The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1825-11-21 00:00:00

.ylvester •.
Tucker v.

rations.

Strange v. Davhwood AttorneyTl;lineral v. Comport v. Smith
Bull v. Pritchard Vivian cheveley v. Straight
Rayner v. Rayner Ditto v. Markle Reyner v. Ilatuturd.
Ditto v. Fitzgerald

COURT OF KING'S BENCH.
CAUSES TO BE TRIED THIS DAY, AT HALF-PAST TWELVE,
BY LONDON COMMON JURIES.
Flight v. Milieu Huggons v. Forbes Fenner v. Roper
Bell v. Graham Davis v. Brown Chater v. Williams
Chinnock V. Freer Gardiner v. Durant Weston v. Philpott
Ford v. Hughes Bradford v. Gibson Colquhounv. Hutch.
Pope v. Monk Moss v. Elkinton in.on
Saunders v. Brian Taylor v. Channon Wright v. Rood
Lawson ~ Fiddeman Robson v. Bulkeley Graham v. Hilton.
Seoledield v. Wright

COURT OF EXCBEQUER.
IX THE EXCHEQUER CHAMBER, THIS DAY.
For Judgment—Capper v. Pagden.
Potreo—Wing v. Murrells.
Part heard—by order—Petre v. %Veils.
Part heard—Miller v. Jack+on.
On Sequestration—Hamilton v. Earl of Strathmore.
CAUSES.
Priem Spencer York v. 141
Hugo v. Job burgh
Dean and Chapter of Atkinson v. Hutton
Fielder v. Morten

Evans v. Williams
Bamford v. Archer
Bossinghsni V. Boar
Gibson v. Butler

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
COURT OF CHANCERY, SATURDAY, Nov. 13.

Some bankrupt cases were heard to-day, of no public interest.

VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT, SATURDAY. Nov. 19.

His Howoca was occupied the whole of the day in hearing
causes of no public importance.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, WESTMINS'
SATURDAY, Nov. IV.

THE LINO r. J. W. ADLARD.

This was an indictment against the defendant, as an inhabitant
of the parish of St. Bartholomew the Oreat, within the city of
London, for refusing to accept the office of constable, to which he
was appointed by the Court Leet. At the London Sessions the de-
fendant was found guilty, subject to the opinion of this Court,
upon a case, which stated the following facts :—The defendant was
a printer by trade, and carried on business at a printing-office In
the parish of St. Bartholomew the Great, for which he paid an
annual rent of 601. He was assessed to the church, poor, and oti.er
parochial rates, but slept in an adjoining parisii. No person slept
on the premises, but the defendant attended daily, and sometimes
worked there with his men all night. On the 224 of December
last he was elected to the office of constable, but refused to act, on
theground that he was not a tesident inhabitant of the parish. The
question for the opinion of the Court was, whether not sleeping in
the parish where a person occupied property was sufficient to exempt
him from the burden of serving the office of constable.
Mr. Bot.I.AA I) argued the case on the pert of the Crown, and
contended that the defendant, as occupier of property in the parish,
was, to all intents anti purposes, an inhabitant, and liable to the
burden of serving all parochial offices; He cited 2 Juso. 7(2 ;
Jeffrey's case, 6 Co. Rep. 0 ; Orisby's case, K Co. Rep. 31t ;
Rex v. Clapp. 3T. R.; Rex v. Dunstan, id. 623, and the late
cases of Rex v. Hall, and Rex v. Poyrsder.
Mr. BROUGAAM, contra, contended that the authorities cited
only went to show that the defendant an, an inhabitant of this
parish for the purposes of pecuniary liability, but that residence
by sleeping was essential to cut upon him the burden of serving
the office of constable.

The CoulT said they would take time to consider of the ease
before they gave judgment.
MAGUIA V. MACHADO.
_

Mr. G R,f EY on a fora rule niri to discharge
the defendant on common bail. he having been arrested for 100.000/.
at the suit of the plaintiff, upon an affidavit of debt, made before
the British Consul at Carlin. Two objections were taken to the
proceeding—first, that an affidavit made before a British Consul in
a foreign country was insufficient to hold a party to bail in this
covettry ; and necond, that the affidavit in question only described
the money as pounds sterling, instead of sterling British. Both
parties were natives of Spain.
Mr. SCAR LET T and Mr. F. POLLOCK now showed CallSe, and
contended—first, on the authority of a case in Mr. Cfiitty's Re-
ports, and by 'force of the late Statute, 6 George IV, n. 20,
that an affidavit made before a British Consul was sufficient to
hold the defendant to bail here; and second, that describing
the money as porn& sterling wu sufficient in a British Court of
Justice.

At two o'clock. the Court being obliged to rise for the purpose of
meeting the other Judges in the Exchequer Chamber, the further
discussion of the case was adjourned till another day.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS. WESTMINSTER,
SATURDAY, Nov.lll.