The National Register. — London, England, 1822-11-10 00:00:00

• is.• d 54 . I 1.0.11 TtITADAY NIGIIT'S GAZETTE. I:MVP MY SUPERSEDED. • . wrr, Charlotte Street, Rathboos Place, BANKIIUPTS. T. !Warm, Manchester, juniet. Solied:or, Mr. Makinson, 11E411, Tio.ple. E. Trickle, Nuneaton, %Varwickshire, mercer. Sole. Messrs. Constable and Co. Symitntra, Inn, Chancery lace. F. Harris, Lisld Street, Leicester Square, dealer. Sops. )lean. Tinibrell and Co. Nlacelestield Street, Soho. J. Admen, Nottingham, iron founder. cols. Messrs. 11'1= and Co. New Inn. owed, Quern Street, Fit:shin y, timber merchant. Solr . ulnidti i( T l cselih Iw' , ty 4. j cabinet maker. Sol. Mr. 141 J % ' iii,tim m e n rari . d Co. t, Boxer, Furnival's Inn. C.'Kennington, Ghurif rrd Briggs, Lincolnshire, draper. Soles Messrs. Eyre and Co. dray's Inn. I'. Cranage, Watling Street, Shropshire, grocer. Sol. Mr. Evans, Hatton Garden. H. Greetheed, Stepney Causeway, master mariner. Sol. Mr. Lang, Fenchurelt Street. J. Beattie. Portsea, victualler. Sol. Mr. 31inchin, Vernier:a Budelm,4s, Gray's Inn. P. Howse, Park Street, •Hanover Square, horse dealer. Sol. Mr. Bright, Took's Court, Chancery Lane. E. Stolworthy. Whitcchapel. cheesentonger. Sol. Mr. Hut chinson, Crown Court, Threadneedle street. DIN'IDENI/S. Nov. 2C,, W. Button, Biceseter, Oxtierdshire, Innkeeper -30, T. Bronthead, Shelkeid. grocer-26, F. filmier, Drury Lane, grocer-12, G. Brehm: son, Aleddenburgh Square. Lad 'l'. fakes, silocester Street, Queen Square, merchant. -12, C. Jen nings, Primes, grocer-26, S. Wells, Atiddleton Garden, Pen tonvide, fruiterer -12, C. Mackenzie, Caroline Street, Bedford /square, inereln.nt--26, L. W. %Veld:ems, Fleet Street, wine inerchant-36, J. IL:naming, Long Acre, linen draper-26, J. Farrell, Prospect Place, Newington Catorietey, merchant-26, IL Cullen and J. Pears. Cheapside, fictors-26, XV. Murray, Pall Mall Court, Pall Mall, tills 26, J. Alarshull, Gerrard Street, Sohn, meney scrivener-30, J. M. Fuller, Worthing, linen draper-26, G. Ilouglincr, I lercules Buildings Lambeth, carpenter- 27, J. Dikeen, St. Stephen's Hill, Buildings, cotton spinner -26. M. Wether,poon, Liverpool, merchant-27, S. Millard. (;100cester, linen draper-20, J. Ashworth, Man aester. grocer--26, .1. and J. Systs and \\ . Itediearn ' Almond. blv;, Yeresh'.ce, fancy manufacturers -27, S. D o dd, Newcastle upoo eryne. utercl.ant-1 2, R. 'l'abruin and J. Barron, ‘l'albroolz, Mar.,'" s!,-, .. . Icusemen-30, 'l'. Baylis, Curdworth War. v5.e.a....i.e.. :.:: s.- 30, .1. Taylor, Leominster, skinner-bee. 3, .1. I'at.t.... • .. .1 el, merchant. t....; 1 1 eICATES to be granted Nov. 26. W. Gould and F. Illreasley, Maiden Lane, Wood Street, bes4era- i:. Illiggin. Liverpool. mariner-11'. L. Bryan, Poultry, prinier—J.bnunwell, Leculenhall Street, hatter-J. Westerdsle. lis.c:;... ~,con Iltoll, grocer -J. Nash. xl - 1. Clandon, Surrey, farrier-:d. Sharp. Liverpool, master mariner-T. lirowning, sat. Eau Melling, Kedt, fanner. LAW INTELLIGENCE. COURT OF CHANCERY. TUESDAY, Nov. 5. The Lord Chancellor came intu Court at twenty minutes after ten o'clock. THE PoRTSSIOCTII CASE. The Attorney-General stated, in the mailer of the Earl of Portsmouth, be understood that a considerable trimmer of &Ili da*its in opposition to the petition had been tiled yesterday.— The Counsel for the petition Lad not yet seen them, and it ought be necessary to answer them. Ile had therefore to request that the hearing of the petition sho u ld he postponed to Tuesday nest. Mr. Horne said, he, as counsel for Lady Portsmouth, con ferred in the propriety of the bearing of the petition being post. ' , need ; but trusted, alter abet Lad passed, that lois 1,01111111 i i) would agree with hint that Thursday was too early a day fur that purpose. The Lord Chancellor observed, that he had read the affida vits of the physicians, and he foind nothing in them to pre cot the petiti , n firing heard on 'Thursday. Ile had also reed 311 the affida%its which load been filed yesterday, and lie found the rodeo be bad made bad teen connpletely frustrated by Mot visit, which never ought to have taken place. He wished to draw the attention of Mr. Horne to the affidavit of a Mr. Bing, tria ble to • communication made to hint by a lady. He would d the I :lined euunsd the affidavit, fur it contained highly iar.c. Iv o.: no - It.. itui.it—'• His your Lordship fixed Thursday fur the The :surd Cbanoellor—'• Certainly." 