The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1824-06-28 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENcE.
COURT OF KING'S BENCH, SATURDAY. ..ItN2 2G.

THE ruin r. LOUD Tsit1101101.7on•
Lord Chief Justice Ancoer stated, that in this case which had
been tried at a former Assizes for Derby, a rule Nisi had been ob.
taioed to set aside the Verdict which had beat given foe the defendant,
and it was foT the Court now to decide upon the rule so obtained. It
was an inquisition from the Crown upon certain pleadings on which
issue had been joined, to sustain a claim from the Cr°. n to the
possession of a certain tract of land called the Salt Minsk, on the
shore of the County of I.incolo, which was claimed by the defen.
daat, Lord Varboiough. as part of his ancient manor of North-
, moor. The Lord Chief Justice road the pleading', frotn which
it appeared that the land in question (Ka acres) had been left by
the sea, and was only occasionally covered by water tt
high tile,
and the simple question was, whether the receding of the sea had
been so gradual and itnpaceptible in the course of time. as to
leave the land, according to law, a part of the adjoining manor, it
having been in part formed by the soil detached by the influx and
refiux of the water from the adjacent manor ; or, whether the re-
treat of the sea hail been in that perceptible and sudden manna
which gave the Crown a right to the new soil so exposed.
The Jury upon the evidence found fee the defendant, and the
Court saw vo reason to disturb the verdict so found. It therefore
I stands for the defendant.
aSSIONEEs OF 00III.DIsto 0. eaten.
' This was an action brought by the assignees of Goulding, a
bankrupt, against the defendant. to recover MU. penalties under
the Usury Laws. for having taken more than the legal in crest
in
the discount of bills of exchange to the amouet of 300/. The ease
was tried at Guildhall, London, and a verdict was found for the
Plaintiffs. Tice matter now come before the Court upon a motion
fte a role to shew cause why the verdict for the plaintiff, should
I not be set aside, and a non-suit entered. On the part of the dc.
Pendant, it was contended, first, that the sum advanced to the plain-
tiff had been merely lent to take up other bills, and not as a sepa•
rate loan ; and secondly, that no one count in the declaration inn.
puting usury to the defendant had been sustained. Counsel haviug
been heard on both sides,
The Corte stated it to be their opinion that the money ad.
winced was by way of discount fur fresh bills, and not as a mere
loan to tithe up termer bilk over due. This question had been
left to the Jury, and their verdict had so decided ; with regard to
the second pant—namely' the character of the mote* in the dale-
rationi--as these counts were certainly very complicated, the Coutt
would take time to consider their effect..
Final judi,nuent postponed.
101tiatiOX r. GALT..
This was an action on the money counts to recover the into of
70 guineas, theprice of a harm, which the den nulant had bought
of, but returned to the defendant fur unsoundonet. At the trial
before the Lord Chief Justice, at the Sittings in Middlesex after'
last Hilary Term, it appeared that in colieequence of an advertise-'
rent is the newspaper. announcing for sale, at the defentlane., auc-
tion, a pair of homes accustomed to go tegattikt in harness. the
property of a foreign nobleman, dye plaintiff, ant his groom to :lie
defendant's stables and there taw the anehnan of Prince Estate- '
ay. who chewed a emir of horses which he described as belonging to
his master, and which were to be sold 'together, on a wareantry of
soundness. This being communicated to the plaintiff; he attended
the sate. The home% were put up separately. The plaintiff bid
foe, and bought the first, which was the horse in question, at the
price of 70 guineas. lie then bid 170 &Mena for the tienttis
which was bought in at the price of NW guineas. When the horse
to question was taken borne the next slay, it Was found to be lame,
aid the plaintiff immediately returned it for unsoundness, and the
money not being returned, this action was thought. Two °Wee-
' heat were taken at the trial for the defendant—Oat, that there was
wipeout to connect the defendant with the advertisement which had
ken received as to the warrantry ; and, second, that the plaintiff I
absuld have declared Rpecitically en the warrantry, and not confine
bbneelf to the money wants. •
The Learned Juous: saved both points. aid left it to the Jury
*say, whether there had not been e deceit practised on the plain.
RC to first announcing two horses for sale, and then allowing only'
ens to be sold.
:The Jury found for the plaintiff.
In Easter Term, the Court granted a Rule Nisi to enter a non.
ark for the twee objeetionstaken at the trial. '
aft. SCAtILL"TT and )Ir. V. POLLOCU now chewed Cause
11.111* the Role. •
-11t.Ovuxer was heard in support of it ; and
The Coyne said, that they entertained coesiderable doubt as to
dieldroissibilily of the advertisement in evidence. If it was ad.
there was no doubt that the action was !maintainable, but
Itildire carter
being questionable, the Court thought the better way
was to grant a new trial, and if the plaintiff could get better eel-
della to shew that the 'advertisement vas Muria with the defea.
dart's authority, he was at liberty le ins&
Rule Absolute.

SITTING OF THE COURT.
In pursuance of the King's warrant it was announced that two
or more of the Judges of this Court would sit in the Ovate roam
at the back of theVeurt on Monday the 12th, and thence to the
90th July. and on the 25th of October until the commencement
of hliehaelmas Trim, for the despatch Of the arrest of Term
Magness.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, SATCIIDAT,Juxt 26.

tii;:inTs be Banco.

