MaB. 9»] 



THE NEWSPAPER. 



[1844. 



idland 



Leeds. 



— — cluuscs objected to.— The Bryan, and was evicted from his holding. In revenge, it 

 ne ..j-,^ a nnst-officeto be opened j is alleged, he hired two men to proceed to Mr. Bryan's 



residence, in the county Wexford, and shoot him. One 

 of them is the prisoner Dwyer, the other, named Sullivan, 

 has turned approver. The case occupied the entire of 

 Friday and Saturday, and although the evidence of the 

 approver was clear and consistent, the jury returned a 

 verdict of Not Guilty. 



*=F=r^mi**td the clauses objected to.- 1 

 \ bm |l£Sb«ordered a post-office to be opened 

 ' tfr,0 rT;;nn bv which passengers will have an 

 ■^ Dt ^f Sig and forwarding liters at that 



1 °[ rao "Vl? -— ;~» la at the iunction of the 

 XV Norman 



ines 



IRELAND. 

 TH*. weekly meeting of the Repeal Associa- 

 D f^^ Monday, .t the Conciliation-Hall, Capt. 

 — ^K£r Mr! John O'Cont.eli begged to say 

 L ^*J^ect'in" a statement which Sir J. Graham 

 • ft 'JltX : made in his place in Parliament. 



"£2. hid asserted that it would not be safe to 



frTSie rame of the gentleman who attended in this 

 !" "the purpose of reporting on the part of Go- 

 • v.- >,; denounced that statement as untrue, 



He had 



EuTand emphatically informed the committee of 

 .•■-.:— «fih« nature of his duties, and had at- 



netrr 



frr hi. name had never been made any secret of. 



•k, Associsiissi of the nature m 



d^ their meetings openly and avowedly in the cha- 

 r cf a Government reporter. A letter from Mr. 

 (YCammtW waa tlu-n read, announcing his intention to re- 

 ^■lirg u "^ for the public dinner to which he had 

 invited, and stating his conviction that he ought to 

 faMflO opportunity of uniting the middle classes of both 

 Aries. The following are extracts :— " I do assure 

 *e« that I meet many Englishmen in what I may call the 

 *PreO«or lUte, declaring positively that they will assist 



in 'the BepeaP if the present Government persevere in 

 Hf ■, ^11 it impolicy with regard to Ireland ; and, as such 

 perseverance is certain, I reckon upon having much En- 

 Sitk aisstance, even before this session is over, in advo- 

 ostSng Repeal. I am sorry to see by the papers that some 

 Wr. i, luils countenance the calumnies of our enemies, by 

 iaajnoating the intention to abandon the Repeal agitation; 

 that our euemiei should say so is quite natural, because it 

 »ay be the means of creating jealousy and suspicion in 

 ear ranki ; but that honest Repealers should entertain 

 eeeh ir ■ on is quite preposterous. What has the Par- 

 liament done for us? Nothing. What does (he Govern- 

 aaent 'end to do for us ? Nothing. Why, then, should 

 Aere be any relaxation? English sympathy induces U3 

 Co be more moderate in tone and conciliatory in language; 

 but it leaves untouched and undiminished the inevitable 

 necessity of the restoration of the Irish Parliament for 

 any redress of Irish grievances. Away, then, with the 

 idle filer ef any postponement, much less of the abandon- 

 ee' of the Repeal agitation ; nay, it is quite to my mind, 

 perfectly mai it, that the inevitable tendency of all that 

 has lately occurred is to promote the tranquil attainment 

 •f|be Repeal. I repeat, we want two things in Ireland : 

 —perfect peace and quiet amongst the people — perfect, 

 Calm, cool, steady perseverance in looking for the Repeal. 

 Toe British Government has shot its bolt. It has ex- 

 hausted its only resource — military power. Military power 

 ia truly I midable if resisted, but utterly futile in the case 

 •fa perse*- non-resistance. Even in actual military 



affairs a sand-bag is a better protection than a granite 

 rock ; but, when no physical resistance whatever is given 

 «r intended, military power is as futile as it is expensive 

 and unconstitutional, and can never continue to be for any 

 length of time the sole instrument of Government. We will 



tameforepersevereinquietandcalm determination. Thein- 

 teUigence of England appreciates the necessity we are under 

 king for the Repeal. Let us deserve the continuance of 



of 



sympathy of that people by the peaceable and con- 

 cuiaiory modes of perseverance in seeking that which I 

 •were not to be remote—the restoration of our domestic 

 l f»ture. Hurrah for the repeal ! "—Mr. W. S. 



