25 JANUARY 1834, Page 3

Mr. Platt spoke at some length for the defendant, and

made some sarcastic remarks upon the .Earl of Durham's conduct in prosecuting him.

Sir John Campbell, for the Earl of Durham, said the affected re- tractation of the defendant was in fact an aggravation of his original offence. In this opinion the Court concurred, and the rule was made absolute.

On the same day, Sir John Campbell moved that the rules obtained against the Standard and John Bull should be discharged, without costs.

It was stated (he said) by Mr. Baldwin, that the paragraph had been copied into the Standard from another paper without his knowledge and that the first tune he heard of it was when the rule was moved for he also stated, that he believed the statement it contained to be wholly false, and expressed his deepest sorrow at its having appeared in his paper : he added, that he did not interfere in the management of the paper, and that he had instructed those who had the con- trol of it to abstain on all occasions from inserting any thing like attacks upon private character. With respect to the John Bull, the proprietor, Mr. Shackell, had also stated that he believed the paragraph to be utterly untrue, and ex- pressed his regret at its having been published by him. Under these circum- stances, he (the Solicitor-General), without the smallest hesitation, had agreed that the rule should be discharged.

Sir James Scarlett appeared for the defendants, and accepted the offer of the Solicitor-General that the rule should be discharged.— Rule discharged accordingly.

This account of Sir John Campbell's speech is taken Irons the Times. whose reporter affirms it to be correct, notwithstanding an ar- ticle in the Standard of Wednesday, in which every thing like submis- sion or apology, or an admission that the paragraph was libelous, is scouted in strong language. The chief editor of the Slumlord (speak.. ing in the first person singular) says, that he wrote both to Lord Dur- ham and his solicitors, offering himself tis the responsible party for pro- secution : Lord Durham slid not answer the editor's letter ; but his Lordship's solicitors informed him, that they could- only proceed against the party who was registered as the proprietor of the paper, and there- fore legally liable. The controversy between the Times and Standard respecting the correctness of the report, which has been continued during the week,

seems to be brought to a close this morning, by the publication in the

former journal of the affidavits of the proprietor and editor of the Standard. There is extremely little of apology, and nothing like sub-

mission or " sorrow," in these documents,—merely a disavowal of all

intent to misstate facts or make a personal or injurious attack on Lard Durham ; the paragraph having been transferred from the Morning Ps pets, into an obscure part of the Standard, by mere inadvertence; and the Durham Advertiser's subsequent contradiction having also been copied by the Standard, before any complaint was made. Upon the whole, we consider that Lord Durham, by voluntarily abandoning this prosecution, has virtually acknowledged his original error in raising it. This is manly and proper ; however his Lordship's legal advisers in ay have marred the grace of the concession by professional gaucherie. —En.) An action brought by Mr. Forrester, the actor, against Mr. Laporte, for a breach of contract, was tried in the Court of Common Pleas on Wednesday. Mr. Forrester, it appeared, had been engaged by Mr. Laporte to act at Covent Garden for three years, at a salary of 6/., SI., and 9/. per week, for the first, second, and third years ; but in consequence of the closing of the theatre, and the subsequent assignment of his lease by Mr. Laporte to Mr. Bunn, this contract had not been fulfilled by Mr. Laporte. It was stated that the defendant had wished to settle this affair out of Court, but that Mr. Forrester determined to bring it to trial. A verdict for the plaintiff was returned ; damages ISO/.

Mr. Serjeant Talfourd, on Thursday, showed cause against a rule for a new trial of a case, in which a labouring man of Carmarthen, named James, had obtained a verdict against Mr. Sanders, a Magistrate, for false imprisonment. The circumstances of the ease were these.

Mr. Thomas, an attorney of Carmarthen, had been committed to the Borough Gaol for an alleged breach of the peace, arising out of election proceedings ; and the Magistrates had refused to accept bail for him. An application was conse- quently made to the Court of King's Bench ; the result of which was that Mr. Thomas was ordered to be discharged on giving bail. On the day of his discharge, there was considerable excitement ; and the day was celebrated by firing of some guns, bonfires, &c. Mr. Sanders was sitting at the Lion Inn, near the Castle, on the morning in question, and went out upon hearing the firing. He met James coming from that direction, and immediately seized hint by the collar, saying, " You are one the rascals ;" and held him until a Police- constable came up ; who told the defendant that plaintiff was not one of the parties, whereupon the former let him go. For this James brought his action for false imprisonment. The case was tried at the last Assizes for the county of Carmarthen, before Mr. Justice llosanquet ; when the Jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff, damages la In the course of the last term, Mr. Serjeant Wilde obtained a rule to show cause why the verdict should not be set aside and a nonsuit entered, on the ground that the defendant was acting bond fide in his magisterial capacity ; and was therefore entitled to notice of action, so as to give him an opportunity of making tender of amends; and also entitled by act of Parliament to have the ease tried in the borough instead of the county, the cause of action having arisen within the jurisdiction of the former.

The Court, after hearing Mr. Serjeant Talfourd against the rule, and Mr. Serjeant Wilde in reply, expressed their opinion that the Jury had adjudicated upon the question as to whether or not the defendant acted bond fide in the discharge of his duty; and looking at all the circum- stances, particularly as there did not seem to have been any thing like a serious disturbance, so as to call for the defendant's interference, their Lordships could not say that the Jury had come to a wrong conclusion. The conclusion being, that the defendant had not acted under a reason- able sense of his duty as a Magistrate, the Court could not say that he was entitled to the protection afforded by the act of Parliament; and therefore they refused to set aside the verdict.

In the Court of Bankruptcy, yesterday, a petition was presented from the assignees of Mr. Dickenson, a wholesale warehouseman, who became bankrupt, n February last, complaining of the large amount ordered by Mr. Commissioner Holroyd to be paid to the official as- signee for his services. The amount of debts collected was 18,2501. ; the amount of the compensation awarded was 4881. 17s. 2d. or 4/. 15s. a day for the Commissioner's attention to this single business. The Court did not appear to think this compensation too large; and stated, that they had no power under the Act to alter an award of a Commis- sioner. It is supposed that the affair will rest here.