELLOR.
THE RINO O. ALEXANDER, RISHER, AND ANOTHER.
The COMMON SERGEANT, when called upon to make
his motion said, he wished to mention the case of the
King tr. Alexander and others, which had become an
cx officio information. The Court, a few days since,
made absolute a role for filing a criminal information
against the defendants, for the publication of a libel on
the Lord Chancellor in the Morning Journal. Not-
withstanding that proceeding, the patties yesterday re-
ceived notice to attend in Court and plead to an ez
ecio information, for precisely the same libel. The
C mmon Sergeant said he could not consider this the
practice of the Court.
Mr. Justice BATLEY asked at whose instance the in-
foisnatton was filed?

Mr. DENMAN answered—lt is filed by the Attorney
General, who acts for the Lord Chancellor. He was
desitous of setting aside the criminal information. In
the:case of the King v. Shannon, 2 Term Reports 198,
it was laid down that a person seeking redress by
criminal informa ion, waives his right to proceed by
mail 4ction. Mr. Justice Ashurst delivering the judg.
ment of the Court, said, they had considered the
question fully, and they thought it right to lay it
down as a general rule in future, that when a person
applies for an information, it was understood that he
waived his right to bring an action, unless the Court,
baying the whole subject before them, should be uf
• ,
opinion that it was a case to be tried by a civil action,
and should specifically give leave so to do. It Ire.
qoently occurred that inlotinations were moved to sift
out the opinion of the Court, when the party thinks
there is little probability of succeeding. It is ui,rea-
sonably to engage the titre and attention of the Court
in such a meaner, and such applications are nnnece—
:my of the party resort to his private rea.edy ; and it
an information is granted, it is of course to stay pro.
cteJings in an action for the same cause. Tne
paiu-
crple, M.D. contended, was the same in this case, and
he presumed that when the information was moved, if
their Lot dships had been apprised that an ex eel* infor-
m itron had been filed or intended, they would have
paused before they made the rule absolute. This the
Court would do in any case;' but a fortiori they would
11.1 It. seeing that the Aiturnej7General, who obtained
the rule on the part of the Lord Chancellor, was the
paste Ring the ex -officio. The Court, under such cir
curnstances, would, no doubt, direct the Attorney
6.•'lerall to waive one or. the ottier proceeding. He did,
ni t know exactly what infitunce they ought to have
in such a case. • t, •
• Taareaossib.:Whiri: is your motion ?'
Mr..itsta"sealsokored that the iciattailisio which had
befillqlll4..ielassaiiaW' ce of die rokeawde absolute be
t slos &Ate 61e, and that tlitreale-be forthwith dealt

with as if it bad been discharged. His hope was, that
the Court would see it was contrary to justice that a
paity should be subjected to two different formsof pro-
ceeding for the same offence, and that the parties so
treated had been placed under circumstances of great
disadvantage. An information had been moved, and
when the parties bad answered the same upon oath they
were exposed to all the disadvantages of a new pro-
ceeding. The case was new, and be should submit that
in the appeal made to the discretion of the Court, they
ought to deal with the es officio as if a criminal infor•
nation had not been filed. It was only yesterday that
the parties bad notice of the new proceeding.
The ATTORNRY GINIRAL said, it Mr. Denman had
been so candid as to have informed him of the nature
of his application, as connected with his (the Attorney
General's) name, and for which he bad waited some
time, he should have told him it was not the intention
of the Lord Chancellor to proceed on both the modes
of prosecution. His Learned Friend had also stated a
fact which was not correct. When he (the Attorney
General) moved for the criminal information, he had
no intention of filing an ex officio, and it was only cir-
cumstances which he was not obliged to state, since
coming to his knowledge that—
Lord TurraaDzsr—lnduced you to file the ex qfficie
information?
Mr. DENMAN—SureIy the parties ought not to be
prejudiced by this change of purpose, of which they
could know nothing.
The ATTORNIT-GRNIRAL said there bad been no in-
formation put upon the file, in consequence of the rule,
and that the defendants ought to know ; for if it had
been filed, the parties would have been obliged to plead
instanter, and proceed to trial next Sittings.
Mr. DENMAN said, the question was not whether an
information had been filed, but whether the rule sub-
sisting it might not be filed at any time ?
Lord TIINTULDRN—They say that no proceeding has
taken place, and if they proceed notwithstanding, that
you may come to the Court again.
Mr. Justice BAYLRY—And the rule drops in effect.
Lord TINTRRDEN—We cannot restrain the Attorney.
General, but we may restrain a private party from pro-
ceeding by action.
Mr. Justice BAYLRY said, the proceeding ex-officio
was a privilege in the hands of the Attorney-General,
over which the Court had no coffin:tel.