03LIGATION OF I.I.IAI•FSS. —et of the was occupied in discussion whether Mr. li,• : . iszue had take• a brief improtwrly in a cast against 5V1,711 !AI .e rec. IVC.II • retainer. It was introduced to the . u the pAition of Mr. 1.1.3 d in the mailer . . ..inkruptey of Alr. Glover, Mr. Llo),1 was a r a amount. Air. Llotd took the of of .11r. Mont izae in the matter, and gaev him a retainer. 3I r Mont.:gu , attended !2 meeting% of the Cmuintiesioners in the alma, iv'. of coun,rl fur Mr. I.lt, d. On thee 22i1 of February la3t dim wan a final rna mtuatiuu, On the 24th preceding their was • retainer given to Mr. Montague or the bankrupt, and on lb. 21st a brief and fee. Mr. Llo'd livin4 a debt to prove again,t the bankrupt's estate, bait nut nit, tided to give a brief to Mr. Montague fur the meeting of Commissioners, but ho comelained that 31r. Montague took a brief for the interest which lie had beru contesting, and !id received a remitter. The Lord Chancellor, after hating repealed all the circum stances of the cane, i.•ve it a• los clear upi. ion dint no blame fluid be attached to Mr. :Montague. It appeared that Mr. Idovd'• atiotirry did in fact know that a brief was given In Mr. Moutirgise, and did not himself mean to give hint a brief. Ben ne retainer had been in a ma , ti rof bmisrupley. By the way, the poor bankrupt stave a larger fee than the rich creditor.— It was sprite coneistent to bold the retainer for the bankrupt, and fur Lloyd. 111 t: of Mr. Lee, attorney fur the bankrupt, ought not to have prevented Mr. Reddish from emu. tnurticating with Mr. Montagu•. There could be no oblige:ion of confidence in such a transaction. Mr. Morila4ne, too, men timed to the commissioner' at once the painful eilnefion in *idea be stood, and olfered to 'tier the cams; lien. No blame whmever could be imputed. Mr. Illuntaoe said lie did not ask coots. THLIKSDAV, NOV. 7. THE rotaNmourN CAVSE. The Attorney Gent rd optited the case of the petitioner, Henry %Sinop Vellowe, itepittet of the LAO of l'or , ,ntouth. -- Th.: ptaytr of the petition Wit. that a comanibsi , n of enquiry 4.0,1 be iaatleti, to ascertain whether lob Lordship 14.0 s of bound wind, and rapt& of niattaAing hi., own pet son and pro• petty. This learned i,tattutan detailed at greet length the _ _ --.--- —.---- --- • k C - ... ie b. '.. .• s: t ok a 'ln:, arab . ~, 4, . ... . , A k . elik ire. D, • TILE NATIONAL REGISTER affidavits whiob were Sled to support of the prayer of the petition. Mr. Wetherell followed on the some side, until be was inter rupted by his Lordship at half pact two. The Lord Chancellor said, that this was a case which an urgently required the cattiest possible decision, that he would proceed wini it again toquorrow :corning. At the same time he wished to suggest that in a case of such great delicacy there ought to he no publication until the case should be fully heard,. which request is intruded to be complied with. FRIDAY, NDY. 8. This day Mr. Wetherell resumed his address, and after ex• patioing on the various ivies cuonected with the ca►e, eon eluded about tv - elve o'clock. Mr. Shad well a!so addressed the Crain. Before the Lord Chancellor left the Court, he stated, that he would inform the bar, either to-morrow, or on Monday, on Wll4l day lie would he prepared to give judgment in moms in which Le has bad for some time the papers. VICE CHANCELLOR'S COURT. MONDAY, NOV. 4. PRACTICE OF TUE COURT %ITN RESPECT TO INJUNCTIONS. CoURT AND Co. V. SIoUNTJOY AND Co. Mr. Dart moved for an injunction against the defendants under the following circumstances:—His Majesty is seized, in riAlit (lithe Crown, of the Forest of Dean, in Gloucestershire, wnich contains much iron and coal. Any person who may he desirous of working a mins? , she forest must make application to toe King's Steward of 45 ~t, who, if he think lit, will grant the person Mt antic. a of laud for that purpose._ In 1800 the plaintiffs 0bta.,...0 the grant of a piece of wound, ■nd the defendants