THE NEWSPAPER. 



[1844. 



flS5ied H^f^med content. Some 

 rt'ie Cro«» Counsel .eemeo . q £T1 . 



££W « ticl " Sk te Courtdeferred the 



^r, 5 '!. As the Court was 



jga of tnem "•• , t eman wnu u» »- 



ftri*. Mr - M . a Sfto the High Sheriff, presented 

 7„ *D»i« |e '"^ ^5, exchanged which 



^fej^r^umentary evidence 



ft* *»-° D M? nd most lengthened were 



****$£?& Journal, the JTO and 



•"-'• fte " W Contained the speeches of Mr. 



* ? .1 .Traversers, and the remaining 



Ti«^ e^» to - Mr - Ve - no r 



eitftfied eonon*. required. 



^•Arf r^rr^lt artic.e Laded 

 JV towty clerk of we . in the N ation of the 



^^r P C"Tb P e P Irish Congress," an article 

 MA rf Aupift. A'so bI f 300 m en to act as 



: ^Sh?^TSS« Congress, when as- 

 cotncil like tne a . General objected 



SSStS^^ P-nt stage of 

 £L of the same newspaper having no bearing 

 ffC."°Sm h, evident the Crown. Mr. 

 LOcTeiprwd ■«!"««• at the objection, as he 

 irtood the Crown had assented to the arrangement 

 i»Jl the article, in the same paper should be read conse- 

 21 • «£, for the Crown, secondly, for the traversers. 

 SScLf Jmtice observed that the Court did conceive 

 tadhsenan arrangement to dispose of one paper be- 



fore foiof to mother, although certainly at that time it wa„ 

 Mt Kntood that the traversers' extracts would have 

 been of such length and of so unconnected a nature. 

 Jafef Cramnton hoped that the traversers would not 

 tSrfir arrangement by reading matter which was irre- 

 ] g m * rte Solicitor- General observed that the Crown 

 t quite disposed to accede to any suggestion of the 

 Coot, and the objection had been made by the Attorney- 

 General in order to enable the case for the prosecution to 

 dote sooner. The officer then read for the traversers' 

 cornel the correspondence between Mr. Henry Sugden 

 tad Sir Valentine Blake, on the latter being superseded 

 n a magistrate. The Crown then had read an article in the 

 fit** of the 7th of June, headed " Repeal — Ireland — the 

 pot Drogheda Demonstration," giving an account of 

 tie meeting held there, and of the dinner. The traversers 

 fro in evidence the petition of the Drogheda meet- 

 ■g to Parliament for a repeal of the Legislative Union. 

 For the Crown was read the il Kilkenny Banquet" in the 

 Wrt of the 12th June. Mr. M'Donough said that he did 

 ■ot aeaa to delay the Court by having read the whole of 

 the speech made by Mr. O'Connell, but the whole 

 •odd be entered as evidence for the traversers. Extracts 

 were stated to the jury on behalf of the traversers, 

 "order to show that the healths of the Queen and 

 n»« Albert were drunk with enthusiasm. The pro- 

 «mop at the meeting at Mallow were given in evidence, 

 ■■the remarkable speech of Mr. O'Connell at the 

 JJJK, where he hurled his haughty defiance at the 

 £on, W d lamented the day that the' Saxon « polluted 



*rw\ S ° l1 ° f Ireland with his ™rsed foot!" Mr. 

 « ua*i|h required an extract to be read from the 



i of th rtr n'- M - P '' at the meetin & wher e he 



AvSofA? ?- the *""*«*• ' Journal of the 7th 

 W£ TaeZ^ at Baltin S lass > in the county of 

 ** " ^clZ f^ P raseatwere »tatedat 150,000, 



* 0t2u n lt° m S - X C0Unties ' The s P eech °' 

 ?*% UdV^i ^? 11 contained his dement 



«*kW. b cans!' •?" ° De ™ WaS WOrth ten 



»«hg od S? JS e K P,g C ° Uld bC Caten ' 8Dd 

 ^ Lord Pn?, ,• tbe , g0t0Ut of his lordship, 



5 1 C ' "* Sen had P r p C / u f haagman t0 the Army. 



