The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1826-04-27 00:00:00

LAW NOTICES.

COURT OF CIIANCERY.
Tlll4l DAY.
The Lord asancel3or sits In the Ili/nee of Lori!•, on appeal..

VICE-CHANCKLLOWN COURT.

1110111 tIii:CISANCILLOM, THIS DAT, AT DALP-PAIIT TED.

Reid V. Burnett, to be
'e poke to
I:xporto lirent.re Slur,
Inink. pet. per order.
Itenooldvon y. Young
Scott v. Leone

Canoes.
Sykes v. Redfern
Avbtos ♦. Avltten
Lewis v. Yonne
Court v. Maul"
Ilrudbell V. Peimyke
Currey ♦. Melleish

Tro4tee. of the Tltttl4h

31u-rum v. Whi.e
[larding v. Loveliog
Eley v. Bicknell
'ruisuu v. Fishes

1111t11111 TRU ■AI'
In re Rhoden, petition
Attorney•Gen.rTulbol.

ROLLS COURT.
'RR Or ?111 ROLLS Tills
Harris v. Lllllngton
Bryant v. Bask
needs V. Jones
Tanner v. Dean
Scott v. Houghton

11/1111T10. A? SIT,

__..__,w
.
Goodfello T. Meoni
livnart.baw v. Taker
o,lddind v. Snow
Nanny v. Reynolds
Gil.ba v. Philllpaon

part heard
Mandy V. Alexander
'ruttier T. Turner

Col
Sittings iv
1111
Deverenx v. Crouch
Nichoies v. Webber
;Net ♦. flounce

IEBT CH, KING'S BENCH.
)pointed for this day, at half.paat
lUDLINKI COMIIONt JVAIRX.
Stivester v. Bring Jeffery. v. Champ
Mein v. Conde. Novelette v. tiaricork
Meyer v. Ferrend Temple)), v. Wel bourne
Bond v. Evans beach v. Barrett
'airman v. Gamble Crave r. the Earl of
Howell Y. Tr..tter, Esq. Strathmore, kr.
Beeman v. Wilmot Stirling v. Brown
Boyle, v. Green Sore ha v. Brow
Collier Y. tV,erneroft I Chipplodale v. Vallop.
Curtli v. Elliott

144 ford v. Bedford
Milburn v. Ralph

Wascn v. Gould

Robin,on v. Milford
Greenwood •. Wright
nonillion v. Hort

Mprey V. Cozens

'RT OF COMMON 1.1.1

grants e. Dawkins
Berry v. Parker
Wharton v. Prover
Blau v. Neely
Aldridge v. Taylor
Bllgh v. Hun. W. Wel-
lesley
Fowlea Y. Ciin

Tll. day. at 12.
COMMON JURIES. RBI
Watson •. Earl of Bel-
Sealy v'. Jacob:

Crapddl V. Wrlgtt
Lloyd and another V.
q hilt:bead

New ('nu es.
Brown and another v.

Cohen
Turner and anotbet V.
Lewis

Sinn v. Pitt
Cams V. Ward h anr,
Laws ♦. namr
Young T. Illayland

PITS
Attorney. General v.

OF ET OF EXCHEQUER.
11414 10 tr, •r TSV ONCLOCII.
llobilv.mi V. Critchett Putney •. Wentworth
Itramtep v. Jack 'on Cott ne v. Hoagies
Elt hard. v. Waldron Hailing. v. *theorist!.
Eve., v. parley bill and answer
Itrouls v. Parker Rowley v. Carter.

Alereer'a Company,
at the AttAiencial's
regaect
• •

Simi v. same. do. do.
Williams v. nettle

TO-3101

)RROW.-tITS AT Tax o't
Before the whole Court.
Same v. mane. ditto
Terry v. Dear; demur.

Darker v. Darker, plea
Brown v. Avtley, excel).

!LOCI.