were also put in possession of some contio ous land. The respective boundaries of each tract of land were accurately defined. The plaintiffs lately had reason to suspect that the defendants were encroaching upon their boundaries ; and on the 26th of Aug. they had the gteund dialled, when it appear.. %hilt the defendants had entered the boundaries of the planitilfs, and were about to sink a pit there in order to dis charge the water out of their own mine into that of their neigh bours', the effect of which would he the complete destruction of the works. The injunction he applied for was to restrain the defendanta from proceeding with the construction of the pit. The Vice Chancellor observed, that the Court was always unwilling to issue an injunction Oil an exparle application, unless the absolute necessity of the proceeding were evident. In the present case there certainly was prima facie evidence of ueces bity, but at the same time, if the learned counsel had reason to believe that no irreparable mischief would ensue Gum the delay necessary in order to give the defendants notice, tie Court would nut grant the injunction, but let the case stand over. Mr. Hart said he was jai/Mitt' by his clients that the most unfortunate results would ensue to them if the injuncti.m did out immediately issue. The 1 ice Chancellor said, that under these circumstances, and because the rule laid down by the Lord Chancellor was not generally known, he would grant the injunction in the present instance. t.ittNy v. Is icitots, BVTLERWORTN AND OThERS. Mr. Wilson, on the part of the plaintiff, applied for an in junction to restrain the defendants, Messrs. Nichols, Henry• Butterworth, and Sintpkin mud Marshall, from publishing and selling a work entitled " A Treatise no the practice of the Court for the relief of Insolvent Debtors." The facts of the ease, as stolid by the learned gentleman, were as follows the bear lb2l, the di (umlaut, Mr. Nichols, an attorney, wrote the work iu question, which the plaintiff, who is a bookseller iu Temple.lane, undertook to publish at his own cos'. 'I he number of the first edition was 3410 ; all of which. with the exception of IS copies, which went to Mr. Nichols, were to be soil Mr the benelit of the plaintiff. The copywrii.lit of the work was vested iu Mr. Nichols, but it was stipulated that he should not publish a second edition, until the whole of the first had been SOM. The plaintiff charged, that on the 31st of October hist, Mr. Nichols, in i iulotiun °lbis a.,4ree turnt, gave to Messrs. Butterworth, of Fleet-street, and Simp kill and Marshall, who published it, a work, the same in title, and essentially the same in substance, as that published by the plaintiff, who bad not bet disposed of bin first edition.— The plaintiff supported bis statement by affidal its.—lnJunction granted. COURT OF KING'S BENCII. ITEsDAY, NOV. 5. The Lord Chief Justice sat, according to appointment, this day, at Westminster, to try the following prosecutions : TIIE KING V. SIT" Esq. This was an indictment against the defendant for wilful and corrupt perjury, alleged to have been committed in au answer put in by the defendant to a bill in Chancery. The Solicitor-General stated, that the prosecutor carried on business in the Island of Martinique, under the line of Bockley, Farquharson, and Co. This prosecution arose nut of a bill tiled in Choncery, iu 1818, relatin4 to mercantile transactions carried on between the prosecutors and the defendant, is ho was a mer chant of great credit and respectability in the Island of St. Vincent. The original bill was amended, and an answer put in by the deft ndant ; on which thy assignments of perjury were laid in the pl CS* it indictment, viz.-111e bill stated, that in January, 1707, unit quest thereto, the defendant had car fain dealings and transactions of a commercial nature relating to West India reduce and bullion with the prosecutors.—The defendant deities in his answer having bad any such transactions, but was only connected with them as related to a mortgage on the Dunfermline estate in Scotland, the property of the defen dant. '1 he Lill stated, that the Attendant had received 21,2001. and 4,1801 The defendant, in his answer, admitted having re ceived front Farquharson, Buckley and Co. certain sums,, but denied his receipt of the particular sums mentioned. 