The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1826-02-09 00:00:00

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, INErnhesnAi, FFB. S.

THE WINO U. ZDWAIHD Paka.
TMs NM an Indictment against the defendant for keeping
common bindle' in Pitt-street, Charlotte-street. Pharos-squaret
from March 1824 to January 182.5. The case was tried before tttg
Lord Chief Justke at the sitting in this place after Trinity Tefdat
1826. At the trial it au clearly proved that the house in (meatiest
was of the description stated in the Indictment and it was astern
by three women of debauched habits, that widen the period sped..
tied the defendant had represented to them that he was the
lord, had treated them with gin in the house, and had requested
them to make use of it for their nigknly purposes. On the either
side it was sworn that though the defendant had been landlord of
the house in 1822, he had in that year sold his interest in MO
lease. had parted with the possession, and had never since had any
interest in the house in question. The jury, however, having the
whole evidence before them, found the defendant
31r. SCA KLETT this day moved for judgment of the Cderf
on the defendant.

Mr. Bn ou ER tca applied for a new trial, on the ground that the
verdict was against the weight of evidence ; and he supported the
application upon the affidavits of several persons not examined
upon the trial, who ststed that from March 1824 to January I=
the defendant had not inhabited the house in question, but NW.
lived during that period in other parts of town, carrying on hie.
businessof all upholsterer ; that the house had been in fact con+
dusted during that period by a pencil named fry, who much re-
sembled the defendant, and who, though subpcenned on the trial.
did not appear ; nor would he make an of on the part of UN!
defendant when since applied to fur that purpose.
Mr. SCARLET? put in affidavits on the other sS&e, stating
that the prisoner bad confessed he was formerly convicted of a
similar offence to the present; and that on searching the records
of this Court, his conviction of such a charge was found among
them.

Mr. BRODERICX now addressed the Court in sepport of his
motion. Ile 'wild that the only question at the trial was, whether
the defendant conducted this house of ill-fame during the period
stated in the indictment; for that it was a house of bad repute was
c'early established on all sides. _

The Lon]) Cut Kr J ST ICE-I beg you r pardon, Mr. Broderick.
Some of your witemies would have it believed that it was a decent,
quiet house.

. -
BHODERICK....I am quite sure did not dispute its cha.
meter, my hord.
The Loan Er JusTiCal—Noa I am sure you, Mr. Ilro.
tlenek, would not (hotline it. (Laughter.)
Mr. Li Roueutc'tt continued, and submitted that the fair weigiii
of evidence was on the side of his client at this trial, ad coatendsd
that an undue impression had been made upon the Jury by its
being urged to them that his client had been tomterly convicted of
an offence similar to that with which lie was now charged, as if it
necessarily followed that he must therefore be guilty of the present
charge.

SCABLtTT on the other side said that the question before
the Jury at the trial was, not whether the defendant bad conducted
his house peraonally ; but in fact wheats' he was the owner f it,
and whether it was conducted for his inteecat and benefit by a per.
son placed in it for dint purpose. The Jury found that question in
the sifinnative, and he submitted that verdict ought not to be
disturbed.

The COURT were of opinion that the ease haring been left to the
Jury entirely upon the evidence, they ought not to disturb the
verdict; and accordingly sen:enced the defendant to six months'
imprisonment and hard labour in the !louse of Correction.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, WEDNESDAY, Frs. 8.

WRIT OF REMIT.
ANGEL V. AM:EL.

This cause is a proceeding in a writ of right, brought to recess!
certain lands and possessions in Yorkshire.