from the l\»r- 

 teiy 



O'Br: 



U Bnea brought forward a lengthy report fr 

 uamfDtary Petition Committee lately appointed by the 

 «Wai>on, i n winch the various topics in the Queen's 

 J»en, having reference to Ireland, were discussed. The 



s^'tal » r an ' after bearin S testimony to the zeal 

 7Z? f \ t!:e committee, by which he was assisted in 



"j* 1 ' lh e report, made an earnest appeal to the 



■eWi ^ i IeCt ° f Ire,and to ioin llie Repeal agitation. 

 of ijEf the S^ler sex to lend their aid to the cause 



IrtgaTi countr y» b y reserving their hearts for those who 

 wclsw ♦ i . " The niatron s should suspend their 

 after th* i v husbands *"«* they returned home, 



had donV? °T ln \° f the da ?' until the y Squired what they 



Isncn iV- I u rdand in that da y 5 and the mothers should 

 Tkese *e « l ° lisp Re,,cal with thelr earliest accents. 

 fcred irrea?. VkV' 1 * by which a C0Unt, 7 mi 8 bt be re »" 

 «*>«ed iV_ I * as th . e cons piracy in which they were 



I 



SCOTLAr 



Edinburgh On Wednesday in the Presbytery of 



Edinburgh the Tolbooth ca*e was brought under discus- 

 sion and finally disposed of by that body. When this 

 case was first brought forward the presentation was sus- 

 tained by the Presbytery, and objections to the presenter 

 called for. Twelve objectors appeared at a subsequent 

 meeting, and urged that Mr. Smith's preaching did not 

 " edify" them, which objection was allowed to be valid 

 by the Presbytery, acting as they said under Lord Aher- 

 deed's Bill. On Wednesday Dr. Bryce brought forward 

 the '* call" to Mr. Smith, which had been signed by six 

 heads of families, two members, and six seat-holders in 

 the church. He urged that although the " call" had 

 ceased by the Act of 1712 to have any legal effect, it was 

 still a proper and a prudent measure to continue, in an ec- 

 clesiastical point of view. He concluded by moving that 

 the Presbytery, having taken into consideration the call 

 to the Rev. Mr. Smith, presentee to the Tolbooth, find 

 that it is a good and valid call ; but in respect of the 

 judgment pronounced with regard to the objections, find- 

 ing that they are not in a position to proceed with the 

 settlement, they refer the matter to the ensuing synod. 

 After some discussion the Presbytery rejected this motion 

 by a very large majority. — The local papers state that Lord 

 Melgund, eldest son of Earl Miuto, and heir to a very 

 good landed estate, has declared himself in favour of a 

 total repeal of the corn-laws. His uncle, the late Member 

 for Roxburgh, has also sent in his adhesion to the League. 



Aberdeen. — At the annual meeting of students, held on 

 Friday for the election of the Lord Rector of Marischal 

 College and University, the votes were equally divided be- 

 tween the Marquis of Breadalbane and the Marquis of 

 Bute. The result is, there can be no rector for this year. 





**esl to tK Se r n for the Iabour which he had de - 



*HrHr i / ,ng ° f the re P° rt - M r - Ban 7 O j ar- 

 •otice to H g,1 » ard a motion > of which he had given 

 *te«fth. u Uiat the Association should tender a 



<>»w^on. \ St °u th0Seliberalmembers of the Home of 



<\ *\J y their rece I'tion of Mr. O'Connell, 

 *« their dislike of the attempt lately made to 



A **iatic n ° P ] nion in Irelaml - "e asserted that the 

 ■***nt 10 u T 3S determined "ever to swerve from the 



guation so long as they were permitted to con- 



ittions 



«snifo 



m9 ^ »s?r peaceful efforts. Dr. N le seconded tl 

 »fie» M k *"?"»«« "mid loud cheering. The rent 



ri, 



lBO« M R ♦ M f Xf ° rd BSSiZeS ' UlC Uial 0f tW0 



of hitler Trl S W an<1 Patrick Dvver » f °r the murder 

 Il41 » pV > i q *' whi< b took P kce on the 27ih May, 



^•fe bn.Ui ?i mUCh intsrest - 13«tler was tenant of 



* 1Q tbe cou »ty Tipperary, purchased bv Mr. 



Hato. 