'llse learned solicitor said he should he able to show that the defe\ dant had had extensive transactions with the house of the pro weldor, through the medinm of Luis Ferries, a partner in that house ; and that he, the defendant, stated that it would be a matter of tecipioral advantage to open a house in London the firm of Cheap and Lull . , which suggestion was adopted, and basin( as eartitd tin by that house to the amount of between 700,0401. and 800,0001. Now the specific fact to which the defendant had sworn, was Isis basing had no transac tion% with this house prior to 1797, and that only relating to the Duntrei line estate. Ile should, however, be able to show, that in May, 171/6, a contract was entered into be tween the parties forming a partnership enga4ement to a certain extent. The business to be chiefly conducted by Buckley and Co. in which it was stipulated that they were to receive twos fifths of the profits, and the defendant three-fillbs. The ques ion was, whether the defendant bad given his answer with his eyes open. anti a clear knowledge of the proCeeding. After haviug fur days together carefully examined with great ausiety the till and replication, he was bound to state, that be must confine himarlt to the Mat assignment of perjury, sod abandon hi rest. "iur:t Slk W. Smith, (rue the Six Clerks 011ie*, produeed the bill and replication. The Lord Chief Justice was of opinion, that the answers given by the defendant to the interrosaturiis on which perjury was assigned, were in themselves so irrelevant, that the defen dant nti,:ltt not have given hit answers so deliberately and con siderately, as if be had considered them to be of iutportance to the mutter at issue. It would be too much to say this was wilful perjury. Thu Solicitor-General said, from what had fallen from his Lordship, he should decline vent:tor; the mutter further. The Jury, under his Lordship's ititection, immediately pro nounced the defendant—Not Guilty. WIAINE9DA Y, NOV. 6. This being the (list day of Michaelmas Term, the Judges took their seats with the usual forma. The returns of the eon‘icts at the Penitentiary, ➢lilbank, Sheerness, Chatham, and Portsmouth, were read. TIioNIPSDN V. DENS ,, N AND ANOTHER. Mr. Smitten moved for a rule to show cause why judgment should not be entered fur the plaintiff, notwithstanding a verdict fur the defendant had been given in two pleas. The second and fourth pleas were fur the defendant, and the success of his motion would depend mil the opinion of the Court respecting the validity of those pleas. It was an action eJ trespass, breaking and entering the manor of the plaintiff, ■nd committing certain trespasses on the river Darrow. The first plea set forth that a work existed within the plaintill 'a manor at Breton, for the preservation of the river, and on the refusal of the plaintiff to repair the said work, the defendant entered to do the necessary relish a. The Mtn th plea was the same iu sub stymie, and Mr. Scurlett contended broth were bad. The Coott gratited a rule to chew cause, hut wished the question to be put itt the form of a special case. Mr. Blackhui II moved for a writ of Mandamus, commanding the Arch Deacon of the Arch Deaconry of Vo.k to swear in a person, named Mafia Hale, to the office of Chapel Warden. The applicetion was matte on affidavit, stating that the person had been elected to the office according to custom, and the Arch Deacon relused to swear lam to the office. The Court granted the writ. IS THE MATTER OF GEORGE JARED. Mr. Brougham moved fur the judgment of the Court on the defendant, declared guilty in the Alaster's report of having practised as an attorney in the name of one Thackery, an attor ney, contrary to the provisions of at 22d of George 11. Mr. Brougham, nu a former dav, brought the matter before the Court, and the Judges referred it to the Master, who decided chiefly on the following fact. It was slated that Thackery re ceived from Jaques • guinea a week for perm:salon to practise in his name. 