The Sun. — London, England, 1824-11-30 00:00:00

s !, ~~ ‘. :C.11)1! R 10,052. aIJ / eJ k'l.l Plerl 7 ,ll.l.MG-OFF ICE, Nov. 20, 1..4. COMMISSIONERS for- VICTUAL. 31.-IJESirs N'4l/Y, 4.e. do hereby give klte, that on Tuesday, the 7th December next, they will reatlyi o receive Tenders in wilink (sealed up), and treat the e l ip p l y. ( on sepitrate Contracts) of all such quantities VEGETABLES as may be demanded flit the ewe of His A'sjesty's Ships and Vessels in the Downs,. and-for the Ser ?lce of the Officers.and Nen attached to the 2d, 3d, 4th, sth, and Divisions if the Coast Blockade for" the prevention of Smuggling, in the Counties of Kent and Sussex, from the ist January to the 31st December, MS, ii clusi cc. The Conditions of Me Contract, may Le seen at this Office, Gr 6 y applying to Captain M'Culloch and yr. Trounscll, at h e'll, and to the Purses V the respective Divisions. l'ach Tender must specify the price in word: at 'length, a nd 4c deliVered before One o'ClOth on the day appointed, autimust be accompanied by a Letter, signed by two respon; .Persons, engaging to become bound with the Party tendering, in the Penal Sum of 1004 fur the due perform. ante of each Contract. The Person who' ►ashes the Tendert,' or some Person on his must 'attend to answer when called-for. AL WALLER CLIFTOY. I 'eRSUANT . to a DECREE of the HIGH - COURT of CHANCERY, made in a CAUSE, " MORTIMEIt v. WEST," kNY PERSON or PERSONS CLAIM ING to he FIEHLAT-LAW;:or CUSTOMARY HEIR, RICHARD moanmEn. the Elder, (formerly of Morti 9!tt•terrace, Kentish Town, in the County of Middlesex, Milkman, deceased), is, or are., by their Solicitor, forth with to come in and ESTABLISH such CLAIM or CLAIMS. lito re JOHN EDMUND DOWDEAWELL, .Esquire. one °' if the Masters of the High Court of Chancery, at his °Wee, !, , t Southampt on B u ildi ngs , Ch a ncery -lane, London, or in d efault M etro ( such Claimant or Cl a i mants w ill b e exc l u d e d the benefit of the said Decree. • This Day is published, price 2s. ARPSIEW of the WAREHOUSING SYS. fr , EM, as connected with the 4' or t of London, "I 4 p a liamentary Reports and Official Documents. taken publish e d b HENRY LONGLANDS, Esq. by John Richardson, Royal Exchange: Rod ,;1111 and Martin, Bond-street; and Wheatley and Atilard, Strand. In the N Press, an d will be published the latter end of this Week, ANSWEII to Mr. LONGLAND'i PAMPHLET on the WAREHOUSING 513TE31., PUblicuWbOiitintpre/ato est preferendurn. 'Published by J. M. Richardson, 23, Cornbill. , CONCLUSION OF THE NAPOLEON MEMOIRS. On Saturday next will be published, -1 Fourth and Last Livraison s In Svo. with Two Vac-Si miles, price 10. French 191. NAPO 14 I?, ON 'S HISTORICAL Al E. T i ,„ MOMS. Dictisted at St. Helena, to ts MON ;""LON, GOURGAUD, acc., and published (row the Ori t"!al Manuseripti Corrected by HIMSELF. n tinted for enry Colburn, 8, New Burlingon- Bossange H and Co. Great Marlborough-stre t ct. street; THE NEW MONTHLY MAGAZINE, for December 1, w il l contain, besides the usual varieties ti ta n t„ i)a s pce i resnLe , C r i t i cism , Bi ogra ph y , &c. the following On ". I. A Letter to George Colm a n Fig the deputy Licenser. — Li. Ptoposalfor the Establishme n t of * a Society P for the ront tition of Gentility.--I 11. Specimens •of the . German Ballad, N. G -.4 4. 1; The Fisher, from oethe;V. British Galleries of 4 nl No. 14. The British Museum, part 2,—V. Fragment of I Projected Ode...—Vl. Crescembini and the Areadi.—Vll. The IVassailers.--VIII. Specimens of a Patent Pocket Dic-• aryi . No. The Spectre • Unmasked, a Talc.—X. • tee Canadian Emigrant, No. I.—XI. Letters from the East, M Mount Sinai.—Xll. Lines on the capture of the. Es. 4 4raldi by Lord Cochrane.—Xlll. Love's Labour Lost.— , XIV. Rosedale and its Tenants.—XV. Characteristic Epis tle'. No. 4.—XVI. The Crusader's Return.XVll. Auto . b Oraphy of Theobald Wolfe Tone, conclu — ded.—XVlll. ntine Canto 2.—XIX. On Fam e.—XX. The Banded Bw ."'XXI. Homer on the Banks of the Scamander, &c. &c. pointed for Henry Colburn, 8, New Burlington-street, of 72,rn may be had complete Sets, from the commencement, in wgi. In Numbers or Volumes. This day was published, price ss. UNIV}ASAI. REVIEW, No. V. ; containing—l. Medwin - and Dallas on Lord Byron, e uq &e.--11. Talc s of a Traveller—lll. The French "sPsIRn in Russia—lV. Bell's and Sir A. Cooper's Contro- IVIY - -v. Coxe's Burmhan Empire—Vl. • Memoirs of Henry 1 4 , °f France—V 11. Devil's Eli xir—V II I. Venice—lX. 110. pi t i ti4 Sermons—X. Memoirs of Mrs. Sheridan—Xl. Helon's Xif i nit!ge to Jerusalem—Xll. Life of Dr. E. D. Clarke— b; L l• Iviffin's Tasso—XlV. Richerand's Physiology—XV. l e t e 'l Noontide Leisure—The Inheritance—The Human kr~ we&c. &c. with a Catalogue Raisonne of Foreign Li. mu t , Printed for (ho. B. Whitaker, Ave-Marla.lane. HE LON.DON MAGAZINE for Decem ber, 11124, Price. 2s. rid., contains:-1. On the Fa.en—a -4°44 of Constantinople -2. Review : Errors of Ecitas_t oT 1M Old Oak-4. The Canadas Emigration-s_. S e ? nn to7.--ll• The Land of Logres-7. Original Letter of . Ev _ other Thomas Brown-8. On De Beranger, De la Martine, and Poets of the Modern French School—. 