5** *• i6th^i:r ain T t m the pi/o/ 1 news - 



2** of one million mS. : ,,a P er 8tated that 



S^rteiio ^ er P M' n8 . attendedth€ nieet ^S ^om 



& topped t Thld ' aVe meu wh0 came ^om 

 Z2> *en who tad Vn ^ °^ the 6«ve where lay 

 2?^ 0f Mr - OXonnelU 7i at , Tara in ] 798 ' The 

 C^read hy Cd" f rf d . mner and at the ban- 

 E^ ^ Grirt JJ^ C1 ? rk 0f the down, toge- 



the Liberal constituencies throughout Ireland to call upon 

 their representatives to absent themselves from Parliament 

 during the ensuing session, and to confine their exertions 

 exclusively to the advancement of the Repeal career in 

 Ireland. Mr. Powell, M.P., Mr. J. O'Connell, and other 

 gentlemen also addressed the association. The Repeal 

 rent for the week was announced to be 396/. 19s. Id. — 

 The corporation have received an answer from the Secre- 

 tary of State acknowledging the receipt of the address to 

 the Throne, praying that her Majesty will be graciously 

 pleased to grant an act of amnesty to Mr. O'Connell and 

 the other gentlemen now on their trial before the Court of 

 Queen's Bench on charges of sedition and conspiracy, and 

 stating that on the return of her Majesty to London a day 

 will be appointed for the reception of the deputation of 



which due notice shall be given. 



Rathfarnham.— On Sunday week, an elderly woman, 



who was the housekeeper of the Rev. Mr. Roche at the 

 Chapel House of Rathfarnham was murdered in the kitchen 

 during the absence of her master. It appears that the 

 murderer had robbed the house and cut the throat of the 

 servant with a knife which was found in the coal- cellar. 

 The jury returned a verdict of Wilful Murder against 

 some person or persons unknown. 



SCOTLAND. 



Glasgow. — A public meeting of the Roman Catholics 

 of Scotland was held on Monday week in this city, and 

 was attended by nearly 5000 persons, Bishop Murdock 

 in the chair. The following resolutions were agreed to : 

 — "That the conduct of the Dublin Crown law-officers in 

 striking off the special jury list the eleven Catholics who 

 were fairly drawn by ballot was an act of injustice to the 

 Catholics on trial, to the whole body of the Irish Catholics 

 and to the traversers, and that it was tantamount to a 

 partial repeal of the Emancipation Act. That the said 

 conduct of the Dublin Crown law-officers is a gross insult 

 offered to the Irish people in particular, six-sevenths of 

 whom a.e Catholics, and to all Catholics in general, in as 

 far as it insinuated the base calumny that Catholics disre- 

 garded the sanctity and obligation of an oath, when they 

 had a purpose to serve. That in order to proclaim to the 

 world our sense of the insult offered to our body, and this 

 our public protest against the injustice perpetrated against 

 religious liberty, the resolutions passed at this meeting be 

 published in one or more of the Irish, English, and Scotch 



newspapers." 



Haddington. — On Friday last a meeting called by Lord 

 Elcho, as Vice-Lieutenant of the county, was held at Had- 

 dington for the purpose of considering what course could 

 be adopted for securing due protection to agriculture. The 

 meeting which was numerously attended was composed of 

 the noblemen, gentlemen, commissioners of supply, jus- 

 tices of the peace, and tenant-farmers of the county of 

 Haddington, and amongst those present were Lord Elcho, 

 the Earl of Lauderdale, Sir T. B. Hepburn, Sir D. Kin- 

 loch, Major-General Sir R. Houston, Mr. Balfour, M.P., 

 Hon. F. Chartcris, M.P., &c. Lord Elcho was called to 

 the chair, when resolutions in opposition to free trade and 

 in favour of an Agricultural Protection Society were una- 

 nimously adopted. 



Roxburgh. — A meeting in favour of the League Fund 

 took place in a dissenting chapel in Hawick on the 20th 

 inst., where from 1,500 to 2,000 persons were present. 