'The charge was denied, hut a book was produced, in which ennies had been made of the money alleged to hat 43 been paid. Out the motion of the Master, Thackery wa• struck oil the Rolls of the Court, and Jaques in this instance appeared to receive punishment fur having eltereieed the right of au attorney. 'the affidavits imputed a series of acting by Jaques, in the name of Thackery, fur his own benefit. The defendant appeared in Court. Chief Justice—You are the person named Jaques I—Yes, my Lord. _ . . . . Are you aware of the application that is made against y ou ? Yrs. Then you are to allow cause why the Court should not com mit) )nu. The defendant wished to have a long written defence read. Chief Justice—llave you any affidavits? The defendant said lie had very lung affidavits, and be was led to believe the Court could not get through them that day lie complained that it bail been referred to the Master. It was an alleged offence arising out of a particular statute, and the Court ought to have decided it. Mr. lliougliato said, the defendant's Counsel, .111 r. Scarlett, consentA to go before the Master. Chief Justice—There is no doubt this Court, in the exatnina lion of a matter of fact, could proceed by reference to the Master, Mr. Ileougham then directed the attention of the Court to the facts proved before the Nast..r. The Lord Chief Justice observed, that the Court ought to Lave the book before them %Inch the Master had examined. Mr. Br:afghans then suggested that the matter might his brought on again upon motion when the book was in Court. The Lord eldefJuvtice—Let it stand over till to-morrow. Jaques WAS ordered to attend to-morrow. Mr. Justice Ilolrotd took his seat 111 is morning in the Hail Conrt, and a great nutulier of actions VitfC justified without op position. Re VOI:NG ats. r.l.Aciuronn. Mr. Watford addressed his Lordship at considerable length, and submitted that the bail could not be aliowed to justify, for the following reasons the first place there had been a change of attorneys since the commencemot of the action, ■nd in the next place it was a Lail by Habeas Corpus, and the writ ought to he annexed to the bail piece ; be submitted that the present attorney bad no rii,lot to the returns, his name not being affixed to the proceedings connected w ith the cause of /101011. his Lordship ordered the writ of Habeas Corpus to Ice fetched, in corder to ascertain whether he had that jurisdiction which Mr. Watford contended was not rested in him, because if lie had not that power he should be admistoing an unlawful oath. In the course of the morning the writ of Habeas Corpus was produced, when Mr. %% afford contended, that it was not pro cured by it . 2,ilinsate Rumor.. Mr. Justice flulroyd said, that although the learned gentle man (Mr. 1Vallord) doubted Lis power, he should exercise it on this ocartsion, and proceed to justification. Mr. Watford said, that if such was his Lordship's determi nation, lie should nut oppose the hail, as his objection rested on point.; ()florin which the Court had over-ruled. int: KING, ON THU, PROSICUIIoN OF RIR T. CHAMTNFTN. BAICT: V. NESSITER, GENT. This was an idictinent triod at the last Assizes fur Somerset, fur attempting to induce witnesses to swear fatsi.ly, in an action of defamation, on which the defendant had been found guilty. Mr. Scarlet this day moved for a rule to alm/ rause why Mare should not he a uew trial, or an went of judgment. In epinioti, the Court would hardly think it worth while to want a new trial. . . 7:lie Court granted a rule to chew cease. Mk Williams, the prosecutor's Counsel, then said, he was instruked to more for the judgment of the Court cn the defen dant. but alter what bad occurred he should consent to his byzhg bailed ou his own recognizance to appear when called on. TIIE KING •. SMITH. Mr. Brosgham moved fur leave to file a criminal informlinm agsinst John Smith, a person residing at Appleby, in the county of Westmoreland, for outrageous conduct to Mr. Thos. Briggs, Deputy !Thera and Judge of the County Court, also residing at Appleby. The application was made on the affidavit of 31r. Briggs, detailing the circumstances. Mr. Briggs was bolding a County Court at Ayploby, in August last. Ou that occasion ..-,.-