The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1826-06-01 00:00:00

COURT OF COMMON MEAS.—Ts:S DAY, AT BAL/JAIT
London Cau.ten.
Second Sitting in Trinity Term, 152.01.
London Special Juries.
Wilkinson v. liebwn

Pletcher v. Gllleople
Maitland V. &teller

Ifugben .r. Turner.

Pratt y. Willey
Talie v. Charnell
Lloyd and others v.
Steyr
ItleMath and another Y.

London Common Juries.
White y. Slyth
Murphy v. Knight
Hubbard v. Malley'
Williams sad souther
v. Rowlett
',miner v. Carroll
Lio) I and others v.
Wilkinson & another

Lloyd and sans t.
Tack

Robson
WSW /r. George
Hooper V. ll,urst
Wilma v. Alder
Irving and others V.
!tad,'

Lyon
Hawker v. Levy
Mere and another v.
Jennings

COURT OF
Bennett v. Goode, pe-
tition by order
Rare v. House, report
Hastinga v. Sheppard,
bill and anrwer

IRCEIEQUER.—Tots
Hollingsworth v. Dob-
I 11011

JAY, AT Tax.
Stephenson, v. Tota-
-1 'hewn
Fdimunds v. Howard
Willis v. Stone
Carruthers v. Douglas.
Desforges v. Jones

Willi. v. Stone

Clarke v. Hudson

Edwerde c. Iloward

Trinity-house V. Kirk=
Spa. retble. 12 June

Palmer ♦. Spell

DELEGATES.—Tnts t
rayons tall 11011ROOATI!

DAT, AT TIM.
CS.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

VICE-CHANCELLORS COURT-WEDNESDAY, MAT 31.

lihrfieuour was occupied in hearing the arguments of Counsel
on pleas and demurrers, none of which were of public interest.

COURT OF KING'S RENO'', WEDNESDAY, MAT 81.

[Sittings in Banco.]
The Court was occupied upon the new trial paper the whole
morning.

fIOE ON DENISE OF EVANS V. EVANS.
This was an action of ejectment to recover possession of a meg-
Image and tenement, tried at the last Summer Assizes for the county
of Somerset, when a verdict wit found for the plaintiff: At the
trial, on the part of the defendant it was proved and insisted that
the lessor of the plaintiff having been convicted of a capital felony,
in returning from transportation in 1814, hough he was afterwards
pardoned, the plaintiff's tide failed. In Michaelmas Term a rule
to show Cause why a nonsuit should not be entered was obtained. •
Mr. MEN EWETHER and Mr. ERSKINE now Showed ORM, and
contended, first, that if there was any forfeiture of the estate in
question, by reason of the lessor of the plaintiff having been at.
tainted of felony, the estate would have 'mated in the lord of the
manor; but lie having been examined as a witness on the trial, and
having disclaimed all tide adverse to the plaintiff, the estate re-
verted to the lessor of the plaintiff, by virtue of the King's pardon ;
secondly, the recent Act of 6th Geo. IV. esp. 23, enaeted that in
all cases where his late Majesty had, or his present Majesty had or
should, or his heirs or successors should grant a pardon to any per-
son convicted of a capital offence, on condition of their suffering
some other punishment, all such pardons should have the effect of
pardons granted under the Great seal, and therefore no attalnt of
blood would follow. In this instanceolhe sentence of death upon the
lessor of the plaintiff; passed :in 1814, was commuted to imprison-
ment for two years ; and therefore, as in 1016 ail his rights would
be restored to him, the plaintiff's title now derived from him was
good.
Mr. TAUNTON, in support of the rule, contended that the mo-
ment a person was divested of an estate by attainder of felony, he
became riviliter mortuus, and it was Impossible that the estate of
which he had been divested could ever be vested in him again by
the effect of the Act of Parliament cited. The estate in such case
went to the lord of the manor. and though he disclaimed it, yet
he was the person in whom, by law, the interest vested. It was
true he had not entered, but that made no difference, for it was suf-
ficient if he was capable of entering.
The Loop CHIEF JUSTICE, after consulting with the other
Learned Judges, and looking into many authorities which were re-
ferred to, said, there is no question but that the effect of the Act of
Parliament that has been cited is to restore a person convicted of a
capital felony and pardoned to all his former civil capacities. But
it puts been very properly argued that the pardon will not divest,
any estate or interest that in the mean time becomes actually
vested in another person; and then that introduces this question,
whether the cop hold estate and interest of a felon actually vested
in the lord by force of the attainder (added his Lordship), at the
moment of the attainder, or whether it was necessary that
some act should be done by the lord, in order to vest the
estate in him, such as a presentment to him by the homage, or a
seizure by his bailiff, consequent upon such a presentment, or per-
haps a seizure by the bailiff previous to a presentment ? As at
present advised, I think some one of those previous steps was RR
emery—that no estate can vest In the lord until he has taken
steps to enforce that vesture, either by entry upon the records of
his Court, or by seizure before entry of record. That is my pre-
sent opinion, and my Learned Brothers concur in it ; but if, upon
thinking further of it, and looking into the books, we should think
we are mistaken, we shall take care to say so before the present
Term gore over.
Rule discharged unless the judgment be altered this Term.
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE sat at Nisi Prius at twelve
o'clock, and took Middlesex Common Jury Causes. None of
them were of say public importance.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, WzmrxsDAY, MAY 31.