 The Earl of Buchan occupied the chair; and the first 

 speaker was John Ord, Esq., of Muirhouselaw, who 

 jointly with his brother rents lands in Roxburghshire at 

 several thousands of yearly rent. Mr. Ord stated that 

 last year he was opposed to a repeal of the Corn-laws and 

 now he was in favour of a repeal. The deputation from 

 the League, consisting of Mr. Cobden and Mr. Moore, 

 afterwards addressed the meeting at great length in favour 



of free trade. 



Cupar. — Messrs. Cobden and Moore were presented 

 with the freedom of the burgh of Cupar, Fife, on Thursday 

 last, and afterwards addressed a numerous assembly of the 

 inhabitants at a public meeting on the subject of free trade 

 in corn, at which Provost Nicol presided. A subscription 

 in aid of the League fund of 100,000/. was commenced at 

 the meeting. 



' 



.. -- weekly meetin. 7 i S r meetm S> «"=• 

 J}?< >» Mo„dI y Be t!"% of ' h « Repeal Associa- 

 «WU ot tte ha ^« Smith O'Brien occupied 



*%£," ^C IL m 0t if he had ««»»e there 



"Prosecution , . u» g lh « eadera of the 

 fuelled 1° .' s . '" tbe ^rdict of the iurv 





Z w mutate of /il r , ia unfler existing 

 ^^ ire emle 1 J n0ral * ei « bt b y the ad°- 



fell 



*m 



. wlT* * *l»ch tu J c °-°P er ation in for- 



5 briefl T ° 12**4 £e ,? f Marked. Mr. 

 I tw Z add *Ued \Z ?. cet, »« ** a hout twentv 



froZ^ed he Zl "%■ f ° 1 ' about twe "*y 



&** C d ' to be cL, e les ln ^ery town 

 ^J Qt «Pon V?> laUed »"til the Roman 



the 



SecnrW iC * arui o thepri- 

 eCOna * as ^ suggest to 



, 



Hafe\ 



Vick-Ciiancellor's Court.— (Before the Vice Chancellor of 

 EafflamlO — Lorrf John Bert rd v. Archhiahop of Armagh.— 

 There were two points in this case. The late Marchioness of 

 Watcrford was tenant for Life, to her separate use, of the lour 

 Caatle estate, in Northumberland. Durine; the late Marquess's 

 life the rents had been regularly transmitted to his account at 

 Hnare's bank, and at his death there stood a balance of 11,0007. 