9. In my' Bower so 1 7 Bri m: poern_lo. F orest Le gen d s :. Bra d gate P ar k i n the. aiivs"tury-11. Fair Annie of L oc h ro y an . By Cun of of Memoir of Henry Kirke %Vbite-13. Exhibipon sti c k tench School of P a intin g -14. Th e L ot t Walking- Lster --13 ' Notes from the Pocket-book of a late Opium SIB, Palsitication of the Hi s tory of England, by Hume, .tc, 1,„ 1 ,Plie Parisian A r i s t ocr acy -17. Theatricals of the Day, Itiod " Lac Y-18. Report of Music-19. The Drama: Covent Chi t IVoman n e ve r V ext . D rury -l ane : D er F re i sc h utz ; ; I ten in th e W ood-20. View of Public Affairs, Commerce, hirfir culture, `fie. ---21. Retrospect of the Commerce of Great p ti tin for the last six months-22. Literary Intelligence, *.c. 1 1 , 'into for Taylor and Ilessey, 93, Fleet -street, and 13; "6- ' 1 • 11 11 I int, a -ma . This day was published; price 3s. Bd., No. X IRUCKINGIIAM'S II. of ORIENTAL HE RALD AND COLONIAt REVIEW. I. t CONTAINING, 411 Sa 011 the Distinguishing Characteristic& of the prin. tr,-Qoternments of Asia. No. 9.. Government of the. Imams 14,.ta I ndependence of the Indian Bar, as maintained by the Ita t i!!l St Cnicutta—l 11. On th e Affinity of the Sanscrit, the skirt la nguage of Indi a , to t h e G ree k, the Latin, and other AlkAtl„t La nguage* of Europe—lV: The Evils of an Unpaid 4**''' t racy and the B ene fi ts o f P u blicity,--V. Lady Hester " In i Syria--VI. Ed ucat i on o f Y out h f or C i vil Off i ces ' l4 al ' 3 --VII.. Governor Elphinstone. and 'Governor- *, lAdamt—Vlll. On the Literary Chri s t mas Presents of, tri t ,‘, 4 , 'with a notice of:their comparative merits--IX. Con. s ti „!Ll O pinions of L or d H ast i ngs an d S i r Charles Metcalf, en;ltight. of Interference with Native Indian Governments I,4:4. l) ; s nies of Governor. General's Agents--Xl. Interest CZ 't,n.glantl on the subject of the,lndian Press--XII. On Qh„, i ,Na ru the Asiatic Journal—Xll I. 'Thoughts of Cahn ly 4I ter on the . East. India. comp tt oy,'s Charter.— Xl %'. poetry_ the latest' Indian, Colonial, and '',tuopean P u b i rcel B t.c..Bce, , , ishtd Monthly by J. M. RICUARDSON, 23, Cornhill ; TglY:Wta. B larkwood, - Edinburgh ; J. Cumming, Dublin ; ta, hud be had oC Booksellers in the United Kingdom. Velez* is nvw complete, and ready for delivery. MEDICAL, CLE[U LIFE ASSURANCE Great Russell-street, I3loomsbt PRESIDENT-...The VI Ce-P The . Bishop of Bath and Wells Lord Viscount Garlics Lord Vis'count Clive Lord Viscount Stopford HONORARY DTRE The Venerable the DlitEC CAL, and GENERAL SOCIETY.-offize, No. 33, ury. Marquis of Huntley. ESIDENTS. The Dein of Canterbury Sir 11. Milford, Bart. F.R.S. 1:. B. Wilbraham, Esq. 31.1'. Thomas Wilson, Esq. .111. P. :CTOIL Olt. VISITOR. Archdeacon of London. TORs. Clement Hue, M.E. Sir.Williatu Kay, Bart. James Kibblewhite, Esq. 'A.,A. Mieville, Esq. George I'inckard, M.D. Sir George Pocock Ashby Smith, 31. D. George Birkbeck, M.D. Walter Buyd, Esq. M.P. Robert thee, 111.D.T.R.5. A. H. Chambers, Esq. Arthur Chichester, Esq. Sir A. Cooper, Bart. F.R.S. Henry Earle, Esq. F,R.S. Joseph H. Green, Esq. THUS 'Sir E. Honte, Bart. V.P.R.S. TEES. J. Alarryst, Esq. A. A. ;‘lieville, Esq. .Tatnes ICibblewhite, Esq. John Gladstone, Esq. M.P. Rev. Dr. Shepherd Rev. Dr. Yates AuDiTORS—B. C. BalJwin, Esq. ; John Stevenson, Esq. ; 'Joseph Seely, Esq. BANKERS—Sir, W. Kay, Bart. ; Price, Marryat, and Cole . . • , • • man,No. 1, Mansion House-street. SoLicuron,s--John Muller, Esq. Parliament-street; W. Gill more Bolton, Esq, Austin Friars. All Persons assured for the whole term'of life will enjoy a liberal share of the general profits, their proportions being added to the'actual sums assured, atttleft to accumulate, for the benefit of their successors, applied in diminution of the annual payments of preinium, at their option. • • Persons wishing to secure a certain amount to be.paid at their decease, either by depoiiting a single sum, or by paying an annual premium for three, five, seven, or any certain num ber of years, instead of continuing the payments for thC whole term of life, will .be allowed to area ,the assurance ac cordingly. The following are among the distinguishing , features'of thiti Institution 1. A diminished Rate of Assurance, especially-on . the younger Lives, calculated upon the improved state of public health and Increased duration of human life, 2. Extending the advantai;es •of Life. Assurances to persons subject to such deviations., front the common standard of health as tin not essentially tend to shorien lifo,•oalettlating the pre mium in a just ratio, with the amount of hazard, instead of ex cluding those afflicted with gout, asthma, butt the other dis eases usually specified. . . • - . • . 4. Purchasing the interest 'or the assuredwhenever circum stances may occur to render it expedient. The Society will grant annuities, endowments for children, ; and will purchase annuities, reversions, and other con tingent interests. • . •T. PINK.kAD, Resident Secretary. LAW INTELLIGENCE, COURT OF CHANCERY, Nov. 29.. Last,thry of Term. ). IN Mt GlLllfileT, A lIANKRUPT.. The Bankrupt prayed to bet brought up on habeas corpus and discharged, having been committed for not answering in a satis factory manner before the Confinissioners. The reason •given by the prisoner fpr nut replying was, that a direct answer might criminate hint.--{The transactions in question were, dealing or jobbing in stocks). , • The Lotto C.:tura:Et.Lott said, that Sir James Mansfield, a very able JUdges • had discharged a. bankrapt prisoner from the ennunilnlenl of the Commissioners on his own allegation, that answering would criminate him. , his Lordship would by no means go that length. lie would first of all require the petitioner to submit himself to another examination, and give some better explanation. • It' the Commissioners stj)i.#hould - think his answers unsatisfactory, the petitioner Was not with out hip remedy, by . application to any of time 12 judges, who Would discharge hint If there were only the opinion of that one Judge out of the 12 in t'avour,of his discharge. riLAKIZmoitE v. oL.AMOROANSIIIIIII CANAL COMPANY. The Lout) CHANcit t.r.o It expressed hid doubts . on the effect of the alleged contempt and disobedience in this case on Satur day ; but made use of the opportunity to admonish the good people of Wales, Magistrates inclusive, not •to be quite: so ready in their appeals to clUb-law, as the transactions which had been referred to in this case would indicate. His Lord ship, agreeably to his promise on Saturday, determined upon the cases of tiriffiths, Mouth . , Crawshaw, and finest, mein hers of the committee, whose COOnnitmela hail been prayed, that there were no grounds for imprisoning them. Upon the fate of Reece, the fifth of the defendants, his ;Lordship still)iesi tated, but undertook to give his decision on Thlrsday morning. }HELLS V; nENELLI.