TN RE TATTER SAL.
This tras an application to oblige Mr. Tattersal, an attorney of
this Court, to deliver' up certain papers, books, &e., with which
be bad been entrusted by a Lady named Elliott. It was stated,
that Mrs. Elliott was the executrix of her late husband's will; and
had entrusted the papern and books in question *ith the attorney,
fee thepurposo of tarrying into effect the directions of the will. It
wee also alleged, that the attorney had taken no steps in the
matter, and that be bad even declined to make out a bill of costs,
so that Mrs. Elliott was unabletu proceed in her administration of
the testators efficts.. . .

The Court granted a rule to %hew cause.
DAY W. SYKYII.

Mr. Serjcant PEEL moved for stole to thew cause why the Pro-
thonotary should not review his takation of costs in this case. The
motion was founded on affidavits, which stated, that the present
action hail been commenced by the plaintiff some time since, and
had been set down foe trial at four different Assizes. Finally, the
cause was tried, and the plaintiff obtained a verdict. A motion to
set aside that verdict was afferwants made, but after all argument
on both sidles, the Court discharged the rule fur a new trial, and
judgment was entered up for the plaint:ff. When the costs were
taxed, an allowance was made for the tavern expenses o: the wit-
nesses at Nottingham, where the cause was tried, to the amount of
731. It was further alleged that another sum of :V. had been
allowed for the lose of time of the witnesses, and this allowance,
it was contended, was improper, as none but Gentlemen iu the
*ad and medical profession could claim ri•muneritiou fur their loss
of time.
Mr. Prothonotary Ray, by whom the taxation had been made,
Was then called on by the Court to explain the circunistanees of the
ease. He stated that the 7:5/. me: tinned in the affidavit was formed
entirely of the tavern expenses in Nottingliani that the Treat body
of tie plaintiff's witnesses, amounting to.rierirly thirty to number,
were weavers and machine-then, living at Worn four to six miles
distance from the town, and that in going to the town they were
to take refreshments on the road, and that the MU. referred
' to was allowed in mimed of those expenses, and amounted only to
about three shillings and sixpence a day. Ile also stated, that a
claim to the amount of nearly 44101. had been made tot the loss of i
tune, which he had iisallowed.
The Co ear thought that the Pmthonotary had acted most pro-
perly, and the rule was therefore refused.
DAWKINS V. 110WAII'D AND dines.
This was an action brought against the defendants for having
negligently conducted themselyes In securing an annuity which
they retained by the plaintiff topurchise. The case was tried
h the Lord Chief Justice Gifford, at Guildhall, when his
Lordship nonsuited the ,plaMtlff, on the ground of a vasianee be-
tween the decimation and the evidence. 'A motion was made by
the plaintiff, in the course of the last Term, to set aside the non-
suit, and to obtain a new trial. The notes of Lord Gifford were
this day read, at Mr. ser t Vaughan commenced his argu-
ment. whenthe further consideration of the case was postponed, as
their Lordships were obliged to transact business at Clambers.

COURT OF Ei CHM/title, SATIIIDAY, Jria 26.

Sir WiLLIAIIf Osvr sr moved that the recognizance of a young'
man named Evans might be discharged. lle wax bound iu the
year 1821, when 16 years of age, to appear against a man who was
charged with a certain offence, at the -A,:aizes for Maidstone. lie
swore that when he arrived at Dartford he was met by A man
named Brown, who decayed him into a Fuldie house, where he was
made drunk, and having been locked up by Brown, he i=s unable
to attend the ttbd. The Learned Dana:man submitted that the
circumstance of his age was a sufficient ground for disclurg;ng the

recognizance.
Tn. Ceuirr was of opinion that it should have been expressed
in the affidavit, whether be was locked up Rimiest his will, and there
detained the whble week. If this aPplication was allotied on the
preient ailidatit, any oae might be abtwlved front hie pnintive to
appear, Omitted another paid the price of his getting drunk. The
Court therefore directed the affidavit to be amended.

CAITTIL V. DOSANQUET AND OTHERS.
Mr. M.A.:. Tx stewed cause against an order fur dissolving an I
injunction. The circumstances of the case have already been I
fun! the public. Mr. Dore, one of the defendants, in the year 11;16, I
drew A bill on Mr. Carter for unto., and deposited it in the hands of
Messrs. Hosanquct as his bankers. Previrus to die bill becoming
due, Mr. Dove conveyed to the honkers certain copyhold estatts
and furniture at Hampstead, in trust to make the same available to
' their debt, and after discharging their claim to return the surplus
to Mr. Dove. The bankers, however, contended that Mr. Dive
was indebted to them in the sum of 3,943/., excluding the bill of
Exrhange, and that the property conveyed was not safficient to
meet suet claim. They therefore commenced an action ageist Mr.
Carter, as icceptor of the bill of exchange, and an icjumdion was
obtained to stop the common law pruceeiongs, on the ground that'
the sale made of the property was sufficient to meet Messrs Bo-
ionquet's claims, Incladmg the bill.
Mr. Wn via LEY followed on the same side. He contended that
the facts would convince any one that the bill cads an accominedai
don bill. The debt, he said, claimed by the defendants would have
been long since paid., had they properly disposed the property,
instead of he remaining on hand, in order that they might bare an
opportunity of charging interest and compound interest.
111 r. St etettatt, on the part of the defendants, contended that a
clearer eaireef setting aside an injunction was never brought before
the Court. The acuou was commenced in 1317, but previous to
tbittbre the plaintifr had made OMM/its inqubius for lIIV.O to