The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1825-06-23 00:00:00

Wr;iwFilklslo

Thpr4,WoA.

LAW LIVTE LLIGENCE.
COURT OF CHANCERY, 81'snwweraaw, Jules IL
The Court halt been occupied. In bearing mations, this Wag
the Wet day of °Perm.
In the the of Nerot's Flotet in Bond-street. regarding which
die Viee•Cflanet dor made a decree,
The Lortu Criapcer..ot directed that its execution should
he strapeeded mad Tuesday. 'when his Lordship would hear
Counsel upon it. • • •
idawdris or cur N V. DOWLAS IRON COMPANY.
Mr. SHADS' ELL moved that the detendants might be ordered
to admit, in the actions to be ivied in this case, that the property
on which the alleged memoirs had been committed, was at the
time in the posserdion of die plaintiff: and that one action should
deride the point to be tried in two actions of a very similar nature.
Mr. Hotter trusted the motion would be dismissed with coma.

Never such • a thing was beard of,
_as Thai la a am sift ads.
Court had directed no Woe; witurdiroll elf suds. ft bs boomett,
but merely left the parties to set sr shey• gingsdp lid. Omni
should direct defendants to maks odwirsisit d hits couch they
flatly denied.
His Lennart fp, in a ease like this, deli sat pant the
Fiver of the mciion, and, therefore, felt bound to dismiss it
with costs.
Mr. SHADWELL declared the object is be, merely to save
expense.
Mr. HORNE could not believe that the 51arquis of Butts d
any such paltry 'notice in his breast.
Motion dismissed with costa.
-COURT OF RING'S BENCH. WESTMINSTER., .•
WEDNESDAY, JUNE 22.
• •
JUDGE V. BERKELEY. •
This was a rule lasi obtained on a former day by Mr. C. Phillips,
calling on the defendant to show cause why the venue in this action
should not be removed from Gloucestershire to the county of Mid.
dieser. The Rule was moved for upon the affidavit of the plaintiff,
who stated thnt the venue was originally laid in Middlesex, but
that it had been changed by the defendant on Gloucestershire, upon
the ground that the cause of action arose in that county. It was
further stated, that the defendant was a Magistrate of that county,
that he was the Colonel of the Gloucestershire Militia; that he wu
the founder and president of a political club, called the "
Glaa-
cestershirc Whlg Club." and a member of a hunting club, called
the " ISerkeley Hunt ;" sad that he possessed very extensive estate
in the county : and under these circumstances. it was believed '
that he had a power and an influence among that class of gentlemen
from whom the Grand Jury would be selected ; which made it
improbable for the plaintiff to hare a fair and impartial trial in that
county.
Mr. Tar NT ON now showed cause against the Rule. In answer
to the affidavit of the plaintiff; he bad to oppose that of the defend.
ant, who stated, that he was not the founder of the political club
alluded to; although he belonged to that club, and also to the
hunting club mentioned by the plaintiff: He also admitted, that
he had the honour of holding his Majesty's commission as a Justice
of the Peace, and held the other offices stated by the plaintiff; but
he was not aware that he possessed, in consequence of these circum.
stances, any greater degree of Influence in the county than was en-
joyed by other gentlemen who were similarly situated. But as
the present action had no reference whatever to the defendant in
respect of either of the offices held by him, it being solely an action
to recover a compensation in damages for a common assault, the
suggestions whicii had been thrown out by the plaintiff could not
therefore have any effect, and the rule ought therefore to be di,-
chirged. . .

M-r. Cassrzu.r. followed on the same side.
Mr. SCAKLETT, in support of the Rule, 'submitted that the
plaintiff had a right in all transitory actions to lay the venue in
what county he pleased, and the venue in this case had been ori-
ginally laid in Middlesex. Upon the application of the defendant,
however. it bad since been changed to Gloucestershire: but as it
appeared that from the peculiar rank, offices, and fortune of the
defendant in that county, it was improbable that the plaintiff
could have a fair trial there, he contended that the original right
of the plaintiff reverted, and that the venue ought therefore to be
brought back to Middlesex. .The defendant had not denied that
he did possess great influence in the county ; he only stated that
he was not conscious that ha bad more influence than other gentle-
men; nor did lie deny that he belonged to a political club—he
merely said, that he war not the founder of it. Under all the cir-
cumstances, he trusted the Court would see the propriety of making
the rule absolute.

