The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1826-05-29 00:00:00

LAIV NOTICES.

COURT OP CRANCERV.
The Lord Chancellor and Vice-Chancellor bit at tre,ttnin.ter,

to-1110frOW.

COURT OP KING'S RENCII.—WznuzsDAY, AT HALT-PAST
TwaLva.
Middlesex Common harks.
Gaylor v. iliolbell Dor v. Morena
steele v. Burrows Ilmbor V. :Junta= -
1),,e. &c. v. Dunbar Woodroife v. kaggeter
hoer° v. Wright Partington v. Polley
Wrbb v. Williams Day v. Hunter
Mx v. Patrick Iteliden v. Godson
Horne v. Kerr Rrown v. Hemmings
Christie v. Real Marshall v. Pruning
Row • Moody Doe v. Kibler
Lottehurst v. Long Buckingham v. Thoinp-
Hinckes v. Mayor son
Cutmore v. Town

Veal v. Bondy
Kennett v. French
Miley v. Bonet
Catiow v. Pennon
Curti• v. t arney
Booth v. Hanley
Prater v. Lurd Teyn-
_

ham
Weston V. Mercer
Hitchcock v. Marna
Main v. Foxall
Sharpe v. Rote
Peacock v. Ferrend
311.1411 m: Common

Carger v. Vaul

furies for the Second Sitting In Trinity Term,

Notice.—All actions brought on billanf exchange and promi.mory note,
that were not tried at the Sitting, after Eaoter Term and Remanent to the
Plrat Sitting In Trinity Term will be the hot of catotee for trial at the Se-
cond Sitting In Trinity Term, and no other causes.—By order of the
Chief Justice.

N.B.—lt le requested that the plaintlfrA attorney wIU give notice of
such causes to the Mantua as soon as may be.

Henderson v. Fur-
bridge
Holllnrake v. Lister
Herman v. Gayfer
Gordon v. Wektead
Finneane v. same
Middleton v. Middleton
Ouham v. Marshall,
further directions
and costs.

ROLLS COURT.—TVINDAY, AT SIX.
MORI Tilt aI %%%%% 0/ TUX ROLLI.
Green e. Ward, judg- Ordnance Office v.
mcnt Close
Esmute Westminster Davenport v. Perks
Commissioners, pet. Tracey v. Abbott
Thomas,. Manico Tracey v. Amos
Lipscomb v. Wood. Tracey v. Unshorn
ward Att.-Geo. v. Slater,
Berkeley v. Palling, further directions
further directions and costs
and costs Same v. same,liditto
Same ~Cockerid Yamsbott orn v.Walklin

The Master of the Rolls will bear causes, furtl
titions by consent, on Saturday next, the Sd of J
the morning.
Causes and petitions must be set down before two o'clock on Friday,
the 2d of June.

her direction% and pe.
lune, at nine o'clock in

COURT OP COMMON PLEAS.—Tat
London Special Juries.
• Rand• v. Pratt.
London Common Juries.
Uncles v.Bahr (by pro.
tiro)

Decreer V. Roblin
Pratt v. Willey
AV. lett v. Townley
Deckhouse V. Aye%ley
Debra., and ethers v.
Boyce

Taite.;:Cltarnel

COURT OF E

11.tchn end other v.
Rot tomley
Rower •. Moon
Loyd and others v.
Steer

DAT, AT TE V.

!Meer e. George
Harvey v. Davidt and

Attorney-General v.
Mercer's Company
Same v. Name, fur
iud4rnent
Williams V. Salusbury,
petition
Stokes v. Burrell, re-
Pori

another
Wink v. Gas Light
Company
Chariton v. Cooper.

:XCHEQUER.—To.wna
Before the whole Court.
Jackson v. Bourne
Brookes ♦. Parker
Putney v. Wentworth
Cowne ♦. Douglas
11 ...tangs v. Sheppard,
bill and an.wer
Edwards •. Stuward
Palmer V. Spell

.ROW, AT TIN.

Hollingsworth v. Dob-

~011
Win. v. Stone
Clarke v. Huthon
Trinity-house v.
Klrkus
Stephenson, v. Tom-
linson.

COURT C
Second Session lu Tri,

OF ADM IR LTY.—To-i
kitty Term, 1824.—Before

w.

Lord sWw•ell, at Ten.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF RING'S BENCH, SATUZDAY, MAY 27.

THE XING V. JOIN COHEIRS, CLERK, AND OTHERS.
This was a rule obtained last Term, calling upon the Reverend
defendants, three in number, Magistrates of the county of Devon,
to show cause why criminal information should not be filed against
them, for corruptly and illegally convicting one William Crunden
In a penalty of 201. for a supposed ollence against the sth Ann, c.
14. in destroying game without a certificate.
The affidavits in support of the rule stated In substance as fol-
lows :—Mr. Crunden was convicted in a penalty of 201. for sport-
ing without a game certificate ; no summons was personally Jetted
upon him, or left at his house, calling epon him to appear to the
information. By some mesas, however, he obtained notice that an
information had been lodged against him. On the day of hearing,
he did not appear at first personally, but his attorney appeared on
his behalf. The evidence of the informer WTI taken in Crunden's
absence, notwithstanding the protestation of his attorney. %When
the latter, however, was proceeding to cross-examine the in-
former, the defendants interposed, and refused to allow him so to
do. In the interim, Mr. Crunden came into the Justice-room,and
protested against the case going on, objecting that he had not been
duly summoned; that he had not heard the evidence; and that he
was not prepared with his defence. The case, however, proceeded,
and when Crunden asked the Informer, on cross-examination, what
sort of dog he (Crunden) had with hint ? one of the defendants in-
terrupted him, and said, " That is perfectly immaterial ; the case
is perfectly clear, and you are convicted in the penalty of 201. If
you had not brought your attorney here, the penalty would have
been mitigated to ten pounds ; so you have to thank your attorney
for that; and you must pay the money down directly." Linder
these circumstances the present application was made, it being
alleged that the defendants had acted from corrupt and unworthy
mottoes.