Mr, DENMANBut you have your own rule.
Mr. Justice BAYLIT—What would you have us do
with it? The rule was properly granted at the time.
Mr. DENMAN repeated, that if the existence of the
es-officio information had been known at the time the
rule was moved, their Lordbhips would have imposed
terms.

Mr. Justice Bann—Could we impose terms?
Mr. DENMAN-With great submission, upon the au-
thority of the case of the King and Sparrow, I think
your Lordships could.
Mr. Justice BAYLEY-I think not.

Mr. DENMAN considered it within the power of the
Court to modify their own rules; but he might ask
why the Attorney-General interfered upon this occasion ?
He was certainly irregular.
Mr. Justice Bann—Then finish your motion.
Mr. DENMAN said, although he did not contend that
the Court could impose terms on the Attorney General,
Lothey could on the Attorney General's client, the
rd Chancellor. If an ea officio information had been
filed at the time the criminal information was applied
for, their Lordships would not have suffered the parties
to be proceeded against by a double process. They
would have said that the rule could not be made abso-
lute, unless upon the terms of not filing an ex qfficio
information. He submitted that, all the parties being
before the Court, the prosecutor was not entitled to any
indulgence. The Attorney General might be promoted,
and several other things might happen, to take the
matter out of the personal directions of his Learned
Friend. The defendants ought to be put out of all peril
of the proceedings being adopted against him.
The ATTORNEY GENERAL—What is your motion for ?
I will show cause at once.

Mr.!)ltNMAN—That the rule be discharged.
The ATTORNEY GEMMEL then, with the permission
of the Court, appeared to show cause against that
motion in the first instance. He was quite indifferent
as to the course the Court might adopt. He did not
oppose the discharge of the rule, if their Lordships
should consider it necessary. He should have commu-
nicated thus much to his Learned Friend, if he had
asked him—and, under circumstances, he did not see
why the motion was made on the last day of Term,
unless it was to make an article for the newspapers. It
was said, when he applied for the criminal information,
he contemplated an a officio information, but he assured
the Court that such was not the case, for be had no such
intention that day, and it was only the day following
that he had decided upon the course be had since taken.
Their Lordships would not call upon him to disclose
the circumstances which induced him to do his duty in
that particular way ; but they would credit him when
he said be had acted deliberately, and that, upon the
best consideration of the case, he had thought it one
which required an ex officio -information. He had also
considered whether the defendants would be prejudiced,
and if he had been aware that any prejudice could be
done, he should have waived any advantage rather
than subject them to inconvenience. Had the de-
fendant been proceeded against, on the criminal in-
formation, he must have pleaded instanter, and gone
to trial instantly, whereas, under the es officio, he
had longer time given him before trial. His Majesty's
Government would undoubtedly place the information
at once upon the file; but it was found more advanta-
geous to the defendant to take another course. The
circumstances which induced him to change the mode
of proceeding, he did not consider it necessary to dis-
close; and though he did not state them for the satis-
faction of the Morning Journal, or any other party, he
hoped the Court would believe he had acted with due
deliberation, and with no leek of humanity. It was
easy for newspapers to attack a public officer, who had
not equal facility of ausweiing them; because he did
not publish newspaper to answer all they daily sent
forth. He should not, thetetore, condescend to state
the ciicumstances which infilenced the course he took;
but their Lordships knew him too well to refuse him
credit for deliberation and moderation.

