The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1826-01-30 00:00:00

Mr. SUGUE X considered this a most tniustifiable assertion.

The Vict-CIIANCELLOR said if Mr. Whitton was not in.
Cannot in the COUTPC of the day orliO the individuals were that
were parties to the contract, so as to enable him to amend his bill
by Tuesday. making them parties to the suit, the Court would 11Pilr
the application again on that day, and pronounce judgment with-
out regard to any circumstance but what then appeared before it.
Mr. HAUT wan quite satisfied with this state of things.
Mr. SUGDEX said he never heard a more improper statement
thin Mr. Hart had thought proper to stand up and make oft' hand.
Ilk clients were most respectable gentlemen t and if the plaintiff
thought proper to take tltc trouble of applying to them, he had
not a doubt that they would at ouce give him the names of the
patties to the contract.

Mr. HART wished to know if they could furnish him with a
copy of the entire contract?
Mr. SUDDEN was not at all prepared to say they would do any
thing so unreasonable. Whatever was reasonable and just, that
tbey would do.
The VlcE.CnaxcYy.Lon said if the plaintiff wished to bare
aeopy of the contract, he would bare to ask for that in his bill.
Mr. HART said he would he content with the names of the
trustees to the contract, and wished to know who Mr. Sugden's
most respectable clients were. because Mr. Whitton did not know.
He (lie. Hart) never knew Mr. Sugden have a client but who was
the most respectable, though his adversary's was always just the
other way.
Mr. SUDDEN felt confident the Court knew that he never was
in the habit of forming any such opinion or of making use of any
such expressions. Mr. Hart's statement he treated, as it deserved,
with contempt. 11'.s clients on this occasion were Messrs. Spence
and Desborough.

COURT OF KING'S ITMA SATURDAY, JAX. 21

THE LINO J. WILLIAM DOWNER.

This was a vow warrant(' information against the defendant for
exercising, without lawful authority, the office of a free burgess of
the borough of Colchester. The defendant pleaded that he having
been nominated by the Crown, in the charter granted to Colchester
in the LS Geo. 111, to be one of the Common Councilmen, lie was
by virtue of such nomination entitled to the rights, privileges, and
immunities of a free burgess. although lie was not a free burgess
previously to such nomination. The relator demurred to this
plea; on the ground of its insufficiency.
Jessor argued in favour of the demurrer.
TY, contra, was stopped by the Court. 1
The COURT were clearly of opinion that the defendant having
been nominated in the charter by the Crown, as a Common Coun.
cllman, and having subsequently accepted the office, he wes, by
necessary implication, entitled to all the privileges of a free bur.
gees, and therefore judgment was given for the defendant.

WHiTTALER 9. BRADLEY.

31r. 31ARATAT ;;;;47:110110; ;111;114'11; had made unsuc-
cessfully yesterday, for arresting the judgment in this case, which
war an action by an innkeeper for slander, the words alleged to
baee been used by the defendant concerning the plaintiff being-
- Ile is a bankrupt—he will be in the Gazette in twelve months—
he is a pauper." 'rile ground of the motion was, that inasmuch as
an innkeeper was not liable to the Bankrupt Laws, the words Lid
and proved were not actionable; and the Learned Conned new
cited a great many authorities from the older reporters in support
of his argument. But
The Cottar were clearly of opinion that as the words spoken
had a tendency to injure the plaintiff in his temporal affairs, they
were actionable; and Mr. Justice Bayley referred to a case in
I Lord Raymond. 130, in which the words were, " Peal not with
A It ; I tell you be is broken ; there is no entertainment for man
or horse in his house ;^ and the Court held that these words being
spoken of An innkeeper, were actionable.—Rule refused.