—oPtaA-nousecAsF.s• Much preliminary conversation took place upon the order of this petition, the urgency of which, in regard •to the approach of the season, was strongly pressed on the one side, while, from some neglect of the solicitors on the other, which the Lord Chancellor severely reprobated, the Counsel were not fully instructed. It was arranged at last that the petition should be opened. Mr. HART stated the nature of the Motion, which was, that Manager and receiver should be appointed to direct the prb. perty and apply the receipts, and that the plaintiff might be at liberty to offer his services for the management to the Master, to do it without feeor reward, and that Mr. Allen might be restor ed as receiver. The motion arosetitit of a contract for renting the Theatre now in question before the Court, by the plaintiff's bill for speci fi c perfermance, a n d b y caws bill of defendant pitying to be released from a fraudulent baroin. .The secti rities of the defendant (who i;sas described as a min of straw) for the fulfilment of this contract, were the . norquis of Ilert ford, Earl Glen * alp lion .. F. Rouse, Mr. Chipp en d a l e , an d Mr. Vallop. The objection to the .fultilment of the contract was, that the plaintiff, who was to haire 10,0001 front the de fendant for giving up the Theatre to him, with the . ineuni.: brances of the current season,-the property to, be taken for better or worse by the defendant—had neglected to inform him of debts amounting to between 8,000/. and 10,000/., 'which were due upon it at the time. The Court would see, that however that contract might be eventually disposed of, it was for the interest of all parties that the most effectual preparations should be made to make the season; which was now rapidly approaching, available for the benefit of the property. --- ~...... ~ e •-0 ~,,,.., , , ~,-, „..., ~....... ,: • 4 _, ~, p -- ...,-, ~.--... .4. ....... ~ , .i. . . ~...;•'. .:.;i...„ - .. t; ~,,,t . „..6 L , ••••%„r ~• •.-. -- - . - \''ii 4 /ii-. • -... , . , . , - • ....-: ,. /544);:i'lic"` ' 1 •.- 1 11 --- - 93 A ' .4 , 1 12:9Z• 77 in' vli• ....,',,, ',,,,• Si: IT N • r,.. 44 1.,..,.. :, .; \,., -` A , 1 , 4 , 4 , //42 - (Zeth 0/6 ,pe; TUESDAY EVENING, NOVEMBER 30, 1824. Plucr, SPVETIPtNCX. CI AAIHEHS V• WATERS. Mr. HART applied to the Court for leave to allow the de fendant, who was found in contempt for want of answer, toap. pear and plead instead of having the bill taken against him pep corticsio,ai had been prayed in this and another matter of the same kind now pending. • Mr. StionEg said that there never was such a motion as this made -before. Mr. Waters had chosen ,to withdraw himself from England to reside at. Calais. lie had no objection what. ever to filing bills and uslng all thenwans which the jurisdiction' afforded for annoying others, but for Id months had refused all obedience to the process of the Court when issued against him. self. He had not only delayed answering the bill, but had, after repeated warnings, been declared hi contempt.' 'Attach. ment hail issued, which was returned with pniclamation ; and after all these proceedings to compel him to plead, he very coolly applied to be allowed to conic in and otter his left, answer of demurrer to the bill; as if none orthii had takenldace. Mr. HART contended that this was according to the practice of the Court, whose pnicess for contempt m a ighlditi;yilg a ra lray i s avoided, by the defendant coining in to'answer, the costs of his contempt., And though he couldnot cite particular cases in whielt the application had succeeded, there were some in the books in which the' Court:had' entertained the argument fur absolving. contempt, even where the order: had issued upon contempt. The Loan eIIANCELinn - apprehended that there must be some general rule to apply to these cases ; otherwise a plaintiff might be put off from his answer for la months - ; and the de.. fendani, atter remaining abrolid,, perhaps going;, abroad .with the manifest intention to'eoitimit' contempt, woul d, by putting in his answer, stand just as well if he bad answered at - first. He ,therefore directed that this matter should stand peremptorily for Thuraday morning,,and in the mean tim M harte r. was directed to look into the cases,' and inform the Court what was the general rule observed' by it codefendants so circumstanced. , • VICE-CHANCELLOW,S,VPVRT, Nov.. 29 . statifori.a.4v,o o . :.!,•,,TRESLOvE mowed for a inftinction to restrain the de..' feel •: , t from exporting three gutv.hirrels, of a particular tie- Nevi; ?ion, which had igTn entered at the Custom.hUuSe, and. were to he shijsped for Dantsic. The motion was made upon an affidavit of the plantiff, which stated that he was the inyen- • tor of an improved gun -barrel, a n d th at th e King's patent had been granted to him for that intention, by which the sole ma nufitcture of all such barrels was secured to him. The affida vit further charged, that the defendant had imitated the barrels, and had manufactured several, and had fratylulently placed Upon them a forged copy of the marl; by which 'Mr. Manton dis tinguished his own guns. Among others, the plaintiff had dis covered that there was at this time a case lying at the Custom. house, containing three of such imitated barrels, each of them bearing a forged copy of his own mark, and purporting to be of his manufacture, which csso was consigned by the defendant to certain persons at Dantsfe. The injunction of the Court was therefore prayed to restrain the exportation