Mr. DIDIMAN did not cast any doubt on the deli-
beration and moderation shown by his Learned Friend
in conducting this cause; but his hope was, that their
Lordships would not be influenced by the in►inuations
of the Attorney General respecting libels written
against him in the Morning Journal.
The ATTORbIEIt Gat►aeuAL—Nut on inc. I said upon
the proceedings of the Court.
Mr. DMIAW—Why, the proceedings of the Court
are unfortunately so closely u,sociatett with my Learned
Friend's name, that one cannot be alluded to without
the other—(A laugh).
The ATTOMPRY GENIRAL said he complained that
EJit,rs of Newspapers hate advantages over others.
Mr. DawasASl Yes; so has the Attorney General :
!but' I would ask, whether, tecause the defendant is the

IMF

editor of a Paper, your Lordships will take for granted,
without any affidavit, that he has published libels since
on the Attorney General t He expressed a hope that
the Court would put an end to this rule, and net leave
it in the power of the present or any future Attorney
General to carry it into effect, under some supposed
change of circumstances over which his client could
have no controul. it was not possible to apply to the
Court sooner, as it was only yesterday that they had
notice of this ex oJcio proceeding. His client swore
that it was late last night, when, much to his surprise
he received a summons to plead to an ex officio for the
offence, for which a criminal information was pending
against him.
The Arroatay GOMA/. begged to be understood
as not opposing the discharge of the rule.
Lord TiNTZRDIDI hawing consulted with the oche,
Judges, said the case was distinguishable from that of
the " King v. Sparrow." When the rule for a criminal
information was applied for, the Court thought it eught
to be absolute. Since that proceeding the Attorney
General had thought proper to file an ex officio infor-
mation; but as he might hereafter abandon that course
of proceeding, it would be hard upon the pro• •te indi-
vidual aggrieved, for they must always treat the Lord
Chancellor in such a case as a private individual, to be
left without redre s. The Court therefore thought they
did enough when they said this rule should not be pro•
ceeded upon but with the leave o f the Court, and in the
meantime •defendant would suffer no prejudice. All
•hat was asked was, that a rule made absolute lor a cri-
minal information for a libel on the Lord Chancel or
should not be proceeded upon but with the leave 01 the
Court, and to that they gave consent.
The ATTORNET-GiNIRAL assured his Learned Friend
that no proceedings would be taken on the criminal in-
formation.

Mr. DENNIANOUr only object was to be properly
assured of this.

Lord TINTERDEN—It comes to the same thing. Let
the Rule stand as we have intimated.

VICLCHANCRLLOR'S COURT, JULY 8.
Al ASEAN° V. DAY AND ANOTHER.

The SOLICITOR GlittißAL this morning moved for an
injunction to restrain the defendants from selling or
disposing of certain pictures. The plaintiff Joseph
Marie Massano, is a Gentleman living at Rome. The
defendant, Mr. Day, is the proprietor of the Egyptian
Hall, Piccadilly. The plaintiff deposited with the de-
fendant, for the purpose of exhibition, the celebrat.d
pictures of " the Martyrdom of St. Peter," by Murillo;
" the Virgin and Infant," by Rubens; 4" the Rape of
the Sabines," by the same artist, and •. Christ and St.
Catherine," after Titian's school. The plaintiff bad
found a purchaser for the pictures, and accordingly
gave an order that they might be delivered, when I e
found that they had been removed from the British
Gallery. The plaintiff then applied there, when lie was
told by the other defendant that he should not ee ivei
them, and in addition, that he should keep them dining
the season. Ths plaintiff then began to suspect that they
were detained Dom some improper motive, and thought
it proper to apply to the Court for this injunction.
His Homoun immediately granted the injunction.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.

MANSION HOUSE.