Housb of Lords.— Hoare v. Byng.—Yi-.o question in this case 

 depended on a passage In the will of the last Earl of Strafford, 

 dated in 1774. After eiving the real and personal estate to his 

 wife for life, it thus proceeded :— " And afterwards all rry per- 

 sonal and landed estates to my eldest sister. Lady Anne Conolly, 

 for her life, then to the eldest sun of George Byng, Esq., of Wro- 

 tham-park, and afterwards to his second, third, or any later sons 

 he may have by my niece, Anne, Mrs. Byng, and then to the 

 eldest son and other sons successively of the Earl of Buckingham 

 by my niece Caroline." The question was, whether this bequest 

 vested more than a life estate in the personalty on any of the 

 persons thus named after Laly Conolly; and whether, therefore, 

 the residuary estate therein did not pass, after the death of the 

 persons named, to Lady Anne Conolly and her representatives, 

 as next of kin to the testator. The Vice-Chanccllor had decided 

 in the negative, and the House, after hearing Mr. Kmdersley and 

 Mr. G. Turner for the appellant, and without calling on the So- 

 licitor-General and Mr. Rom:Ily, held it to be a good decision, 

 and ordered it to be affirmed. 



Judicial Committee of the Privy Council.— Holt v. 

 Guege.— This was an appeal from a sentence of the Prerogative 

 Court of Canterbnrv, in a cause of proving the last will and tes- 

 tament of the Rev. Henry Masterman, late of Melton Abbas, 

 Dorset, dattd the ;th of December last, and which was pro- 

 moted by the appellant against the respondent, the next of kin. 

 In consequence of their Lordships being divided in opinion, the 

 cause had been re-argued by one counsel on each side. The 

 Lord Chancellor delivered the judgment of the council. In this 

 cause his Lordship said it was not thought necessary to decide 

 the question whether or not the instrument was signed before the 

 witnesses called in to witness the execution, but assuming that it 

 was so signed, their Lordships were of opinion that the nature 

 of the document not having been explained, the mere circum- 

 stance of calling in witnesses was not of itself sufficient, and did 

 not amount to an acknowledgment of the signature. Their 

 Lordships' were also of opinion that the instrument was not 

 signed in the presence of witnesses, and that the cases referred 

 to did not apply, as they arose under the old law. Th< ir Lord- 

 ships did not think it 'necessary to decide the very important 

 question whether the new Act made any difference. The judg- 

 ment of the court below was affirmed, costs of both parties to 



come out of the estate. 



Court op Cii anck a v.— Corporation of I)'irtmnuth v. Holds, 

 worth.— The Lord Chancellor delivered judgment in this case, 

 which was argued some time ago. His Loruship said the suit 

 was instituted to set aside a bond given by the Corporation of 

 Dartmouth to Mr. Holdsworth,to secure the repayment of 1200/. 

 expended by their request, and for their benefit. Mr. Holds worth 

 was a person of great influence in the borou-rh. and formerly 

 stood in the situation which, in less pure times than the present, 

 was called its patron. Thirteen or fouiteen writs of quo warranto 

 had been served on the Corporators, and the question arose, 

 whether they should be defended out of the Corporation funds. 

 A meeting was held, at which, though no formal resolution was 

 come to, all the members present agreed in requesting Mr. 

