The Dorset County Express and Agricultural Gazette.
Dorchester, Dorset, England, 1859-11-29 00:00:00

BURINIRS OF THR COURT.

The Judge-Oritinary intimated that the full Court
would try common jury CJINCS on Monday and Tuesday,
that on the following Friday two special jury
casee, specially appointed, would be taken, and that
when they were disposed of the remaining jury cases
would be taken in their order on Friday and Satur-
day.

Cut in or gut.t.N WNSTIKIIWTER.

Nov._ 22.-

(Sitting in Banco, before-- Caorrrom, Mr.
Justice HILL, ais4 mr. --tagice BLACKBURN.)

At the sitting of the Court this day Mr. Justice
Crompton said the Lord Chief Justice was not able to
attend. and Mr. Justice Wightman was engaged in the
Divorce Conn. He (Mr. Justice Crompton) would sit
till I o'clock, but would then be obliged to leave to
attend at chambers.
Till QUESN C. ATICINSON.

In this case the Court had granted • rule calling
upon Thomas Atkinson, the printer and publisher of the
Westmorland Gazette mut Kendal Adrerliaer, to show
cause why a criminal information should not be filed
against him for a libel published in that journal on the
17th of September last, imputing to Lord Brougham
that, for his own private purposes, he withdrew the
question of the exchange of certain charity lands from
the Charity Commissioners, and instituted proceedings
for the exchange with the Enclosure Commissioners.
Mr. Macaulay, Q.C. (with whom was Mr. T. Jones),
now applied to the Court that the rule might be enlarged
till next term, in order to afford the defendant the
opportunity of making such inquiries into the state-
ments contained in the article as would enable him to
decide as to the course which he ought to pursue in
reference to the rule. The learned counsel read a
correspondence which had taken place between the
attorneys of the parties, from which it appeared that
the attorney of the prosecutor wrote to the defendant's
attorney to inquire whether he intended to show cause
against the rule during the present term, and received a
letter in answer, stating that it would be impossible to
do so. Some further correspondence took place, from
which the learned counsel drew the inference that the
attorney for the prosecutor had acquiesced in the delay.
Mr. Justice Crompton said, the prosecutor would be
naturally anxious that the case should be brought on
this term, but not so if the defendant said he was not
quite ready. It seems also that the suggestion for the
delay had come from the prosecutor.
Sir F. Kelly said he dui not wish to interpose any
difficulty, but he would state that no affidavit had been
made by the defendant that lie was not aware of the
application, until lie was served with the rule. The only
ground alleged for the delay was, that application had
been made to Lord Brougham and his solicitor for copies
of certain documents, and that eopies had not been
furnished; but it was necessary to inform the Court
that those documents were not in the control of Lord
Brougham, and, besides, they had reference to matters
with which his Lordship had lied no concern.
Mr. Justice Hill said the Court would give credit to
the statement of the defendant that lie wished for time
to consider what course he ought to pursue, whether be
ought to show cause or make a complete apology.
Sir. F. Kelly said, that if the Court should enlarge
the rule to next term, lie hoped the affidavits in answer
would be filed within a month. It was known that
Lord Brougham was in the habit of leaving England at
Chrirtinas for the South of France, and that he did not
return before the assembling of Parliament.
. . . . . . .

The Court enlarged the rule till next term, and directed
that the defendant's affidavits should be tiled before the
24th of December next.