of those barrels, and to prevent the defendant from making any others in imitation of Mr: Manton 's patent. The VreE.CtlascEt.f.ou said, the injunction might be . taken. The practice of the defendant was evidently a gross fraud on Mr. Manton, and an infringement of his patent. Mr. TRESLOVE said, the injunctiut prayed also that the de fendant might be restrained front obtaining possession of the barrels at the Custom-house. - • The l'icE-CuAlv'err.r.on thought this should be the object of a separate motion, and that notice should be given of it ; all the other parts of the injunction tk Court would grant ex. parts. COURT OF KINO'S BEnn, Nov. Qa. IN TILE MATTEH OF HtIINETT. fir. SCAHLETT was desirous of Addressing the Court rela tive to a report which had obtained eiretdation through all the newspapmt,..that Airs {Chitty had obtained a Habeas Corpus to bring tee the body of Sarah Barnett. Tl is lady was confined in the'orril . of Su Wolk, by a sentence of the Ecclesiastical Court, for contumacy.,.' She was alleged to be a :mimic, and there was now an application for a writ of lunacy against her, which was not yet disposed of by. the laird Chin :Mar. The report had got into the papers in a manner calculated to asperse unjustly the character of the husband of this lady. Mr. Justice BAYLEY said, that the nution lead been made before him. He certainly understood it to be a rule to show cause why a writ of habeas Corpus shoultl not be granted; he did not understand if to leave been appliel for upon volumi nous affidavits. It wax granted upon tiled:feet of the specifi cation. - It should therefitre be confined to tie specification. Mr. Scattuu - rr said, it! , was drawn up is if it were doubt. ful whether the husband could be found, yet it was well known that where he resided the rule was served on him last Friday. The Lofty Cum' JUSTICE said, he did not know how the Court could interfere. The ease was before the Ecclesiastical Court, anti this Court had no jurisdiction in it. Mr. CHITTY hoped that the justice anti generosity of th e Court would perm it. him to state the reasons which, induced him to adopt the course he pursued. The lady had been three years gaol • she had 'them undergone great privations and suffer hie's; :he was said to be a lunatic, but her own affidavit, on which he moved, WWI in her own hand-writing. And at th e same time that he pointed out the defect in the specification, he 'also accompanied it with those affidavits, which, in the exercise otthe discretion. that belongs to a gentleman of the bar, he 'thought he had a right to do, as the case was not an ordinary one; : The voluminousness of the affidavits w. 5.4, occasioned by supposing it necessary to support the affidavits of this Coot by affidavits from-the Court of Chancery. In proceeding in 'this case, he was fortified by the precedent of the case of the King v. Maybee. 'lie had there obtained a similar rule under simi lar circumstances, anti succeeded in getting it 'referred to one tirthe Judges in chambers. He trusted that this cast: might, in .like manner, be referred to one of their Lordships. The Lour) CHIEF JUSTICE said, that as he understood the rule,its effect would be to reverse the sentence of the Ecclesias tical Court. • Alt. (:tarry isinred the Court that it wintld not. The Lott 4 GK tkt oVSTICE said that at all events the rule must be enlargrd ;Act the rule be enlarged for a week, and let the miter be argued before any of the Learned Judges at chambers ; if a reason for farther eularging should appear neeessary. to the' Leannal *fudge, he can enlae3a it for *podia week. . _ 11r.Scantryr . said.ti tit if the Court enlarged it, he would prefer it to be enlarged for a fortnight. Mr; CHITTY suggested that a week was sufficient: The lady, it should berecellected, had already been for three years and is half in prison. The Loup CHIEF JUSTICE desired that.the rule should stand as he proposed it in the first instance; he would leave it to the discretion of the Learned Judge to give further delay or not, as he should find it expedient. Rule enlarged for a week, and cause to be shewnin Cham bers. • THE KING P. JOSIAH TAYLOR. • This, it will be recollected, was an indictment against the defendant for keeping a common gaming -hou se to which there watt a plea of antrsfais acquit. Th e prosecutor demurred to the plea as insufficient in law ; and, upon argument. it was holden bad. The question then arose whether the judgment ought to be final, that the defendant be convicted of the offence, or merely that he answer over to the matter of the charge. This question was argued on a former day, and the Court took time to consider of their judgment. The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE now delivered the judgment of the Court. In this case, the prayer of the demurrer was merely that the party should answer; but still it was the &trot' the Court, notwithstanding the prayer, to give judgment accord ing to law . This was decided in "Le Br e t an d Le Britton," 4 East, 403, and " The King v. Shakespeare," 10 East, 110, and could not be doubted. In civil cases, there was a well recognized distinction between ideas in abatement and pleas in bar. On demurrer to the first, the judgment was that the party should answer over; but on the latter it was final. In civil cases, also, when issue was joined even on a plea in abate. hunt, and that plea was found against the defendant, judg. ment also was final, anti the Jury who tried the issue must assess the damages in the cause. On indictments for felony, the rule was unquestionably otherwise. On these, it, was holden that not only after demurrer, but after verdict on a plea in bar, the judgment was merely that the defendant should answer to the charge ; and the reason given by Lord Hale and all others fin this distinction was, that it was made in favour of