 Hold*worth to advance funds for the defence, and promising 

 repayment. At a second meeting a bond was given, and 

 interest was pa:d upon it for some years. In the mean time the 

 Municipal Corporation Act passed, and fresh men of purer views 

 and motives came into the Corporation, and raised a dispute as 

 to the legality of Mr. Holdsworth's bond. An action at law was 

 brought upon it. and it was held good, on the ground that when 

 the title of the Corporators was attacked, it was a legitimate use 

 of the Corporation fundi to defend them. It appeared that at the 

 meeting the members present inquired of the town-clerk ir tne 

 bond could be legally paid from the income of the Corporation, 

 »ho stated that though they were not originally bound to give 

 it, the Corporation could pay it if they thought fit. To tnia 

 representation the Corporators replied, that they were bound in 

 honour to pay the bond, and expressed their desire to do so. * 

 was clear, therefore, there was no misrepresentation as w > 

 liability of the Corporation; they knew they were not ■ X 

 bound before the bond was given. His Lordship m co ". j ft ^ 

 aid he was of opinion the plaintiffs had no equity an ^ q( thg 

 had been already determined against them. Tlie - J, ' ti L, a - ant i the 

 Vice C 1 :ellor of England must therefore be conft- 



appeal dismissed witli costs. ther v . the Grand 



Court trr ExcHEQUBa.-ricA/orrf a »« T ^ over compensation 

 Junction Itui.'u- hi. -Tins was an act:< * "J :"„„„:,' ri rr h in- 





come into their full force of working. They furthermore com- 

 plained that upon some of the lines advantages are offered to 

 some of their competitors which are denied to them. In the pre- 

 sent instance i? seemed that they htd sent a quantity of ^oods to 

 the station at Liverpool for the purpose of their being forwarded 

 to Birmingham ; that a portion of such goods consisted of pork 

 and other perishable articles; and that they were not forwarded 

 and delivered in due time. It further appeared that in the pre- 

 sent instance the goods had been sent to the railway su a 

 after 4 o'clock in the afternoon, and were not forwarded by the 

 goods-train that left at 8 o'clock the same eve g. On behalf 

 of the defendants it was contended that inasmuch as there were 

 certain rules and regulations by which it had been found neces- 

 sary to guide the arrangements and proceedings » railway, 

 and that one of them was to the effect that " all goods intended 

 to be forwarded by the 8 o'clock train must be delivered at the 

 station at Liverpool before 4 o'clock on the same afternoon, in 

 order to ensure their being duly forwarded;" and that as the 

 plaintiffs had not acted in accordance with such rule, the com- 

 pany could not be held liable. Verdict for the d nda 



\ n k-Cham Ki.i.oa's C ST.— Sir Godfrey H f ster v. fAe 7?*r. 

 JWhl Littler.— This waa a nation by the Rev. John L the 



Ticar of Battle, in Sussex, to dissolve an injunction wl i had 

 been obtained ?.r parte against him by the plaintiff sir Godfrey 

 Webster, in November last, restraining him from cutting down 

 certain timber, which w d to he '•ornamental n the 



vicarage of which the plaintiff was the patron. Thein;unetion was 

 granted upon thenffidavit of theplaintiff'sattcrn which stated 

 thnt the defendant hud cut down quantities of young- < amental 

 trees, to the value of not less than ;/., and thath »ldor inn nded 

 to sell them (as the witness believed) and apply tl ds to 



his own use, and threat ed and inten ue *uch acts 



at waste u ■ the ornamental t er, and convert the pn eds 



to his own use. 1 'he affidavits on behalf of the t er,1 y 



disproved this charge, and sh wed tl timber was i ma- 



mental from its situation, being entirely out Ight < f the 



vicarage, and that the trees were not j up, and ha >een 



out down for the purpose of sale, butt., repair certain I :es 

 which had been grubbed up by the grandfath. i the | I rT ; 



who, thedefcndantciHiia\ ( uredtoshow.had impi ly ass ed 

 a right to di •, which he had hem deprived ol by an b \ ion 

 in the tenure of the land. The Viee ( hancellor said, it t eel 

 out, the affidavit on which the injunction was gi 1 waa to- 



tally false. Without entering into the merits of the ca wasthe 



erest matter of course to dissolve the injunction with r s. 



Court ok Common Pi.bas.— Lord W. Pagt t v. the Karl f Car. 

 digan.—Thi* case, which has been so long talked <-f, aim i a 

 matter of speculation whether it would ever come to trial, was 

 tried last week before the Lord Chief Justice and a s ial 

 Jury. Sir T.Wilde stated the case, which was to recover damages 



r alleged criminal conversation with the i ff's wife. 



The solicitor ueral appeared on behalf of Loro Cardigan, and 

 at the conclusion of his ^ h the Foreman said they would save 



the Chief Justice the trouble of summing up, as th were all 

 unanimous in finding a verdict for the defendant. e Court 



was crowded to excess during the trial, and the verdict was 

 received with loud applause.— In connection with this case, or 

 rather with the circumstances which led to it, we may here 

 notice the trial of Mr. Holt, the editor of the Age, at 1 rai 



Criminal Court on Mondav for a lib 1 on Lord W. Paget, accusing 



him of having concocted a scheme to extort money trom Lord 

 Cardigan bv bringing forward a charge which he knew at the 

 timetobc false. After a long trial th Jury found the defendant 



Guilty on all the counts of the indictment The Record, t said, 

 that as the defendant was already in < Y under another 



sentence (a libel against the Duke of Brunswick) he i t be 

 remitted bnck to the care of the officer, and he w I consult the 

 Judges as to the nature of the sentence to be I upon him. 