The ATTORNEY-CENTRAL and Mr. COLERIDGE now showed
cause against the rule, on affidavits, denying all corrupt or unwor-
thy motives. They admitted that the evidence of the informer had
been taken in the absence of Crunden, hut that this was done con-
formably to their usual practice. They admitted that one or other
of them did say that " the penalty might have been mitigated, if
you had not brought your attorney here." They also admitted
that Crunden had not been personally served with any summons;
that Crunden had been interrupted as to his cross-examination of
the informer respecting the dog, but stated that in their opinion it
was an immaterial point. It was insisted, however, that Crunden
was convicted upon the clearest evidence; that justice had in efFect
been done between the parties; and that if the defendants had been
irregular as to any of the other points objected to, they had acted
under an error in judgment, and without any corrupt or malicious
motive. Under these circumstanem, it was contended that the
ground of the motion had failed ; for without express proof of ma-
lice or corruption, Magistrates were not liable to an information.
Mr. 'Scan LETT and Mr. CHITTY, in support of the rule, con-
tended that there were quite sufficient grounds made out to justify
the interposition of the Cour.
The LORD CHIEF JUSTJCE—Adverting to the affidavits on
both sides, I am of opinion that there is not sufficient ground for
imputing to these defendants any corrupt or malicious motive ; nor
can I say that, in the result, any actual injustice has been done.
But there fins been so much very improper and irregular conduct
on the part of the defendants, that I think Crunden might fairly be
led to think that he had good grounds for this application ; and
therefore, though I think the rule ought to be discharged, yet it
must be on the terms of the defendants paying the costs of this ap-
plication. It is clear that the summons was not regularly served,
but there seems no reason to doubt that Crunden knew, by udier
means, of the charge he was called upon to answer. Whether the
defendants were bound to suffer the attorney to be present and act
as advocate for Crunden, I shall not now decide; it is a very Im-
portant public question, and requires more mature deliberation.
The interruption of Crunden's cross-examination of the informer
was upon an immaterial point; but still it had better have been
'voided. In making the assertion, that the penalty would have
been mitigated from 201. to 101. if Crunden had not brought his
attorney to act for him, the defendants acted, to say the least of it,
very unadvisetlfy ; and I must say, that I highly disapprove of
that part of their conduct in particular. In several respects, the
defendants have certainly conducted themselves in a very improper
and irregular manner ; but as I do not see ground enough for charg-
ing them with malice or corruption, I think the rule must be dis-
charged. Fur ths reasons, however, which I have already given,
I think it quite , • per that the defendants should pay the costs of
the application.
Mr. Justice Bayley—l shall only mention one point in addition
to what has fallen from my Lord Chief Justice. It is a general
but erroneous practice among Magistrates, to examine the witnesses
hi support of accusations made before them, on penal statutes, in
the absence of the parties accused, and that was done is the pr.-tent
case. This is a highly irregular, illegal, and mischievous practice,
and Magistrates should learn that limit henceforth it must be cor-
rected. The examination in Ruch cases as these should not take
place until there is an issue juiced noon the plns of not guilty, and
then the witnesses are to be examined in the pre,,:nce of the party
accused, in order that he may hear the evidence, and exercise the
right of aim-examination.
The Loan CHIEF JUSTICE said he concurred in what had
fallen from Mr. Justice Bayley. The practice alluded was mast
incorrect and dangerous, and he trusted, after this public notice, it
would be corrected.
Mr. Justice HOLItOTID and Mr. Justice LITT LEDALE agreed.
Rule discharged upon payment of cons by the Bev. defendants.

THE inlIN
This was a rule obtained last Term, calling upon the defendant
to show cause why a criminal Lamination should not he filed
against him, fur an alleged libel on certain Magistrates in the county
of Suffolk, reflecting on their conduct in the administration of
justice.

Mr:Sron Na now appeared on the part of the defendant, and
said, that as the affidavits made In answer to the rule had unfor-
tunately not been filed within sufficient time, he had now no resist.
anee to offer to the rule, except that the application had not been
made until two Terms after the publication of the alleged
The Corgi*, however, on the motion of Mr. lioutoYD, made
the rule absolute.

Monday (thin day) being the anniversary of the restoration of
Charles 11. only one Judge will sit to hear motions of course.

RING V. ItICIIARDEION.
This was an fiction of trespass fur driving against plaintiff's gig,
throwing him and his wife out, and injuring the horse and gig._
Plea, not guilty.

The transaction which was the subject of the present action took
place at Elthani, ■bout nine o'clock in the evening of the 29th of
May last. It appeared that the plaintiff and his wife, being on
their proper side or the road, were returning in a gig to town an the
evening in question. The defendant, from carelessness or accident,
drove hia gig against their carriage with great violence, and upset
it, throwing them into a ditch. Their horse taking fright. ran off
at a furious rate to the distance of a few hundred yards, when the
animal tumbled into a ditch, with the shafts of the gig flanging to
his harness, and was afterwards pulled rut with the assistance of a
farinCr's cart-hone. The plaintiff and his wife were seriously hurt,