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

DERBY SWEEPS.  ,uaollnerSs Hero of Waterloo Tavern. are held, took place at the measures to LpiceernbsyedswTeeilase• aot of r thed a y afternoon metropolis, Waterloo-road, for the purpose of adopting aat whosemeeti meeting houses s Derby for having liensed victuallers of the metropolis, meet the threatened qui tarn actions which havestisethen brought by a solicitor of the name of Moss age of the Red Lion, Westminster-bridge-road, was ca and other sweeps at their houses. Mr. A. Mackintosh, of the chair. The endIRMAN said it was a matter of notoriety that satisfied themselvessifil b -u a person of the name of Moss, who was a solicitor, had issued writs to recover itoi, penalty from publicans who that tshwoanet one feeling sat eeapiti rnteghseeipnr et housesry pervaded emeetingd, t andhwe was st meeting,Ned t o protect unanimity, and a determination to resist the sysllttheeamtfeoolfft teox tuonrittieo,nawndhitchheiw.eaws oinutlednsdeeedn. beAalnl tebnedy hofadthteogduoi towaras actions. Mr. OKEY said that their Chairman bad 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 140,0001. 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 5001. than give Is. to tl, informer. If they were firm, he felt convinced the :m: ping would be heard of these qui tam actions. Mt. Ukey proposed the following resolution:— " 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 cone. promise."  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 the action if the sum of 251. was paid, and ...f,eibts had been drawn out and sent round. It was, livirovui, „t the penalty could be recovered that the sanction of the Attorney-General must be obtained, and when that was got, then the informer would not be entitled to any part of the penalty. The wisest course to adopt would be to get the Attorney-General to move the Court of Exchequer for a writ of prohibition to the plaintiff to stay the proceedings, they not being for the public good, but merely fur the purpose of putting money into the pocket of the prosecutor. This suggestion was adopted, and, after a vote of thanks to the chairman and Mr. Okey, for their aid and co-operation, the meeting adjourned.— IVeekly Dispatch.  ALLEGED MURDERS AT STONELEIGH ABBEY THIRTY YEARS AGo.—lt may be recollected that some years ago a long protracted claim was made by a person named George Leigh, as the rightful owner of the estates of Lord (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 absence of its noble owner in November, 1t44. The new claimant, with his relations and friends, to the number of thirty-two, some of whom wore alleged to have been attracted to the spot from mere motives of curiosity, were taken into custody, and tried before Mr. Justice Patteson, at a special gaol delivery, shortly afterwards, and defended by Mr. Temple. Twenty. eight of them were found guilty. James Leigh was sentenced to eighteen months' imprisonment with hard labour; Thomas Leigh and two others to twelve months; and the remainder to three months' imprisonment. It was at that time thought that an end was entirely put to the claim to Stoneleigh Abbey on the part of the Lancashire Leighs; but a thlevitybe, before a was llengthenedoked upon investigation four of the county magistrates, at Warwick, on Saturday madechar g e the subject at first last, and which alleged that the present noble possessor of the Abbey had been guilty of the heinous crime of 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.