I Attoroey-Oesaal V.
Deere, plea

LAW INTELLIGENCE'.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, WZDIVIDAY, APRIL 26.

SITTINGS LN BANCO.
CHARGE OF VIOLATION.

It may be remembered that on Saturday last, Mr. Carte", who is
the Recorder of Portsmouth, moved for a writ of Habeas Corpus to
be directed to the Governor of the gaol of Portsmouth, command-
ing him to Ming up to this Court the body of Captatn Freemantle,
of the Roynl Navy, who was recently committed to his custody, on
a charge of violation, in order that he might be bailed. The
I..urned Counsel founded his application upon affidavits which
threw a doubt about the probability of the offence charged, and
alleged that it was sworn to have been committed in a room in
which there were a woman and two children at the time.

The Court on that occasion granted the rule instanter.
This morning Captain Freemantle was brought up, when the
writ of Habeas Corpus, and the return thereto. containing the
evidence and warrant on which he had been committed, were read.
The depositions consisted of the evidence given by the prosecntrix,
her fellow-servant, her master and her mistress, before the magi.
strata,. We purposely abstain from publishing them at present ;
hut it will he sufficient to say that, after besting them, the Court
thought it right to bail the accused in his own recuEnizance of
40001. and four sureties of 1000!. each.

The Marquis of Chandos, Lord Nugent, Sir Thomas Fremantle,
and the Right lion. William Freemantle, then entered into the re-
quired recognizance., and Capt. Freemantle was liberated.

PRINCE t'. LEWIS.
This was an action brought by the lessee of the tolls of Covent.
fgarden Market, to recover from the defendant the sum of one shit-
ir:el' u
toll for a waggon of greens standing in James.street,
Covent-garden, opposite defendant's door. At the trial here, the
Chief Justice nonsuited the plaintiff; upon the ground that the
market was not exclusively appropriated to the sale of fruit, vege-
tables, and flowers, as required by the charter, but was allowed to
contain china shops, public houses, and an old iron shop, whereby,
as the defendant could not get room for his waggon to stand in the
market, he was not bound to pay toll for his waggon standing in
James-street. Ilia Lordship, however, gave leave to Mr. Gurney
to move to enter a verdict of le. . . _

Mr. MARRVAT and SCARLETT flow showed cause against the
rule to enter a verdict fur a shilling, nod contended, first, that the
plaintiff could not extend Covent-garden Market breond the limits
prescribed by Chance; second,if the defendant was liable to pay toll
at all, it ought to be shown that room was offered to hint within the
market,but that he chose to remain out, though within the precinct.
But the fact was, that the market was not appropriated solely to
the purposes pointed out in the Charter, in consequence of which
many persons were obliged to let their waggons and carts remain in
James-street. for which they were continually punished under the
Street Act for obstrufting the highway. If they consented to pay
the toll to the plaintiff, when they were thus situated, all was right,
and they committed no offence; but, if they refused, they were
summoned before the Magistrates at Bow-street, and there fined
for an obstruction of the King's highway.
Mr. fivaNEY, 3lr. COMMON SERGEANT, Mr. BROUGHAM,
and Mr. HI:TCIIINsos appeared in support of the rule to enter a
verdict fora shilling. They contended that in point of fact the
defendant did not want room for his waggon to stand within the
market, because he always brought his greens and other vegetables
before his own door in James-street, where he sold them with all
the advantages of being close to the market, and yet refused to pay
the toll.

The Count delivered their opinion seriatim, that the decision at
the trial was right; and that, it a lord of a market was entitled to
take toll of persons bringing their commodities for sale in that
market, he was bound to find reasonable room for them within that
market to dispose of their property.
Rule disch.lted.

SECONDARIES OFFICE, COLEMAX•STREET, Arlin 26

ASSAULT 1W A SHERIFF'S OFFICER.
. BOURNE L. SWEET.