life. A plea of autrefbis acquit was not a plea in abatement, but a plea in bar; and therefore the question was, whether, it was to .he assimilated to cases of felony, or to . civil actions:— Now, in felonies, there was no distinction between pleas which confessed, and those which denied the matter of the charge; in both cases, the prisoner might answer over; and in both, the reason given was in favour of life." At common law, there was perhaps no felony, except petty larceny, for which judg ment of death might not be given there was no "Se of I °We' meanor in which such jadmnemit could be given ; and therefore .the reason of the nile, alwaysgiven as applicable to the former, would not apply to the latter. As, therefore, the reason of the rule did hot extend to misdemeanours ; as the opinion of Lord Raymond was, that the rule did not extend to than; and as. the case of the Duke of Devonshire, which alone could be cited for the defendant, - was . not properly the case of a , plea in bar, the Court thought that time rule applicabl e t o felonies did not include misdemeanor's; and consequently that the rule must be final. Judgment that the defendant be convicted of th e p rem i ses I n the indictment was theTefore given. THE EINE} v. GEOHGE HM ll llllOl4', Ent, Esq., to show cause why an inform at i on, i n This was a . yule obtained - by 31r. Wita.t.sms, calling on George Harrison, the nature of a quo warrant . ° should not be tiled against him us illegally exercising the functions of 3 14y0r of Chester. Th e 'objkction to Alt. fhnison was, that he was elected when the majority of the aldermen . were :not present ; And t h e goegt i on was, whether, under the terms of the charter, the election should be by &majority Atf existing• aldermon..or aunajority uP such aldermen as happened to be present on the occ as i on. Mr. scintiTT. now showed cause, . and contended that the. hater construction was right. • The Couto', however, thought the point too nice to be de termined on motion, anti made the rule absolute, that it might be aitbjectrxl to limber inquiry. LEGALITY 'OF POIJICE REPORTS. , DUNCAN. V. THWAITZS. The I,oIinCIIIEF./ITSTICk. l i Pltti the jud g t nent o f the C our t on this ease.- lie prefaced the judgment b.. observing that the y mit! had . been'argiled before the Judges at the sitting s t o oeto and that. the judgme.nt! must be Cons id ered as procea ti ng from himself and his brothers Bayley and tfolroyd, as his bro. tiler Little&lulled • eltstainetl'from taking a pm in the delibe ration, becaus e he ball been culicerned when at the bar for one of• the partici In the cause. De then .proteeded to state the pleadings which were brought under the, con s id erat i o n of the Caurt on denturier.• The declaration contained a great num ber of COl/1114 ; settiog uti t two alleged. lib t i r a , a ppearing in the - McVay Herald of the 12th and lt3th of July, but divi- sible into two classes—one class stating, by way of induce ment, certain proceedings before Mr. Halls, a police-magi trace, and the other class merely. p stating the libels, - and containing no mention of such proceetim . In giving, judgment, however, it would be necessary Only to advert particularly to the first count, which applied to the firstlibel ; and to the thirteenth count, which set forth the second paragraph. The first count, after the usual inducements of good character, and of inno cence of the particular charge, stated, that on the 11th of July, the plaintiff was brought before Mr. Halls, a police-magistrate, on a charge of indecently assaulting Ann Chandler; that se veral witnesses were examined, of whom Ann Chandler was one; that the case was adjourned to a farther hearing ; and that, befsire any bill of indictment was preferred, or any trial had, and while the charge remained wholly undecided, the . defendant, intending to pervert the -course of justice, and to injure and prejudice the plaintitf, maliciously published the first of the alleged libels. That paragraph stated that the plain tiff was, the day before, examined on a charge of indecently assaulting a female child; that the evidence against hint con tained disgusting indecencies which could not be detailed; but that the defendant denied the charge, and therewere some tri fling inconsistencies in the testimony of the children. l'he thirteenth count stated an adjourned examination, when the plaintiff was held to bail; and then set forth a second article, which consisted of a statement that the plaintiff had been again examined—that no further evidence was adduced, and that he was, in the result, held to bail to answer the charge. The the. fondant pleaded the general issue ; several pleas alleging that the plaintiff did commit the assault alluded to, on which issues were joined ; and also several other special pleas, to which the plaintiff demurred, and the sufficiency of which was the ques, tints before the Court. The third plea very shortly stateti— • . that the several flatters and things contained in the said alleged libels were and are true." This plea Was *clearly bad in law ; it was uncertain whether it meant that the proceedings at the police-office were truly reported, or that the charge which was the ,subject of these proceedings was well founded : if it meant the last, it was insufficient according to several decisions, for not specifying time and place; if the first, it clime within the objection to the fourth plea. The fourth plea, applied to the whole declaration, alleged in general terms that the suppoaed libels were no oth er th an t rue , f a i r , an d correct reports o f pro ceedings which took place in open Court, before a Alaeistrate.