Eab3 anb guOtice.

THE DUKE OP CUMBERLAND'S CASE.—Against the conditional rule obtained by the Duke of Cumberland against Phillips, the printer of the Authentic Records, Mr. D. Wakefield junior on Tuesday showed cause. Mr. Wakefield dwelt particularly on the inaccuracy of the affi- davit made by Mr. Adams— Mr. Adams had described the manner in which the Jury were summoned. He said he sent the summoning officer to Mr. Place, man's mercer, of Charing Cross ; but Mr. Place was not the Coroner for the verge of the King's Palace, and had no authority to act. He would leave it to the Court to form their own opinion, whether or not this departure from the usual course was or was not for the purpose of obtaining an impartial trial. The affidavit showed that Mr. Adams had flown in the face of the act of Parliament ; and the statement in the libel, that there had been a second inquest, was corroborated by that affidavit. Mr. Adams had referred to the act of Parliament, as being that of the 23d of Henry VIII. ; whereas it was that of the :33d of Henry. VIII. That was, no doubt, a trifling circumstance, but it tended to show the manner in which Mr. Adams perforated the duties of his office. Mr. Adams had stated that sum- monses had been drawn up for summoning two juries, but those for summoning the first were not used ; but the reason he gave was most unsatisfactory. He had no right to send to Mr. Place, and Mr. Place had no right to act as Co- roner ; and he submitted that the Court ought to require an affidavit from Mr. Place to corroborate what Mr. Adams had stated. He believed it would not be difficult to show that the inquest might be quashed, as being illegal; and it cer- tainly might have been quashed if Sellis had had any goods which would have been subject to an extent at the suit of the Crown. At all events, Mr. Adams might have been prosecuted for a breach of duty. There was another point which, though of a trifling nature, he would take the liberty of adverting to, in order to show that the inquest was illegal. By the '28th Henry VIII. c. 12, the Jury, in eases of this description, were to be summoned from the verge of the Court. Now this applied to the Court sitting at Whitehall ; but at the time in question the Court was sitting at St. James's. The summoning, therefore, was clearly not geed ; and the Jury, consisting of Mr. Place's junta, could not legally hold an inquest on the body of Sellis.

Mr. Wakefield read an affidavit sworn to by Phillips ; whom be described as a young man not more than twenty-two years of age, and wholly ignorant of the nature of the libel he had published. The only part worth extracting is the account of the person who is described as having furnished the libel, and the motives that led to its publication. The affidavit on these points says- " The deposition set out at page 100 of the said work, as purporting to have been made by a person tbrinte ly in the senice of the Duke of Cumberland, and which con- tained the substance of the charges complained of by the prosecutor, was given to the deponent fur the purpose of publication, and since returned by him : and lEt had every reason to believe that deposition was made to elicit the truth; and that the name of such deponent was--Jew, who was at present in the service of his Majesty the King of Belgium, and was living iu Belgium, beyond the jurisdiction of the Court ; and the de- ponent was therefore deprived of the assistance of the deposition of the said—Jew in showing cause against ;he rule served upon him. Ile was actuated by no hostile feeling against his said Royal Highness whatever. having never seen him personally or heard of his character; except as connected with the transactions of the year 18,0, in con- junction with Joseph Sails ; and having referred to various papers of the day, as welt as small publications far the last eight or nine years. and which had been continued in various influential joarnals and publications at intervals down to the present titne.which papers had never 'wen proceeded against, containing many dark insinuations on the character of the Royal Duke, tending to charge him with the crimes alluded to iu the publication in question. of which no notice was ever taken by the said Bova' Duke or his friends; the deponent considered that if any doubt remained on the transactions. they might be cleared up by such further explanations from such of the Jury, or im- partial witnesses, as were now living, and which satisfaction the deponent considered the public seemed to require."

[It was but a Jew trick in this Mr. Blank to run off and leave Mr. Phillips to satisfy the Duke.]

Mr. Wakefield further urged the evil consequences of prosecuting the libel—

He believed the real offender was in the background, and that the present publisher was a mere man of straw. Punishment upon him, therefore would

he no punishment of the real offender ; and the libellous matter, so far firm be-

ing extinguished or suppressed by this proceeding, would be copied into every newspaper in the country. Discussion would be excited instead of put down;

for, although his Royal Highness might stop the printing-presses of England, he could not stop either the tongues or the ears of Englishmen. The conse- quence of the Court entertaining this application would be, that every child in England—a whole generation that now knew nothing of the subject—would be informed that charges of a horrible nature had been made against the Royal Duke : but would they be told that they were foul and atrocious calumnies? No ; they could not be told so, for the charges had never been shown to be false, and such a proceeding as the present would have no tendency to prove their falsehood. His Royal Highness bad solemnly recorded his denial of the charges; and he could do no more as regarded that point by going to trial, though he might do himself an infinite deal of mischief. Under these circumstances, he thought his Royal Highness might with dignity stop here. His honour as a gentleman was unstained, and his reputation as a Prince stood as untarnished as it ever did. He repeated, that the present proceeding would not do that which alone could justify such a course on the part of his Royal Highness. The slander would not beextinguished, nor the slanderous matter destroyed. No- thing could do that but a refutation, and here no refutation could be attempted. Instead of suppressing, this proceeding would give circulation to the libel a thousand fold.