 to his account. After his death the late Marchioness, who alone 

 proved his will, directed the balance to be transferred to his 

 executors' account, and divd shortly after. The first question 

 was whether the e- tatc of the Marchioness, which was repre- 

 sented by Lady Ingestre, WM entitled to the 11,000.*., or whether 

 it belonged to the estate of the Marquess for the benefit of h 

 \ounger children. His Honour thought it was as plain as a 

 thing could be that the Marchioness had agreed to give the 

 Marquess complete and absolute dominion over the rents • and 

 that the balance of 1 1,000/. belonged to the Marquesas estate. It 

 was nothing extraordinary that such a large balance should 

 have been left at the bankers, as every man knew in passing 

 through life, that it was of \ at importance to noblemen anil 

 gtntlemen of large fortune to have a large balance at their 

 bankers to meet any sudden emergency. The second and more 

 important question was respectiug the claim of the personal 

 estate of the late Marquess to be recouped a sum of 63,000/. with 

 interest, which the late Marquess had advanced in payment of 

 incumbrances on his real estates in Ireland, of which he was 

 tenant for Ufa. His Honour briefly delivered judgment. The 

 question was whether on the will of Marquess George, and 

 the deed executed by Marquess Henry, in 1822, Marquess Henry 

 was originally bound or had placed himself under an obligation 

 to apply the surplus rents of the estates, after paying the current 

 charges for interest, in liquidation ol the capital of the incum- 

 bianccs which Marques^ George had created. His Honour was 

 clearly of opinion that the will amounted to nothing more than a 

 charge of debts and legacies in the simplest form, and although 

 the deed cuutaincd some loolisdi and blundering words, which 



were utterly inconsisteat with the plain intention of the parties, 

 had a bill been filed for executing the trusts of the deed, the 

 Court would not have given it the construction which had been 

 contended for on the part of the counsel of the Marquess ; and 

 it would no doubt be a surprise and lamentable calamity on the 

 noble family concerned if any other mode of dealing with the 

 property than that of keeping the charges alive for the benefit of 

 the younger children were allowed. His Honour decreed there- 

 fore that the personal estate was entitled to the benefit of the 

 incumbrances which the late Marquess had paid. The result of 

 this decision is to add a sum of above 90,000/. to the personal 

 estate of the late Marquess, which is divisible for the benefit of 

 his younger children. 



Court of Exchequer.— 'Sittings in Banco.)— Hart v. Winser. 

 — This was an action to recover the rent reserved on the lease of 

 a house in the Wandsworth-road, to which the defendant pleaded 

 that the house was so much infested with bugs that it was found 

 uninhabitable by the defendant and his family, and that imme- 

 diately after ascertaining the fact the defendant had removed. 

 There were also pleas denying the making the lease, and setting 

 up as a defence that the defeudant was induced to enter into 

 the covenant upon fraudulent misrepresentations. The case was 

 tried during the last sittings before Baron Rolfe, and the Jury 

 found the first plea in favour of the defendant, the nuisance 

 appearing to be of the most intolerable description. The issues 

 on the other pleas were found for the plaintiff under the learned 

 Baron's direction, and the question of law reserved for the 

 Court. Mr. Addison now moved for a rule to show cause why 

 the verdict should not be entered for the plaintiff instead of the 

 defendant on the first plea, on the ground that it was not sus- 

 tainable in point of law. It was true that in the case of Smithv t 

 Marrables this Court had decided that a party was not bound to 

 pay for a ready-furnished house intended for immediate occupa- 

 tion, if upon entering it was found to be so infested with bugs 

 that it was unfit for the habitation of a family. But this was a 

 different case. The house was unfurnished, and it did not appear 

 from anything on the face of the pleadings that it was intended 

 for immediate occupation. The defendant may have taken it 

 with an intention to take means to get rid of the nuisance, and 

 have had the house at a lower rent in consequence. The Court 

 granted a rule to show cause. 



Court of Common Pleas.— Woods v. The Duke of Argyll and 

 Sir James Cockburn. — This action was tried before the Lord 

 Chief Justice and a Special Jury at the Middlesex sittings after 

 last term, and was brought to recover 3/7. 6s., being the amount 

 of the plaintiff's bill for furnishing a copy of Kunard's Map of 

 Prince Edward's Island for the British American Association of 

 which the Duke of Argyll was the president and Sir James Cock- 

 burn one of the consulting council. The society was originally 

 called "The British and Scottish Emigration Association," but it 

 subsequently assumed the name under which it has been several 

 times before the public. It was proposed to send out emigrants 

 from Scotland in the first instance to America and afterwards to 

 Prince Edward's Island, and an executive committee was 

 formed to manage the transactions of the society. The Duke of 

 Argyll was appointed the president and Sir James Cockburn one 

 of the consulting council, and they agreed to become share- 

 holders in the undertaking when 50,000 shares were disposed of 

 at 20/. per share. The secretary of the association employed the 

 plaintiff to make the map. The association was subsequently' 

 broken up before the 50,000 shares were got rid of. The defend- 

 ants denied their liability, and it was contended on their behalf 

 that as the undertaking was tobe one of charity and not of profit 

 they had merely lent their names in the same way as Royalty or 

 the nobility might become patrons or presidents of any charitable 

 institution. The Jury found a verdict for the defendants.— Mr. 