— Now, as there were many counts of the declaration which did not set forth any proceedings, this plea, as applicable to them, ought at least to have specified. the proceedings to which it referred: as to these counts, therefore, it was bad ; anti being bad in part, was, according to the uniform rule of law, bad in the whole. The fifth plea, applicable only to the first article, set forth that a charge was made against the plaintiff; that it was heard in open Court; and then, setting forth at length the depositionsofAnne Cliandter,Anne Duncan, and Louis Dessaubeau, surgeon, aver red that the article wan a fair, just, and impartial account ofthe preceedings. Now it was manifest on the face of this plea, that the article was not a fair, just, and impartial account of the proceedings ; because it made no mention of the deposi tion of the surgeon, who had distinctly stated that the prin cipal witness, on being asked by him, denied the main fact On which th e accusat io n reste d ;—that plea, therefOre, was bad. The sixth plea applied only to the second article, and simply alleged that the plaintiff was examined again ; that no fur thee evidence. was .adduced, but th a t he wits held to bail ; and as this paragraph contained no remark on the evidence, and nothing more than this statement of proceedings, the Court held this plea good, and that judgment upon it must be given for the defendant. The seventh plea resembled the fifth, ex cept that it omitted one allegation in the first article, and was. bad for the same cause. The eighth plea, like the sixth, ap plied only to the second a r t i c l e , and being he same in substance also, was valid. But now, said the Lord Cluef Justice, I will advert to the world plea, on which in argument the greatest stresS was properly laid. That Altai states that the plaintiff' did undergo a long examination at the police-office, upon a charge of indecently assaulting a female child named Antrehandler ; that the evidence did disclose a tissue of disgusting indecencies:- that the plaintiff' denied the charge ; that he was hound over to attend on a futUre day ; and that on thatility the further proceed- ings took place, which are set forth in the second article. This plea then alleges that the defeotiantpublished the article as and for, what in fact they were, just, true, and correct reports of pro ceedings which took place openly in the police-oflice, as public news, and not from any malicious or unworthy motive whatsoever. This plea is founded on a supposition. that it is lawful for the conductor of a newspaper to publish in his journal a report of examinations at a police-office, taken with a view to further in quiry, and where the charge is not finally decided ; but the party accused is committed or held to bail—with these restric tions only, that the proceedings should be open, and that the report is accurate, just, and fair; and hence it is inferred, that however such report may affect an individual, he can sustain no action against the publisher. The case on this point was argued before .ue.with great learning: and all 'the authorities which could be brought to bear upon it, were presented to our con sideration: It would be a waste of the time of the Court to enter into a minute examination of those authorities; it is sufficient to say, that there is not one which will support the position on which this plea is founded. The case which ap proaches it most nearly is that of " Currie v. Walter," the de claim' of which at Niel Prins is reported in 5 Espinasse's Reports, and the 'final determination of which is to be found in 1 Bosanquet and Puller, 533. That case is undetubtedly of high authority in itself, and derives additional weight front the sanction of 31r. Justice Lawrence ; but it has been doubted by subsequent Judges. There are, however, distinctions between that case and the present to which It is proper to allude. 'The article complained of in that case was a report of a proceed ing in this Court, the doors of which were always open, and ought always to be open, to as large a portion of the public as the place will accommodate. But a police-otlice is not necessarily thus open : the magistrate may .hut it whenever he thinks proper. Again, in " Currie ‘'alter," the pro ceeding, though exiarte, had teralinAted : it was a motion for a criminal information, which the Court refused to grants' and therefore the case was not put into any train of more solemn inquiry. liut in This instance the party was held to bail, in order to a trial, and therefore the publication took .place while the proceedings were still pending. In the " King v. Lee," it wait holden, that the publication of prelitni.. nary examinations taken with a view to trial was a criminal act; and many learned Judges have seen occasion to lament and to reprobate such publications. It is in the recollection of some of us that they were once unfrequent; they have greatly increased of late years, but they are not, therefine, the less unlawful. I have pointed out the distinctions between this case and that of " Currie v. Walter,"" but it m ust not be ta ee kr in f m or , granted evenin th t a h t is we co ho ur ld t, the publication icat b io y n l o a f w. e.r mk t case is not now before us; it isnthtoereinfotirme,a'ectnetleisasat such must I n t ot w b supposed u e contended by Mr. bawea r s , Y i t n t o i p d e cidel tl ca i t t i n b s l a t r ewlCe m argument, that, even supposing. an indictment would lie for the obstruction of public justice, still the party himself' alluded to in the report could not susta i n an action for damages : anti also that the absence of malicious motive, which was admitted by the demurrer, would exhonerate the publisher. With re spect to the first Itesition, I take it to be clear that when an unlawful act is done by which an individual is particularly .aggrieved, he may autumn, an action ; and who can say that a man is not aggrieved by a publication winch tends to bi jure hie character s Aintl to excite a prejudice against him On the absence of