cid rs, on the same side, would only trouble the Court
with the observation, that as the defendant was a magistrate of the
county, he thought it would be very improper that the trial should
take place there, as it was obvious he must possess great power and
influence In the neighbourhood .
The Loan Cu ter Jt:STICE.—I think the plaintiff' is not en.
titled in point oils, to demand the venue to be changed ; but if
he will accept the proposition, we would suggest that the venue
Lhould be removed to Herefordshire.
Mr. Justice BAYLEY.—If a man has a transitory action arising
in Northumberland, and lays his venue in Cornwall, and then, if
the defendant brings it down to Northumberland, is the plaintiff;
on showing that he cannot there have a fair trial, to be at liberty
to carry it back to Cornwall ? Such a course is, I think, perfectly
absurd.
Mr. C. Pert t.r.t PS said the plaintiff would accept the tau which
had been made by the Court.
THE TING e. BINNING ANTI ANOTHER.
This was a rule Nisi obtained by Mr. Holt on a former day.
calling on the defendants, who were the Editors, Publishers., and
proprietors of a newspaper called the Briligunter Herald, to show
cause why a criminal information should not be filed against them.
for having published certain libellous matter in that paper on the
19th of May last, reflecting on the conduct and character of the
Rev. Mr. Trevor, by whom this application was made.
Mr. SCARLETT now showed cause against the rule. This wan
a libel which would fit eve head of anv drunken parson whu should
be unpopular and out of favour with his parishioners. It spoke of
the misconduct of some clergyman of the Church, who was repre.
nested to have been in the habit of getting drunk, and on one or
two occasions had fallen into a ditch, instead of walking steadily
home. The rule was obtained on the affidavits of the prosecutor
and his brother, who swore that they believed the alleged libel ap-
plied to him ; but the reasmithey gave for so believing was, in his
(Mr. Scarlett'a) opinion, i very insufficient one. But he had the
affidavits of the defendants, in which they stated that the alleged
libel was contained in a letter which was left at their office by •
person unknown to them, and bare the signature ofJ. W. B. only.
That they knew the Rey. Mr. Trevor to be a purchaser of their
paper, and that when they read the letter and puldi.hed it, they had
not the slightest idea that It applied to that gentleman. lle had
the affidavits of no less than nine other persons, who lived in and
about the neighbourhood of Burnham, when the Rev. Mr. Trevor'
resided, in which it was stated that they had read the letter in
question, and that although they knew that Mr. Trevor had on
one occasion met with an accident on the road, yet they had not the
least idea that its content% had any application to that gentleman.
He hoped, therefore, their Lordships would consider that under
these circumstances this was not a case fora criminal information ;
but that if any proceedings were tn be taken against the defendants,
it was a lit subject to go before a Grand Jury.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said, he could satisfy their Lord.
ships to a demonstration, that this libel did apply to Mr. Trevor.
But as his Learned Frierd had said the defendants had no idea
that it was meant to apply to that gentleman, he was willing, upon
an acknowledgment being now made in Court that the defendant',
believed the prosecutor to be a gentleman of great respectability
and of irreproachable character, to consent to the rule being
discharged, and all proceedings put an end to, upon the defentiants
paying the costs of the present application.
Mr. Scsitt.wrr observed that his Learned Friend required what
was quite unnecessary, and even more than the interest of his client
called for, inasmuch as the defendants had already sworn that they
did not believe the letter had the least application to Mr. Trevor ;
and the only tact why that gentleman thought it did apply to him
was, that one evening, after he had been on a visit to a lady at a
christening, on his return home, h being very dark, and his sight
being affected, he had fallen once or twice into a ditch on the side
',Erne road ; And from this circumstance the gentleman had applied
, the Wail to hi mielf. _

The yr° a N ry-C ene.n.u. said the defendants had not sworn
that they did not know the author of the libel, nor that it was not
intended to apply to 31r. Trevor.
Mr. SCAU.ETT repeated that all his affidavits stated that they
belfefedis.did not refer to that gentleman.
Mr. Justice BAYLEY—They did not know the facts which had
happened.
Mr. SCARLETT—No, my Lord; it was unfortunate that this
gentleman had himself made those tailings known by his too ready
suspicion of the intention of these parties.
The ATTO,XEt.OEXERAL would repeat, that it mr.Searlett
would pay the costs between attorney and client, he would consent
to the discharge of the rule. His Learned Friend had no idea of
the impression which this publication had had, arid the prejudice
it had excited against this gentleman. The more ludicrous the
charges were, the more painful was the situation of the party against
whom they were made.
The Lento (litter JusTiee thought the defendants ought to
accede to the pnmosition of the Attorney-General. They were
amusing their readers at the expense of some person, without even
Inquiring whether the charges were well or lid funded, or even
taking the trouble to ascertain who was the author of them.
The rule was accordingly discharged, upon the defendants pay-
ing the costs as between at,orney and client.
11rEICINGIIAllt V. SAXES.
On a former day a role nisi was obtained by Mr. Brougham on
the part of the plaintiff, call( g on the defendant to show cause
why the trial et this cause should not be postponed on account of
the absence of a material witness who was in India, in order that a
Commission might in the mean time issue to examine such witness
en interrogatories.
The ATTOINEY-OENERAT. now 47)Olied cause against the
rule. This was an action of libel, and the defendant had tiled a
plea ajuatilication. The rule was obtained by hie Lamed Friend
on the ground of the absence of a witness, whose evidence it was
represented was required la prove the publication of the alleged
lintel ; but when the facts 'should be stated to the Court, he was
quite of opinion that their Lordships would say the rule ought to
be disehar4ed. Notice of trial was given by the plaintiff• so far
hack as Easter Term, lath, but upon application on the part of the
defendant that the viol might be put off. in consequence of the ab-
sence of two material witnesses, the Court allowed it to be so,
upon condition that the plaintiff should be at liberty to hawe his
witnesses who were abroad examined upon interrogatories. The
cause was than set down for trial at the sittings after Hilary Te►m,
but the plaiiitiff was still unprepared; the consequence therefore