This was an action to recover damages for a violent assault,
committed by the defendant on the plaintiff. The plaintiff lives
in Regent-street. On the 23d of November last, the detendant
came to the plaintiff's house, at about ten o'clock at night. The
street door was opened to him by a servant, who called the plaintiff
down stain., when defendant Informed him that he had a writ
against him, stating his conviction that he was 31r. Bunn, fur.
merly wage-manager of Drury-lane Theatre. The plaintiff in.
formed him that he was mistaken in the person he addrtssed ; that
his name was Bourne, not Bunn, and referred hint in proof thereof
to the tame on the door plate. Defendant, however, seemed to
doubt this assertion, and they both went up to the drawlug-ronen,
where the plainiiff's family and friends were then eittirg: The
plaintiff, who was in • state of great agitation, on entering the
room, said to his friends, " this man will have it that lam 31r.
Bonn. of Drury-lane Theatre, and lir wants to take me into ens-
Piety." The plaintiff then appealed to his friends, all of whom
endeavoured to convince the defendant of the mistake under which
he laboured. He, however, would not be matt stied, and 31r. Bourne
at length requested to see the warrant, in order to know the de-
fendant a name. Defendant did nut object to producing it, but
when 3lr. B endeavoured to look at it, the defendant rushed upon
him, seized him by the collar, and threw him violently upon %lima,
when Mrs. Bourne, erbo was then in an antremefy-detiaate
_slate of
health, was sitting. A gentleman present interfered and separated
them. The plaintiff strait-, attempted to copy the officer's name
from the warrant, on which the defendant seized a poker, and swore
he would clear the room, at the saute time flourishing it over the
plaintiff's head : he aleo aimed a blow at him, and had not his
arm been masted, the defendant would in all probability hive
stood at another bar before this time. At this moment Mrs.
Bourne rushed out of the room in extreme agitation, to procure
assistance ; and the watrhmen were at length called in, and the
defendant was given into custody.
Mr. Thomas Lothian, of Princes-street, Cavendish square,
stated that he knew the plaintiff. On the 23d of November last,
he was at the plaintiff's house in Regent-street. There were pre-
sent Mrs. Bourne, Mr. Britten, the plaintiff, Mr. George
Bourne, and witness. The plaintiff was called out of the room b
his servant, and was absent about five minutes, when he returned,
accompanied by the defendant. The plaintiff, who appeared ex-
tremely agitated, held a warrant in his hand, aril on catering the
room, said to defendant, " What do you mean by this conduct ?
explain yourself belore these gentlemen." 31r. Baurne then asked
the defendant's name, when he replied, " it iii on the warrant."
31r. Bourne paid, " I will care it;" bot on his attempting to do
so, the defendant seized him violently, and dashed him on the sofa
on which 31rs. Bourne was then sitting. Witness interposed, ant!
separated them, saying to the defendant, " What can you mean by
such conduct as this I—do you know that you are assaulting a gen-
tleman in his own house ?—what are you ?" Defendant made no
reply ; but Mr. Bourne said, " This titan will have it that I am
Mr. Bunn, of Drury-lane Theatre, and he wants to taka me into
custody; here hie warrant." The plaintiff again strove to take
the officer's name from the paper, when defendant again attacked
him in the rudest manner, and in the scuffle the table was nearly
overturned. The plaintiff's watch was torn from his fob, and
dashed on the ground. Defendant then seized a poke(, and swore
he would beat every person's brains out, or clear the room. He also
attempted to strike the plaintiff on the head with the same weapon,
but was fortunately prevented by a gentleman who was then pre.
sent, Mr. Britten. The watch was at length called in, and defen-
dant given into custody. The plaintiff's name was over the dour in
large letters.
The Jury returned a verdict, for the plaintiff—Damages 70/.
They were laid at SOW.

Mv.C. Puteuis then stated, that the plaintiff' was not enlacing
to gain anything by the action ; after deducting esieenses, he would
give the remainder to some public charity.