Couut of Qukbx's Bknc ii.— The Custom H»u*e Frmtdt.— The 

 Queen, <M the Prosecution of the Commwioners q fstoms, again** 

 Peter Williams, Charles Muttram, and John Horslep.— This was 

 an indictment arising out of the late frauds upon the Crown 

 through the Custom-house revenues, to the extent of about half 

 a million of money, with the history of which, almost in minute 

 detail, the public are already familiarly acquainted. 1 he bill or 

 indictment was found at the last June sessions of the Central 

 Criminal Court, and removed by certiorari at the instance of the 

 Commissioners of Customs. The brief summary of the case is. 

 that defendants were carrying on business in partnership in the 



stead of 83/., thereby defrauding the revenue the d rence. 

 1 he defendant Williams had pleaded guilty, Hor>ley had not been 

 taken or appeared at all, and Mottram said that he knew nothing 

 about it. Mottram had been a linendraper in ai ^tensive way 

 of business in Lamb's Conduit-street, and in January, isjo, re- 

 linquished that business and went into partoers.np with the 

 other defendants in Wood-street, Cheapside, as Manchester 

 and silk warehousemen and importers of "foreign fancy goods. 

 They became bankrupt, and there was a fiat, which produced a 

 great sensation, and the examination of Mottram was adjourned 

 for three vears. Burnby, a clerk in the Customs, of whom the 

 world has heard so much, tempted the firm, and all would have 

 fallen but that the first attempt resulted in an abortion, as 

 the only mode of avoidance of manifest detection rraud suc- 

 ceeded, however, time after time afterwards, but MM train, .Uio 

 alone now at the trial attempted a defem • »w re " ^f^ ** d 

 no knowledge of or connexion with anything but t he *^ton, 

 which would not support the indictment. About ^ «*'» a P er ; 



vened he was wholly innocent and »» M "? cl " u . 8 - n J"/* c h 1 i 1 t e 

 was so shocked at the first a» tempt, or the failure cif, t that, 

 though a partner in the house, he never, as his counsel .from 

 instruction stated, had the faintest knowledge of or idem about 



any of the su *'^™°^™™E£ ^ sVd 'Vom' the 

 duties. Burnby, however, who nas oeee i ui Com mis. 



ervice of the Crown, but subsequently rct n %"V d ^ 51 l he of ^°XS! 

 ioners at 155. a day, to detec and prove the g U it of others. 



SO] 



si 



eave a very different arcount from tha t up by Mr Mottrara 

 SV. Cockb r ur„ freely eai.ed him -. g2^USSi«SW5 



Mint be was keot bv the ComiTUaMOl 



o , 5, rray-andretained like a wild ^ beast, ready to pounce 

 noon any victim determined upon as being, in their caprice, to 

 be devmuea ."-Lord Denmao summed up the case, commenting 

 with some severity upon the bearing of the evidence in proof* 

 th# ™?l?v mrtic inati on 'f the defendant Mottram, though with 

 Z i r/TnTtlie condnct of the man Burnby. whose 

 evfd P encc had beeTn ecessary to make out the case.-The jury 

 « .t£ed for abotf'two hours, and returned with a verdict of 

 r..m„ mutt-aX/' Sentence stood deferred without observation. 

 SrTo"bankrii'tcv.-T^ Marylebone Bank in re David 

 Hannnv The bankrupt in this case was the managing directc* 

 of the warylcbone Hank, and the fiat against him w»s issued as 

 f ar iw.ck asthel6ihHoT. t !Ml. Siucethat period the case has been 

 fluently before the court, and has exc ti dconsiderableatteution. 

 f he bankrupt passed his last examination on the 8th Feb., 1843, 

 after repeated adjournments: and having subsequently applied for 

 his certificate, a rehearing of the facts of the case took place. Sir C. 

 F. Williams, the Commissioner, now proceeded to d« l«J™fc 



mentof the Court to the following effect : — However be mencua 

 i the public it may be that the Legislature has conterred up«>n 

 the Commissioners of this Court the power of granting, TJJJJ 

 holding, or suspending the certificates of bankrupts, vetjt"* r«r 

 important — and 

 form. The situation 



m. ding the certificates of bankrupts, vein •*•"-' 



sometimes a painful-duty that we bare to per- 



tion which you, Mr Hannay, helA Pj -joe ^ 



iuUgrity undoubted. 