malice, antral in the plea, it must be oh served, that if the-plea be had in law, the statements which it contains are not admitted by the demurrer.. But what is the meaning of malice ? Every act unlawful iii itself and injuriotia to others is in law: tegar4l as nialieioks, although there may be no acts p n er , s n ot i rl i ti m w a nw lie r e k t w o the nta i a n w d r iv u itlu s,bu sil affected. te whichsometbe consequences to others ; and which are not done with pity pose to injure, which nevertheless ate regarded as done m a k onimp. and furnish ground for indictment or action. Take the common case of a soap manufactoty, lawful in itself; and rarely conducted with any deeire to Annoy others ; yet whtn it be. cotnes a nuisance to the neighbour*, they have a right of action, andalie term " maliciously" is employed tocharectarize the ' offence. Thus every publication impeaching the character of a n o the r , except under circumstances : which create a privilege, is the subject of an action. In stating the objections to the pleas, I have answered those made to the declaration, as to the counts which are, timed on the first libel. Judgment, there -fore, must be given for the defendant, on . the Sixth and eighth pleas, which- apply to the second article, and fprahe plaintitf• on time second, third, fourth, fifth, and seventh pleas, which supply to two first. , . • ilr. Evi?(s applied for a rul to chew cause, why Richard Reed ihould not surrender, and 'give bail betbre e. Judge in clianib"• il) . onstqueticc, of a verdict, of manslaughter hei 91,1 found against him, for a cow or his hieing kined'a Child in Lancashire..—(A lau g h.)_Tho L i mited Coumcel was . proceed ing to state that the affidavit set forth, that the Coroner had given a hint to this Richard Reed to depart, while the Jury were on the eve of returning their verdict. The LOUT/ CHIEF JUSTICE directed the rule to be issued, without airy further statement of facts, The Court sat until 7 o'clock ; it being the last day of term. COEitT OF 'COMMON PLEAS, Nov. 211. JUDGMENT. DAVIS V. THE DANK OF EN'tiLAND. The Loan CIItErJUSTIcE gave judgment in this import ant case. He said that it was a special case, on nn action brought for refining to pay dividends, and for the tratotfer of stock.— His Lordship then stated the circumstances of the case, which - were in substatice—that John Henry Davis' bad forged his brother's name, and obtained the transfer of 10,0001., in two sums of 5,0001. and a further stint of 171 U. He was taken up on the ad March, 18'20, for the forgery, brought before the Lord Mayor, and subsequently lodged in the CoMpter. While in 'tamtinement, he wrote a letter to Drummond s, the. Bankers, telling them to pay over all monies in their possession to ilia brother ; and lie also wrote a draft to his brother on the ail April tollowing, giving him power to re ce iv e a ll mon i ta on hi s account, and also his pay from the Lord Chemberlaitesatitice Mavis being a Captain of the King's Yeomen of the Guards). 116 'soon after made hit escape from prison, and' hi s brother (the plaintiff in, this cue) brought his action against the Bank of England, for refusing to pay to him the divid e nd s due on , his stock.. The Bank refused, on the plea that ,the plaintiff knew of his brother's escape, and was therefore, by concealing that fact, guilty of misprision of felony. - The Jury found that the plaintiff' did not know of the forgery till the sth of March, 1820,' being three months after it was committed. alsci found a verdict for the defendants, subject to a special cue. On the . sth of 31arch the plaintiff went tothe,Compter, and had a conversation with his brother, who there infOrmed bias that he had transferred over the stock which stood in his name, on • which the plaintif observed, !"rhen you have endeavoured to beggar me." His Lord ' Willi then continued—'Phis 'was an action of thud. The first count in the declaration stated, that tile plaintiff' was entitled to 10,000/.'and that the defendants, contrary to their duty, per mitted the same to be transferred. Tite third count was like the tirst. The second count stated that the plaintiff Was pos. seseed of Consols in the Bank of England. end that they refused to pay him the dividends due thereon. The fourth*count was like the /second; The first question for the •Oottrt was—if the plaintiff property had been transferred The Court thought Malt had not been transferred, and that be could 'not therefore have a verdict on the first and third counts. The Court thought that the Consolidated Annuities being perpetual annuities, we re Vested public property. So were the Lung, Annuities; The stock was in both these securities, and was transferable, at .the Bank of England. It was a species of property which could not be transferred without the consent of the owner, and the law Comnianded it not to be done without. The Bank of Eng land had ne more authority to transfer stock, than had the most insignificant 'chartered company in the country. The indorse ment of the stock wits in the hooks of the Bank, but the Bank hadno More to do with these indorsements; titan 'With any bill indorsed. His Lordship then described the old system , of tal lies, by, which the transfer was checked. The Act of Parlia ment said, that there should he kept in the Batik of England, books for the transfer of stock, in which die signature of; the holder should be entered, anti that no letter for Aliti erander of stock should be good without such signature.--12 Geo. I. cap. 2, sec. 23, and 4 Geo. 111. cap. 19. 