Sir Charles Wetherell contended e contra, that the facts to be esta- blished on the trial would suffice to put a stop for ever to these and similar calumnies circulated against his Royal Highness. It was for this reason that he had advised the application for the rule, and still advised the prosecution of the trial to its issue.

The rule was made absolute, of course ; the Court observing, that the inaccuracies into which Mr. Adams had fallen had nothing to do with his Royal Highness's case. From the means had recourse to for the sale of the work, we in- cline to look on this publication as no more than one of those desperate expedients to which a needy and unscrupulous publisher so frequently resorts ; and we sincerely regret that his Royal Highness has unwit- tingly contrived to advertise it so widely, and thus effectually to serve its owner's purpose. •

Da. GREY'S CASE.—Dr. Grey obtained yesterday leave to file a criminal information against Mr. Smart, the Vestry Clerk of St. ilotolph's (the Doctor's parish), for a libel contained in. a resolution of the Vestry in respect to the dispute between them and their pastor, about a sum of 6281., which the Vestry allege the Rectorretahis con- trary to an understood compact with the parishioners. The dispute has been the frequent subject of newspaper discussion. The resolution tuns thus— "Resolved, That after having read the report of-your Committee appointed at a former Vestry to communicate with the Honourable and Reverend Dr. Grey, respecting the re- tinwof a sum of money, amounting to 6281., inadvertently paid over to him, together edits the correspondence on the subject, this Vestry deem it incumbent on them to mark tileir sense of the reverend gentleman's conduct on this important transaction. Al- though the task be paiuful, the Vestry cannot on this occasion refrain from an expres- sion 'of their deep degret that a dignitary of the Church of England, possessing so large an income, forgetting the wise precept ' do as you would be done bv,' and unmindful of the just and honourable example fbllowed by his diocesan, should still insist on retain- ing money drawn from his necessitous flock, to which he has no equitable claim, and "Mich never ought to have conic into his possession."

It is curious, that in these applications Sir James Searlett is so uni- forndy fixed upon as counsel. There seems a sort of elective affinity between him and prosecutors of libel.

CLERICAL DUTY.—On the 12th January 1830, in consequence of a complaint of negligence preferred against the Honourable and Reverend W. Capel, Vicar of Watford, Hertfordshire, the Bishop of London issued a precept, under the act 57th George III. cap. 99, calling on him to appoint a curate. The precept was served on the 18th January and filed on the 19th. No attention was paid to it ; and on the 2d July, the Bishop nominated the Reverend Arthur Hubbard curiae of Wat- ford, with a salary of 75/. and 15/. for a house. On the 22d February, the half-year's salary not being paid, the Bishop issued a summons, calling on Mr. Capel to show cause for the delay; and on the hith May, he proceeded by monition and sequestration against the profits of the benefice. Watford has a population of 5,000, and only om• church. The case was tried at the Hertford Assizes, in an action against the two gentlemen who acted as sequestrators, for the recovery of 51. 1:3s.. received by them on account of Mr. Capel. A verdict was given, subject to the opinion of the higher court ; and under that reference it was pleaded before Baron Lyndhurst on Thursday. Mr. Turner, for Mr. Capel, read the several clauses of the act founded on by the Bishop of London ; and contended, that it gave no such powers as he had assumed. Mr. Platt, for the Bishop, contended that he had such power under the act, and had exercised it properly. Lord Lyndhurst seemed to think that the charge against Mr. Covet was a very indefinite one ; but said he would take time to look into the details, before giving judgment.

DICEY v. ALEXANDER.—The defendant in this plea was the person who claims the Earldom of Stirling ; the plaintiff, Sir Henry Digby. The defendant had pleaded in abatement, that he was not described by his proper title ; in proof of which, he set forth that he had twice voted in-the election for Scotch Representative Peers, and offered other cir- cumstances in proof that he was a Peer of Scotland. Sir Henry Digby demurred; and the case was heard in the Common Pleas on Wednes- day. The ground of the demurrer was twofold,—first, that the defend- ant did not directly and positively aver that he was a Peer, but only alleged that fact argumentatively and by way of inference ; second, that he did not aver that he was a Peer at the period of the issuing of the writ. The defendant's counsel contended, that the circumstances set forth in the plea of abatement sufficiently proved that the defendant was a Peer de facto ; but the Court were of a different opinien—Res- pondeut ouster.