WALLER, CLERIC, V. RIDGWAY.
This was an action brought by the plaintiff, a clergyman at
Hereford, against the defendant, a farmer near thereto, respect.
ing the setting out of tithes, and which was tried before Mr.
Justice Burrough, at the Assizes for that (minty. Upon motion
the Court granted a new trial Mr. Sergeant Wilde subeemsently
obtained a role to show cause why the venue should not be changed,
upon the ground that the plaintiff could not hare a fair trial in
that or the adjoining county, on account of various letters that had
appeared in the Bert:l4ml Journal and the Hereford Independent
newspaprs, -together w4th several remarks of the editors, to which
the defendant was privy; and which remarks and letters were an
attack upon the clergy, and milected on the Judge, and also mused
an unjust prejudice.
Mr. Sergeant TADDY this day showed cause against the Me;
and in so doing read the remarks made in those papers, and the
correspondence therein inserted.
The Loan Crime JUSTICE asked if those letters had found
their way to the Attorney-General; if not, it was very proper that
they should.
Mr. Sergeant TADDY submitted that they were there to try the
civil rights, and not to interfere with the criminal conduct of per-
sons connected with newspapers. He would distinctly show that
the defendant had nothing whatever to do with the publication; and
he was not to be prejudiced because others chose to raise a contro-
versy and attack the clergy.
Mr. Justice BURROUGII—At the trial, the plaintiff, by his
Connie!, stated that he did not for a moment suppose the defen.
dant to be guilty of any fraud.
Mr. Sergeant TADDY proceeded to read the whole of the publi.
cation, when
The Loan enter Jusetca observed, that this rubbish could
not impose upon the weakest judmbents--it was a disgrace to the
mesa m these enlightened days.
MT. Juitice fiazet.te thought that the point was set so youth
whether the defendant was privy to these publi but winch*,
they 'did not go to the calling uptiaLLersons who be es the
Jury to violate their oaths in o to the clergy.
his. Sergeant TADDY and r. Ilargestat SPANETE aqua Id
great length against the rule, astriaMul that It was as OW
Mmed.of power to newspapers, if was woe to be the
spot where their rights ought to be tiled, because they a... so
raise a controversy, and go into a pr oba•W diecuraies,sisil slob&
county to be said to be so weak, that they were met lb to try •
cause, because their minds were influenced by such boa.
The LORD Cuter JUSTICE would not lay it dews as a rule
ttmt there was no ciao el pow fit to try a tithe cause. The
._ _ -
landholders