 Sergeant Bvles now applied for a rule to show cause why the 

 verdict should not be set aside, and a new trial had on the 

 ground of misdirection and the misreception of evidence, con- 

 tending that the defendants were liable inasmuch as they had 

 held themselves out to the world as connected with this associa- 

 tion and would have been entitled to share in any profits that 

 had resulted from the early emigration measures of the associa- 

 tion. The Lord Chief Justice was of opinion that everything had 

 been brought forward at the trial which could by possibility be 

 made to bear upon the case. Three points had been left to the 

 Jurv— first, whether the defendants had themselves entered into 

 a contract with the plaintiff? secondly, whether they were co- 

 contractors? and thirdly, whether they had held themselves out 

 to the world as responsible for the acts of the executive commit- 

 tee or intervening associa'ion ? The prospectus clearly showed 

 they held out a different paymaster than themselves— namely, 

 the executive committee which was to have the management of 

 the whole concern. He thought therefore that the Jury were 

 justified in arriving at the conclusion that the verdict should not 

 be disturbed— The other Judges concurred.— Rule refused. 



Gregory v. the Duke of Brunswick and Another.— This was an 

 action brought to recover damages for the injury which the 

 plaintiff had sustained by an alleged conspiracy on the part of 

 the defendants and others to drive him from the stage, and rum 

 him in his profession of an actor. The cause was tried before 

 Lord Chief Justice Tindal at the Middlesex sittings after last 

 Trinity Term. The Jury found for the defendants, and in the 

 course of last term a rule nisi was obtained for a new trial, upon 

 the ground that the verdict was against evidence. Mr. Serjeant 

 Talfourd now showed cause against this rule, contending that 

 the verdict ought to stand, inasmuch as the conduct deposed to 

 by the witnesses who were called merely showed that the de- 

 fendants had taken a part in the disturbance which ensued upon 

 Mr. Gregory's appearance, but not that the disturbance was the 

 result of any conspiracy. If there had been a conspiracy a re- 

 action would have followed, and Mr. Gregory would have had 

 justice done to him by tbe public • but the truth was that the 

 tumult which arose was the spontaneous expression of public 

 feeling, and knowing this Mr. Gregory had not dared to present 

 himself again on the stage as a candidate for popular applause. 

 Mr. Serjeant Shee in support of the rule contended that the evi- 

 dence d losed matter sufficient to show that a conspiracy had 

 been formed by the defendants, previously to Mr. Gregory s 

 appearance as Hamlet, to hiss him from the stage. The Jury, 

 however, hui d away by the whirlwind of prejudice which had 

 ' been let loose upon the case, found a verdict tor the defendants, 

 and he submitted that there was ample ground for a new trial. 

 The Court t k time to consider, and gave judgment on Thurs- 

 day. The Lord Chief Justice said that the Court had given the 

 casevcrv great attention, and being perfectly satisfied that the 

 main charge, and that which was the main point before the jury, 

 had been properly decided; they felt they ought not to grant a 

 new trial for the purpose of letting in a subordinate charge- 

 namely that of a general conspiracy, not limited to the two 

 defendants, but extending to the whole house, and which had 

 not been kept from the consideration of the jury, unless they 

 were perfectly satisfied that the verdict on that point also was 

 wrong. They were not so satisfied ; and they wished to add 

 further, that as the charge of conspiracy against the defendants 

 was a very serious charge, the Court ought not to interfere unless 

 they felt that the course of justice had failed. They thought, 

 therefore, that the rule nisi for a new trial ought to be discharged. 



Rule discharged accordingly. . , n , 



Arches CouaT.-TAe Office of the Judge promoted by Burder 

 against Langlcy.— This case was a proceeding against the Rev. 

 R. H. Langlcy, perpetual curate of Wheatley, Oxon, for chiding: 

 and brawling in his parish church. This Court, on the 27th 

 June, 1812, held the charge to be proved, and sentenced Mr. 

 Langlev to suspension for eight months from the day of the pub- 

 lication of the sentence in the church of tbe perpetual curacy, 

 where it was published on the 3d of July. Mr. Langiey grave 

 notice of appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, 

 but the inhibition did not issue till the 20th November, 1842, upon 

 which he resumed his clerical functions, which he had not exer- 

 cised since the publication of the sentence. The Judicial Com- 

 mittee affirmed the senteuce, aed remitted the cause to this 