ELECTION LIBEL.—Mr. Shepton, Mayor of Ilythe, obtained, on Wednesday, a rule of the Court of King's Bench to show cause against Thomas Shrewsbury, a printer of Hythe, for an alleged libel arising out of the late election. It appears that Mr. Shepton had made some assertions respecting a petition of Messrs. Kelly and Fraser, the un- successful candidates, and also on a petition presented to the House of Commons against the junction of Bythe and Folkstone under the Re- form Bill, which had given great offence to - his political opponent ; who replied by the alleged libel in question, which was in the shape of a postscript to a letter on the subject of the junction, in answer to one written by Mr. Shepton recommending it. The postscript run as follows : it is a little in Cambyses' vein— "Since writing, the above, I observe that Justice Shallow has beenat work; at least them is a letter bearing his signature. Perhaps it is too much to hope that the two gentlemen who are more particularly reflected upon will deign to notice it. The mind of every honourable man instinctively revolts at the idea of entering the lists with one of whom to be despised is no small praise, and so self-debased in the public esteem as to,plece himself beyond the chastisement of any man who respects himself. But the pretensions of the political hypocrite, the insidious machinations of the knave, and the execrable acts of the moral assassin, deserve to be exposed ; and truth and justice de- mand that the inhabitants of Folkstone should be put in possession of the facts of the cases 'that we should stand disabused with them.' The letter of Justice Shallow is a tissue of hypocrisy and flilsehood. At present I would only ask, is there among the re- quisitionists whom he has stigmatized and identified with apprentice-boys, pensioners, and-paupers, an individual who was over posted as a liar through Hythe and its vicinity, or 'who is regarded only in the light of a receiver of property likhed from the creditors of his fitther—Justice Shallow ? Truth and honour !!! The connexion is unnatural. The idea is monstrous. The association is infinitely ridiculous."

PRIVATE LIBEL.—On Wednesday, Mr. Adamson, of Ely Place, Holborn, obtained a rule against the Satirist newspaper, for an alleged libel contained in a letter which Mr. Adamson imputed to Mr. Burns, schoolmaster at Kennington, and in which the writer gave an account of an interview betWeen his wife and Mr. Adamson at the chambers of the latter, similar to that which was given by Mrs. Burns last week at Bow Street. Mr. Adamson applied for a rule against Mr. Bums also.; but the Court did not think the case sufficiently brought home to him.

dLinn LIBELS.—A conditional order for a criminal information has been obtained in the King's Bench, Dublin, against the proprietors of the Evening Mail, for an alleged libel on the Provost of Trinity Col- lege; and the Attorney-General has filed an ex-officio information the proprietors of the Comet for a libel on the clergymen of the ished Church.

GRETNA GREEN MARRIAGE.—Not many days ago, a Mr. Newton, who had formed an appointment with the young lady for that purpose, carried off from the Zoological Gardens Miss Rosa Matilda May Baxter, granddaughter to the late Alderman Crowder. The parties reached Gretna iu safety, and were married as people are married there. They afterwards proceeded on a visit to the Lakes; wfiete Miss mar or Mrs. Newton was pounced on by a Policeman and her friends; dragged from Mr. Newton's arms, and conveyed to London. The young lady was lodged in the mansion of Mr. Alderman Kelly; and Mr. Newton applied for a habeas corpus against the Alderman, calling' on him to deliver up his wife. The writ was made returnable oss Thursday; when there appeared,inot the blooming bride, but the At- torney-General, with an excuse.for her non-appearance. The learned gentleman stated to the Court, that Miss Baxter was of imbecile mind, and quite incapable of understanding the nature of the marriage vow; and in proof, he stated that she had declared since the ceremony, that she liked other persons better than the gentleman with whom she had gone through it (no uncommon proof of weakness of understanding); and he prayed in consequence, that the period of the return should be enlarged. The Court assented ; and at the same time appointed Doc- tors Macmichael and Monro to visit the young lady, and also the soli- citors of the two .parties. Sir Thomas Denman stated, that suits had been commenced in Chancery for the protection of the young lady's • fortune, and in Doctors' Commons for 'nullity of marriage.

RING v. RONBURGII.—This was a case of a surgeon's bill, and was heard also on a plea of demurrer. The objection on which the judg- ment of the Court turned, is a curious exemplification of the wretched trumpery which, tinder the name of forms of court, is so often allowed • to shoulder common sense aside.

Mr. Archbold, for the defendant, said, his first objection was one of a curious nature ; after setting forth other causes of action, the declaration went on to state, in effect, that the defendant was indebted to the plaintiff 201., for that " hereto ore, in the lifetime of the said Jan —, to wit, on the 2d of January 1832, Le defendant was indebted to the plaintiff in the sum of 201. for work and labour done to the said John —, as a surgeon, in endeavouring to • CUR, divers diseases, &c."

Mr. Baron Bolland—" In my paper it is written divers &ceases.' "

Mr. Archbold—" In that case it might be intelligible; but even then, it was something new to hear of a surgeon charging for killing his patients. These words were evidently a good ground fur saying the declaration was inconsistent. The ground of objection was, that after the declaration had chargedthe debts as due from the deceased in 1632, it said that M1831, after the death of the patient,. the defendant took out letters of administration."

The Court deemed the error of date fatal, and pronounced for the defendant accordingly.