The Sun. — 1848-05-09 (London, England)

DERBY SWEEPS.  Lpiceernhsyedewlree;istuaolln Say Saturdaymaeftterorponoloisa, aat winheoesteinhgouosfes avern. Waterloo-road, measures to are held, too kpfolarcteheatpothtpeoHseeorof aodfoWptao.eh have beentgerloo T meet the threatened qui tarn actions which i o ibierooused victuallersghtbasolicoitforthoof the name o. for having Derbyf Moss against the ' and other R ed sweepsioo Westminster-bridge-road, was called to the Mr. A. Mackintosh, of the chair. The Cnernmor said it was a matter of notoriety that a person of the name of Moss, who was a solicitor, had issued writs to recover 1001. penalty from publicans who had Derby sweeps at their houses, and it was to protect themselves that the present meeting was held. lie felt satisfied but one feeling pervaded the meeting, that of unanimity, and a determination to resist the system of extortion which was intended. All they had to do was to unite, and there would soon be an end of the qui tam actions. Mr. OHEY said that their Chairman had alluded to the qui tarn actions ; but were they aware that 1,400 notices of actions had been served, to recover in the aggregate the enormous sum of 140,000/. Could there be any doubt what was the object ? It was to frighten the licensed victuallers into a compromise. It was, however, to be hoped that every member in the trade would have the firmness to resist every attempt at compromise. As far as he was concerned, he was determined to defend the action which had been brought against him to the last. He would sooner expend 500/. than give is. to the informer. If they were firm, he felt convinced that nothing would be heard of these qui tam actions. Mr. Okey proposed the following resolntion:-" That this meeting pledges itself to defend to the utmost the qui tam actions which have been brought against them individually, and not to agree or listen to any-coqpromise."  Mr. BENNETT seconded the resolution, which was put and carried unanimously. A desultory conversation ensued, in the course of which it was observed that offers had been made to withdraw th action if the sum of 251. was• paid, and that actually receipts had been drawn out and sent round. It was, however, too well known that before the penalty could be recovered that the sanction of the Attorney-General must be obtained, and when that Was got, thee the informer would not be entitled to any part of the penaltti•. The wisest course to adopt would be in get the Attorney• General to move the Court of Zxeliegti.r for a writ of prohibition to the plaintiff to rtay the proceeding,, they not being for the politic gr.od, but merely fur the purpose of putting► money into the pocket or the prosecutor. This sucgestiun was adopted, and,, alter a rote of thanks to the chairman and Mr. °key, tor their aid and co-operation, the meeting adjourned...-. Weakly Dispatch.  ALLEGED MURDERS AT STONELEIGII AIME! THIRTY YEARS AGu.—lt may he recollected that some years ago a long protracted el3itn was made by a person natned George Leigh. as the rightful owner of the estates of Lurd (then Mr. Chandos) Leigh, and the dispute was brought to a close by the defeat of the former. A new claimant in the person of John Leigh, whose family resides in Lancashire, succeeded in, effecting a forcible entrance into Stoneleigh Abbey, during the ab:,ence of its noble owner in November, 1844. Thu new claimant, with his relations and friends, to the number of thirty-two, some of whom were alleged to have been attracted to the spot from mere motives of curiosity, were taken into custody, end tried betore—Mr. Justice rtiemmeaituhdoeurg to Patteson, at a special gaol delivery, shortly afterwards, and defended by Mr. Temple. Twenty. eight of them were aslascutre;ncTedhutomeesigLheteigenh found months' guilty. imprisonment withiei Leigh hard . that an eat months'nw oe nodthwe others ssi o t entirelywel v imprisonment.mu ot nltteh wassth;( and: at claimtthhaetto Stoneleigh Abbey on the part of the Lancashire Leighs; but a charge that at first was looked upon with levity, was made the subject of a lengthened investigation before four of the county magistrates, at Warwick, on Saturday last, and which alleged that the present noble of the Abbey had been guilty of the heinous PcrQismsec,4uorf murder. The substance of the charge was, that his Lordship had ordered two labourers, employed in the construction of a bridge on his estate, to be killed and buried beneath the abutment of the bridge, in the presence of himself, Lady Julia Leigh, and a large number of other persons. The charge was supported by several witnesses, who swore that they had been present on the occasion. Eventually the magistrates refused to entertain the charge.