A German, named ratlines Mulle►, who was said to be i mer-
chant of dAuence and respectability, was some days ago charged
before Sir C. S. Huseas with having made so improper exhibition
in the window of a chamber in the George and Vulture Tavern,
in CornisM; and yesterday an application of rather an unusual hind
was made to the Lord Mayor. The facts were as follow—
Mr. Saltmanh, a Gentkman who resides near the tavern, stated
upon the occasion of the charge, that the female servants of his
family were most grossly insaked by the conduct of the defendant.
who had bees in the habit of acting in the manner above described
at the window of his (defendant's) chamber, and in full view of the
complainant's house.
Mr. Cope, the City Marshal, and 'riotous Ikrdslield, the taker,
stated that they went to the complainant's holm, and, unseen by
the defendant, witnessed the gross conduct of which be was said to
have been frequently guilty.
A friend of the defendant stated that the defendant was quite
ignorant of the English language, and meant nothing by doing what
he had done—(A laugh). The way to remedy the alair would be
to remove him to another chamber in which be could not be seen.

Sir C. S. Hanna said, the aoly remedy for such beastly conduct
was pi osecution and punishment, and he ordered the defendant to
Sod ball.—The proprietor of the George and Vulture Tavern Im.
mediately bailed him, and
Yesterday Mr. Sakmarsh and Sir C. Hunter waited upon the
Loan Mama, and made a statement to the following effect :
" The defendant having transacted the business for which he
came to this country, and being desirous to quit it as soon as pos-
sible, had made an offer of the sum of 100 L to a charity, upon cum.
dition that the complainant would abandon the prosecution."
Mr. Saltmarsh esoddered that the payment of this sum would
be a penalty in some degree apportioned to the offence. and thought
that it would be advisable to forego the prosecution for so impor-
tant an advantage to a charity. He wished also, if the proposition
was complied with, to name the institution upon which the money
might be bestowed with propriety.
To this suggestion Sir C. Hunter would not consent. He bad
bound over the parties to proweeete (or the offence against public
decency, and be would not be a party to a compromise in a matter
in which the public were concerned.
Mr. Hobkr said, that it was a case which a complainant might
very naturally wish to have terminated in the way proposed. It
world be desirable to benefit some charity by the sum of money,
and it would be desirable to get such a fellow as Mr. blullar out of
the country.
Mr. Sakmarsh said, that the first offer made by the defendant
was Ago, but he (complainant) held out for 4100 ; and he really
thought it would be most advisable to accept of that sum, and let
the defendant take himself off.

The Lout &laves said that be should not decide In this ease
until the defendant himself were In utendanee to make his appli-
cads:ea.-4%e defendant I. secoidingly to apply in propria persons.

GUILDHALL.
Is Hats—a.Genta• • Limas Tausiaa 7—Yesterday Mr. Weekly,
at Ludgate.blll, appeared before Sir P. Lama, on I summons
issued on the complaint of Mr. Alfred Lamb, a Gentleman re-
siding in New Hood-street.
Mr. Lamb was passing up Ludgate.hlll a few days age, when
be observed in Mr. Weekly's window a waistcoat-piece exposed
far sale, the pattern of which awakened Mr. Lamb's admiration • '
and he entered the shop to purchase some of k. He at first In:I
tended to take only one vest-piece, but a closer Inspeetion of the
article only made him admire it still more; and \soldered& quan-
tity to be cut off to the value of 10s. 7d. The shorans% Masan
having duly done their duty, Mr. lamb tendered a half guises
coined in the year 1801, but which appeared to have passed
through very few hands, ar.d looked as fresh as if just Issued from
the mint. The airman refused to take it, as not being a current
coin ; in consequence of which refusal Mr. Lamb went into Run-
dell and !kids's, which was only the next door, by whom be was
Informed that the piece was perfectly unobjectionable. However,
the shopman wuuM neither give back the bag-guinea, nor accept
It in lieu of payment, considering be had a lien spots it, inasmuch
as the waistcoat patterns being cut eff the piece were deteriorated
in value. Mr. Lamb farther added, that he had received it only
an hour before from a respectable Solicitor. and subsequently took
the opinion of his banker, who pronounced the half-guinea to be a
legal tender.
Mr. Weekly replied that he considered the shopman justified in
refusing the coin, because guineas and half-guineas have been with.
drawn from circulation. However, in this instance, they might
not have been so particular, only that Mr. Lamb bad called the
shepman a fool. Now, akhough be sometimes took these coins
through courtesy, still, as it was but courtesy, he did not feel him-
self called upon to nerds* it where such as epithet as " fool"
was used.

