The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1826-05-17 00:00:00

ell or) both tide
, IRISH EXCHEQUER CHAMBER, Mar S.
1
—asewaia--
[From the Dublin Evening(P:7l
~
DIEHARD RADFORD ROWE V. JOHN WHIRR, ANDAEW igz.
SON, AND DANIEL ASHFORD.
This was a writ of error from the Court of Comma Phis: ts. action was tried before Lord Norbory, which was for assault al
false imprisonment, and the plaintiff obtained a verdict rot 2i.;
The defendant's Counsel took a bill of exceptions to the chsro
the Learned Judge ; and after much argument in the i";
Common Pleas, thin Judges of that Court differed wit /.:
Norbury, and • venire de row was awarded. The Sainte',
thu 4 forced to bring in his writ of error before the twelve Jodi The cam in this Court was ably argued by.
and this day the Court of Error gave their judgment reriali„:.
Judges decided for the plaintiff: Mr. Justice Moore and illr. lice Johnson declared against the plaintiff.
Lord NORBITRY, iu giving judgment, spoke as follows;_
know the full value of time. Indeed I ought to know it at veil
most people, for I have already hail a long day. f will not, Gk,
fore make this day longer. flaying " a co.istrucive preleacca
the Court below, where this case was arguc,d, I feel I have ari 111 and • duty to defend the judgment iven, in which the ritojefi,rj
the Court agreed. I would at anytime, however, in this Qti:. ,
Error. revise my own error,, and endeavour to direst e,,.r7L'^i
of his Majesty's subjects of a feeling dust he did not receive j4,,ii.
Having said so much, I feel it my duty to abridge anythin,ii,.,
may have to say : I will come to a cline instantly. itid,74,4
know the learning of all the Judges about me, I will mention a. greatest authority on bills of exceptions--Holt and Bridgerno.
have had a great deal of experience ; a great many bills °I
lions have been taken to me. (Load laughter.) lam not
ashampl
4
of it, for I have done a great deal of business. I will no; say rtja
ofneof mvself—no, no, it would be ungentlemanly; I aid glro IQ
li the poet--
Oh ! my Antonio, I do know of hose
Who only are reputed wise
From saying nothing.
Probably If I said no,hing, it would have been much vim*
laughter) ; but having said so much, I will say a littlerm,
(Here his Lordship reviewed the circumstances of theitaim.
nutely.) I now feel myself bound to cot elude and mum".
guiltier upon myself. As to laying down the law, ft is tioitfx
my doing ao, perhaps (laughter) ; hut while I am in my tail,
capacity, I will expound it. (Laughter.) In the days of Bohai
Bedgeman, too, Judges were treated rudely and rotighly.m„4
as at any time a nce. However, they are fair game (loudisaghter,
and where there is a scarcity of other game, I think iris quite bah
turn out one of them, and hunt him a little. (Great Luster'
I think the bill of exceptions ought to be overruled."
At the conclusion of his Lordship's remarks, he turned to Dim
Smi.lt, and said, "Well, was 1 lorg, eh ?"

LAIC NOTICES.

4 BENCH—Tiara DA; A
London Common Juries.
lililick v. Moody
Lake v. Robson
Thomas v. Cloy
!Memnon v. Bristow
Hunter v. Gomperti
Todd v. /Tongan
Morality. White
Love v. Deacon
Brotherton v. Osborne
Gribbie v. Payne
Humphreys v. Partridge
Butler v. Green
Darla v. Pell
Bewley v. (heaves
---
AMMON PLEAS—Tata
If iddiesex Common Juries
iiGay v. Rickman
Fisher v. Stockdale
Felton and another

LT IT iI.F.PAST

smith y. libuldinon
Gil', v. Campbell
Wenham v. FArk
Vallotton y. Wars
Davison Y. Gll.2rd
Francis,. Carter
Eastman v. Clarke
Itichardscia v. Barka
Cnekbure v. Rubiatk
Gibbfne v. Cba,,ee,
Wright v. King
Clement, v. King
Boole v. Benno:

Assignee v. Long
Allen v. Douglas and
another
Rkenhall v. Coke
Tarling v. Rakhom the
elder

Oven.ton W. v. Davi,. I
)ecial Juries.—To-liforrot
SeHick v. Smith
Special Juries—Friday.
Maiden v.Wright, Esq.

THE ARMY.
..........._