The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1810-11-14 00:00:00

would know *hit they had to do. In assessing
damages, there must he a very great difference in
the amount, if the excess was committed in pur-
suing legal. or din pursuing illegal measures. Ott
this ground alone, therefore, it ought, in the first
place, to be ascertained whether the justification
entered upon the record vr.is anod or not. Hut its
every way of considering the qm stunt, lie was de-
cidedly of opinion that the rule alt u.d be made
absolute, and the demurrer argued before proceed-
ing to the trial.
Mr. Justice LAWRENCE aka concurred in the
opinions of Lord lillenborough. lit the present
instance utile were duce actions aristii4 nut of the
sante transaction, and proceedings instituted against
three different persons fur the diderent parts they
had taken : one against Mr. Abbott, (or netting the
warrant ; another against Mr. Coleman, for earCiit-
illg it; and a third against Lord Moira, Constable of
the Tower, fur receiving the person. Its one of
these so intimately connected together. an issue in
law hail been pined. and it was evident this issue
must come to be determined by the Court. either
on the Demurrer, or oil an application after the
trial ott the facts was ove►. As it was admitted
that it. must be determined by the Court, it was im-
pose:tile that elicit determination could alter the
determination ou the record. The question then
wa., whether it taus expedient to clear the way
for the July, by' determining the law on the
subject before or after their verdir•t. In point
of expen.e told convent...icy, as it was admitted
by the Learned Serjeant that the point of law
must arise and be deterniineJ at one period or
other, it was necessary to lurk whether. as the
damages must thereby be adrcted, the lavr should
not lie settled first. By adopting this course. he
could see no po,..ible inconvenience to either party;
and on the contrary it was not even suggested that
any injury could be done to either party, or any
Armitage he given. by trying the fact before the
law was decided on. Certainly such a (node would
be an embarrarsinent and inconveuieoce to bo• h. as,
if the law was not first ascertained. very different
damages from what were right. might be assessed.
Ile, therelore, oa all these considerations, was de-
eidedly of opinion that the law ought to be deter-
mined on the Demurrer before they CHM to a trial
on this record.

Mr. Justice BAILEY entirely agreed with the
Lord Chief Justice and his bred:rem that the trial
ought to be postponed till after tile Demurrer was
decided on. 1 Ilia was for the millet mercy of the
Judge, of lie Jury, and "cry mn.•h for the conve-
nie• cc and advantage of both parties. It was clear
that very I i tie rrnt damages insist be given in a rase
where the wiry had to answer for a whole trespass,
Ind in a case where he had oily to answer for ■n
in executing what was legal. Now, unless
the Court knew to what degree damages were M-
enefee!. they mid the Jury would he embarranwil in
their proccediar. Were they to assns damages
for the excess. and contingent damages on the fu-
ture determination of Ma law t This appeared to
be a less straight.forvrard course than t•• hare the
.aw decided kin, and had not one advantage to re-
commt oil it. On the contrary, by trying the ors-
tioti of damages first, they might injure the PlatinitT
in two way■—!fast• 'nigh• i.jur.• him by giving only
to the amount of sit excess et ~,,, tinted, when it might
afterwsrda appear that the Defendant was guilty of
a whole trespass; and they might injure Iniss in
other point. fur if he twitted damages fur an
excess in his action spinet Mr. Coleman, and
theft went against Mr. Abbott for the whole trespass,
it would he plentr.l in defence of thienction, that
the same trespass ha 4 already hero tried, and the
&mew, paid. fie did riot see that the Plaintili
ectukt have any reason to complain of the arratito..
ftten* made by use Court, as he aught himself
have brought on the Demurrer to be argued first ;
a mode evirlentiy moat coodui•iva tit the ends of
suhstantial justice, and most adviutagrues to a'a
parties.
Mr. &dram Snernerro inquired. what was the
nature of the Rule now made by the Court?

Lord Et.t.cmonaocou---4. the Rule is to pat
off the Trial—that can only he done deAustely .w
iodelinitety ; and in the present ease. the Court
must postpone it indrAnitely, as the period of its
cous'ag on depends oa other proceedings to be
had fir.'. As moon ea possible alter the Demurrer
is determined on, the Court will Its to the trial. It
is not thew wish that the Plaintiff should lose au
hoar io bringing it to issue.". . . .

The Caen was not crnwded with visitors. but
the Enr was remarkably fall.

WILLIAMS M. tit MIENS mama mt wARGILAI
VINE 011 AMIIPACM

Mr.RatuAnnsos snored (dr a Hate to chew canoe
why the proceeding, in this eds., should nut be
stayed. He stated that this was an action brought
by a versant of her St:retie Highness, end that she
put it into the hands of her Sol.citur. "dun on look-
ing em her palters. found that the Pleintitf was in
her Serum Highness's debt. and he had lit3irtdillgly
brought a cross action, but could not find out the
Ploissuirs residescq and his Attorney denied all
knowledge of where be was to be found ; tinder
which consideration he treated that their Lordships
would groat the Kale.
Lorg.t.t.cinottoucts.—u•Cannot the Defeo.
Jest nee her ucconed on the trial, by the way
of sebollf ?"

Mr. RICIIARDSOII." My I.nrd, I am or that
opinion, ; but the Plaintiff is a mere wriest ; and
if tine came goes to trial. my client will not hare
any thing to, recompense her, but the payment
of her own costs.
Lird Et.t.ttneitonntt —" Is not this motion
regular, Richardson i• In my topiaiou it la; and
you cannot expect that I shall inform yea how you
should word your mot ian."—ltule refused.

COURT or COMMON PLEAS, Nsysmssu 13.

AUSEST r. w•LUn.

This was an action for money had and received,
and was tried before Lord Chief Jostles alall••
FIELD in Jane last, when a venhet wee given for
the PlaintiL Mr. Serjeaot Lens MA nbtsined a
Rule to thew cause why that verdict should not be
set aside. and a atm-quit entered : end against that
Rale Mr. Serjeant Suttees. and bla. Serjeant
MMISINALL thin day .hewed came. A elNafall. it
*appeared. had been entered into between Plaintiff
and Defendant, dated Sept. IS. Is►o9, by which it
was speed, that for every tel. paid by Maintain
Defendant, the latter should rehire 1001. ita et's-