_
a Still." said Sir Perna. " let the quesdon of Its being current
or not current be u it stay. I don't ate what right you had to dr
tain It."

Mr. Holder, jag. who war at the judce.room in a auweacoo- I
aimed with the present, was of opinion that the half-pdaea was
good current coin of the realm.
Sr Pius was of the same opinion, and therefore ordered Mr.l
Weekly to restore it. with the addition of three shining. caw.
"chard Weeks, a yoga( man, was charged before Eris Pima
Lasts with havinsitoleo wren! yards of superfine cloth. valor

101. from the warehouses of Afr. Charles iardyn. of 846i:iglu11.
street, between ten and eleven o'clock yesterday owning.
George William Morgan saw the prisoner in Coleman•street in
company with another person. The prisoner had the cloth on his
shoulder; be stepped them, when they attacked him violently, so
moth so that he was climpelled to let the other man escape.—The
prisoner was committed.
BO WiiiSTR BET.
Thomas Poise, a leen known young thief, who 'Moldy dis-
charged from prison on Tuesday, was charged with stealing tour
putties of strawberries.
J. Nevin, one of the watchmen of St. Martin's, stated, that be
stepped the prisoner yesterday morning about three o'clock, with
the fruit in his possession, and, knowing his character, rook him
int. custody.
Several market gardeners stepped faseard and said, they were
constantly plundered by a desperate gang of Juvenile thieves that
infested the market, and completely set them at defianee. the of
diem said that he was rubbed of thirty putties of strawberries yes.
terday morning. He, however, could nor ideistity those produced
as his property.—The prisoner was committed for two Months as •
a rogue and vagabond.
MARY—LA—BONNE.
Jahn Driscoll, an inveterate mendicant, was brought up by llsob
Paring, a street-k.reper, for begging in Crawford-street. Perrin'
bad matched him; he tumid a little money in his pocket., ass►
three barn sandwiches in his bat, separately eliveluped in unsullied
writing paper. The beggar had also in his pocket an invitation
ticket, signed " Car Durre, Chairman," in which the •• favour s.f
his company is requested on 31unday cycling next, tor the
purpose of taking .upper with others in his line or calling or pro.
!session. Mr. Itawlinson, looking at the ticker, said, befinew those
entertainments were managed very cmufurcably ; and, turning to
the prisoner, ask.ti him what he had to say ter himself. The
beggar denied the charge, and said the street keeper spoke falsely,
he was an aged infirm old man, who never troubled any body.
Mr. It.twunsort--Oh yes, you do; you berg all day, and feast
away and finish with a hop at night. Now, 31r. Miscall. I see
Car Durra is to preside at the Robin Hood ea Monday night; who
was Chairman at the last meeting?
The prisoner pretended to ►e deaf, and the gaoler hallooed in
his ear. •" The Magistrate asks you who was Chairman at your
lug supper."
Beggar—l.—l—l can't say.
Mr. Itawurftom— What did you have for supper?
Beggar—supper, your Wor►hip! I won't go
there at all. your Worship.
Mr. Itawiasson said he would prevent h's being there on Mon.
day, and be seat him four 14 days to the House of Correction.
W OltS II I Li—STREET.

jams Smith, who was charged in April, with several other own,
with being concirned in a murderous run piracy at Valise, 14
Easel, anal on which occasion he escaped, was chaiged with cum.
nutting several forgeries.
The first charge preferred against him was for !Oren the aceep.
canes of his mother to a bill of exchange for IW. Ss. which he !mid
to Mr. James, a miller, of ()sett, for flour.

The prisoner's mother, who ►eeps the Dells public-bouss at
Anse. proved that the signature to the note was a forgery.
The prisoner was then charged with forging the acceptance of
Jn•epb Peet, his uncle. to a bill of eichange for geol. which he
paid to Ur. Cockerell, a farmer, at Great Burstrad. Es.es.
Peet said, he could not write his name, and had never au-
thorised any one to accept a bill for tool. tot him.
These were the only charges entered into, and the prisoner was
committed for total.

iiAlibbibinimia
; __.