.., 7...
Mr. SergeantfeconaN on a previous day obtained a rule to
show cause why this action should not be tried at bar.
Mr. Sergeant BOSANCIIYET this morning showed cause against
the rule. His Learned Friend had obtained a rule nisi upon agi.,
davits which set forth that this was a caw of great length, likely to
involve several questions of much ;probable difficulty ; that the
greater part of his witnesses were nearer 11'estminster than York;
that the property contested was of considerable value; that it was
possible the interests of the Crown would be ;blind depending on
the issue, and that It would be necessary to go into a long exami-
nation of pedigree. The matters of this affidavit were answered by
an affidavit which the Learned Sergeant read, denying that the
property was of very great value, or that any question of difficulty
was likely to arise, or that the will of the testator was: calculated to
lead into any long inquiry of pedigree. It went on to declare that
almost all the witnesses in the cause were at York, and that this
party had gone to a very considerable expense for the purpose of
retaining ail the best talent likely to attend at the York Assizes,
which expense, in the event of a trial at bar, would be rendered
fruitless. The Learned Sergeant said there were three grounds on
which a trial at bar could be obtained it WWI necessary that the
property should be of great value, and the proceedings of great
length and great difficulty. Further, before the Court would at-
tend to such an application, the affidavit must state distinctly what
those difficulties were, and after this had been complied with, it was
for the discretion of the Court, either to refuse or grant the apelica-
tion ; and in the event of granting it, to impose whatever terms it
might judge expedient. Now, as regarded the value or the length
of the proceedings, neitherof these grounds were ma le out ; and the
affidavit in reference to the difficulties, instead of stating what these
difficulties were, merely spoke of them generally, and rot only or,
glected to particularise them, the doing of which was absolutely
necessary to the support of the present application, but spoke of
them as only likely to occur. Ambrose, on the demise of Croft v.
Wells, in Andrews 271, and the King r. the Burgesses of Carnal.-
von, Blair's Reports, 79, were case; which would support the pre-
sent opinions. The Court there held that trials at bar were heavily
expensive to the parties, and should not be allowed where it wail
only stated generally that difficulties would arise during the trial.
In the King e. Amery, Ist Term Reports, 3ti3, application was
made for a trial at bar, and it was refused, though there were 12
issues, and several very important and intricate questions to be dee
tided.

The Loin, Cutter JusTrce-1 recollect a ease of Rivers y.
Platt, tried before the Lord Chief Justice Dallas, in which trial at
bar was refused, and that was a case of very considerable im-
portance.
Dlr. Sergeant BOSANQUET reminded the Court that in Angrj
Angel, which was a case of ejectment, and the same with the pre-
sent. so far as related to the tenant, the Court or King's Bench
decided that they could not grant a trial at bar on the mere al.
legation of difficulty. The Court of King's Bench having been
of this opinion, their Lordships would be regulated accordingly.
The Learned Sergeant was proceeding to cite the case of Ricers v.
Platt, when

The COURT intimated that it would now hear the other side.
Mr. Sergeant VAUGHAN contended that quite sufficient had
been made out in the affidavit to support the rule. Formerly, in
a writ of right, it hail been doubted, whether, as a matter of nicer.
sity, the trial must not be at bar, though it was ultimately decided
that it might be at nisi Friar. If there then existed such a doubt,
the Court might fairly decide in favour of the rule in a case where
so much had been advanced, AS was contained in his affidavits is
support of such a decision. It had been objected that witnesses
ought not to be taken so great a distance; but this objection ap-
plied as decidedly to a trial at nisi piss as at bar. Ii this were not
a tit case to be tried at bar, lie could not imagine what was. Here
was great value and great probable difficulties, either of which were
entitled to such a trial as his client sought.
The Lou CHIEF Jus T ct —Not probable difficulties, Brother
Vaughan.
Mr. Sergeant VAUGHAN said he need not at any' rate argue that
there wait great value; for it was not only the claim in this immediate
case, but others, that were depending on it, which made this of so
much importance. In the case of Angel v. Angel, it shoukl be re-
collected the trial at bar was refused. because there was nothing
said shout difficulties. This crew, therefore, tandd not be brought
to bear upon the present. In the case of Douglas, too, which had'
beers cited, there was a partieulu reason for the refusal, one of the
witnesses being a very old man, and this was an application to did