'There could be no aaidgn meat made withoUt the knowledge of the broker, where one was engaged; and in the present inetance there was no as. sigument. The Court was not called on to decide which of the parties were to endure the loss; they felt that these circumstances would produce embarrassments lit the Bank, they thought, 'however, that the liank.should el ember reseed rather than that a !stockholder should fitiOr. The Bank should hava untie inquiries!, and it did not appear that they had here looked with clue circumspect;ea. The transac tion took place' four years ago. . All the damages With - tne Court could give would not pay the plaintiff for the loss of his stock; a person would often lose all his property in an 11C tion for the recovery of his lost stock, and it might often flap pers that a person was not in a condition to bring in action trout the want of means. A person in the country who minted to his broker might lose all, as the statute of aimitatlons might be pleaded against him, before he knew his property had been tmnferred : and what had lately (Fauntleroy's ease) showed very clearly, that the . statute of limitations might be set up against any claim for the recovery of stock; for More than six years had elapsed before it was discovered. A man .of the name of Edward Harrison had property in the South Sea Stock, which had been forged by another of the same name; the case was brought into Chancery, and Lord Chan cellor Hardwick° decided that the plaintiff should have his stock. 'rite Court was not - called on to inquire whether the Bank should pay the dividends in the case of fraudulent acquired stock, but to prevent the alarm of persons who possess • stock, the Court would say that the Bank could not refuse to pay the dividends to the subsequent purchasers of forged stock. The Bank had no right to question the holder of stock—it had been sufficiently remunerated by the public for managing the public debt, and was therefore bound to do it justly. The facilities for the transfer of stock ,was a strong reason why the Bank should be on its guard.; it was impossible to trace the property in stock like that in an estate. The stock in the present case remained itt 'the p lain. - tiff's name, anti he had no means of knowing, he did not know of the forgery until after his brother had quitted the kingdom. It was contended that the plaintiff could not get any dividends but those he called for—those due on the 25th of March. 1820—but the Court was of opinion that he could claim all the dividends for stock standing in his mune. The Conte agreed with the opinion of Lord Mansfield, that in all ques tions of conscience, they were bound to 44 whet was right and just. It was insisted on by the Counsel for the Bank, that, on I the grounds of public policy, the plaintiff should not recover.— Public policy win a dangerous thing for a Court of ,luatice to act on. No Judge should act on the principle of public poltcy. The subject of wagers was an instance at this. Should the Court act on while policy a man might lose his all. It had been observed that the plaintiff knew • of the forgery ! ' and that as such knowledge . was a misprision of felony, his Delft° the stock should be forfeited. But that was not so—if he did knew he would only be subject to fine anti -imprisonment. Vibe Plain tiff's right of action had been founded on the forgery, the Court could nut give judgment in his favour, but it wet founded on the Bank's refuting - to pay the dividend, and was - therefore maintainable. The Court knew nothing of forfeitures oat the ground of public policy. This would be a misdemeanpr. and not a misprision of felony, if the plaintiff knew or the thrgery. The Detenilant's Counsel argued that civil actions merged in felony, where the plaintiff had a pre-knowledge of , the •crime. If goods were stolen (min a carrier ur an inn-keeper. the owner could not bring an action against the thief, hut against the car rier or innkeeper. Now the Bank of England Stood; peterieely in the same situation as the carrier or innkeeper, aralwitilbnund to restore the property: The Jury had expreneffa negative knowledge of die forgery till three months afterward,. For this reason the plaintiff was entitled to recover the dividends, on the second and fourth counts in the declaration, 'refined , by' the Bank, and which they had improperly refused to pay. ' PLAIN SPEAKING.---A village parson hating its his sermons taken too high flown a pitch for the coniprehenslars of auditors, made an apology as follows :—" Respected, Friends—My oral documents having recently been' the subject of your vituperation, 1 hope it will not be an instance of vain eloquence or supererogation if I laconically promulgate, that avoiding all syllogistical, Aristocratical, and peripatieutp rupo.. sitions, all by a rbtdicul exaggenitions and cumulations, whether 'phy s - vdi tty; phil os ophically, philologically, politically, or pole- Tie:illy considered, either in my diurnal peregrinations, Or noc turnal laubrations; they shall be definitively and categorically assimilated into and rendered congenial to, the ucciputa, Capitol; and cerebrum of you, my most superlatively respectable .auditors." llestitir Fistinvv:—Exttact of a latter from IVick, dated Nov. lb, 1824:—". ¶A, great fishery, that has taken place thisyear at 'lVicit and the eastern coast of Caithaass in general, when It has POI touch failed in other places, is a suf. ticient prOof that i the herring fishery here s more regular and 'certain than on any of the neighbouring coasts, or, it a be lieyed, in any part of the British dominions. Th e f act i s , that the herring spawn, piton the east coast of Caithness, where the AM is' deep', ' well Sheltered, and the shore is in-general rocky, anti not sandy, where herring 'cannot spawn; and it is. Only when there is an extruortlinory fecundity of fish, 'that they then spread . to the neighbouring Oasts. Hence the certainty of a succesitftil fishing on the coastof Caithness. and of Sutherland, where it joins to Caithnest, which has never in one instance failed, sines its first commencement on A great scale, about thirty years agor". . .