The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1825-11-28 00:00:00

LAW NOTICES.

COURT OF CHANCERY.
laTOIll Tilt LORD CIIANCILLLOIN ?XIS DAY.
Bankrupt Petition (tor judgmenii—lix-parte Parke v. Bhp&
Peii:ion (part lieard)—S.t,iiii v. Sharp.
Lunatic Petition—ln re Turner.
Petition—Ex-parte Fowlrr.
After which. Minions will be heard.
ITTORI VICE-Cl/ANCILLOII TIM OAT,
To prove will—Motley v. Rushby.
Bankrupt Pctitinut-11n re Seward and— ; es.parte Batton.

After which, Motto, a will be fiend.

COURT OF K INWS BENCH.
Minntrati—The Court win sit At Westmhmterfrem Toady,
the 21/th Nor. will Wednesday, the 7th Dec. Inclusive, and again
after Christmas.

LowDow—The Court wiU sit in !Arim from Tharsday, the 8:1%
Dee. till ChristrllaS. The Lord Chief Justice will attend on Wed-
nesday, the 3lrth Nov. to silj.narn the Court; but he business will
be done on that day in London.
CAUSES TO HI TRIED IIY MIDDLESEX COMMON 111,tES
TO•MORttOW, AT lIALF•YAoT NINE.
Wilkiason !kyle v. EiliNon Noah v.
Kelly v. Nroo.l Drtnan v. Salt Gunn v. Dignam
Prentice v. 13enham The King v. Ilevett Churchill v. Guile
Ambridge v. James Kent v. Curtis IVilliams v. Lvvy
Doe, &c. y. Jacobs Philips v. Irelsad I Snewlu v..Brovir

..c, , . .., _ .oups v.. ...... v. Brown
Calvert v. BooneI; I I', rry v. Codd Tidmar.ll v. Evora
ferry v. Randolph I.l:verenx V. Crouch Cook v. Brown
The King v. Spencer Aron v. 'Andy. IloWird; v. Brown
Bryant v. brake I Spooner v. Wharton 1 Ayton v. Reid
Same r. Arn.at I ‘Vrentrnore v.Whar- 1 gulches v. 3layor
lames v. nor- I Si---- - Welt,-

unea v. nor inn paver) v. vi alter
Tile King v. Pencet I Br.r.ksv.Nigh:ingale Wade v. Aulby
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.

CAUSES TO DE TRIED AT THE MIDDLESEX SITTIVO AFTER
MICHAELMAS TERM, TO-MORROW, AT HALF-PAST NINE.
Meeklew v. SOnibb and another Large and another v. Cleaver
Child i. Grace Drew arid another v. Denbo.
Thorndika v. Hervey rough
Winhung v. Dewar Dae v. Towne
Harr* v. Carer- Same v. Same
II a/ and wheels v. illeredith Carter v. Mune and another
liarrogiaen v. Al alnewatan Ilobeasson v. Cagtobell
Shettle v. A colt Poplar. v. S.oc&date
of Exchequer, nor in the Excite-

No Sitting to-day in the Court
quer Chamber.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT or CHANCERY, SATCEDAY, Nov. 2f;.

H r. ?MAHN:.
The circumstances of the case wale these :—The defendant had '
entered into an agreement for the emehase of a certain farm, of',
which he took possession in tha year 11115. The property then
was encumbered with annuities a,,d ionr.gages to a considerable ex-
tent, until 1822' when the principal annuitant died. In that year
a bill was tiled for the specific performance of the agreement, the
defendant then refusing to accept of the Mk. The defendant put in
his answer early in the year 11123, and an application was made
to the Viet-Chancellor for the interlocutory order to have the per
chase money paid into Court; that order was made; but the
money was not forthcoming, and the defendant was committed to
the ;Fleet for contempt, where lie has remained ever since. Mr.
Hart a short time ago moved fur the discharge of the defendant,
alieging that lie had not accepted the title, and that, even if he had,
he was now unable to pay the money. The Court refused to dis-
charge him, but suggested the prnpriety of having the case fully
heard upon the atiidavits actually filed. Tee seggestion was
agreed to, and the hearing of the cause accordingly came on this
day.
See ace, for the plaintiff', read extracts of letters and affi-
davits, containing expressions, distinctly, as he considered, ap-
proving and accepting the title.
Mr. HART. on the contrary, said ah undeniable title never
had been tendered; it nes true that the country attorney of the
defendant had vet itten a letter desiring the draught of the title to be
sent to him, l which would be executed ; but that letter had been
written very incautiously, because the title was such, as no profes-
sional man ought to have said would be accepted. The Learned
Counsel, however, could not deny that the case pressed hardly on
his client, who had been in possession of the premises for so many
years. lie was, however, row ready to give up possession to the
plaintiff'ff, and to submit to every other condition the Court might
think proper to order, protided the Court would discharge him.
The Learned Counsel, in conclusion, complained that the plaintiff,
had not used due diligence in bringing the (emit, to a hearing.
Mr. SPENCE said the delay was mutual. because, if the de.
fendant had wished to have the progress of the cause hastened, he
might long ago have moved for the dismissal of the bid unless
the plaintiff proceeded. The plaintiff had delayed the hearing,
because he was in hopes that the defendant would have paid the
money, it being known that he was possessed of property, and ro
inclination existing on the part of the plaintiff to put the mate to
more expense than could be avoided.
The Loan CHANCELLoa called far the bill and answer, which
he would read before Monday morning, and then dispose of the
eaae. It was necessary to consider the statement that had been
made against the plaintiff, visb treepect to hie not preereuting the
cause diligently, because the defendant, if unable to pay, could
rot be relieved by the Insolvent Debtors' Act, until a decree was
made against hint.

VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT, SATURDAY, Nov. 26.

FALSE IMPRISONM ENT.
WATSOV v. FAIIII.IF. AND OTHERS.

. _
In this case, a motion was made yesterday to discharge Mrs.
Anne Preece, one of the defendants, an old lady over 70 years of
age, who has been eenlinetl within the walls of a prison for the last
nighteen months, under an attachment sued out of this Court.
When the motion was made yesterday,
His lloxon it wen pleased to order her discharge; but, subse.
fluently, suspended the order on the representation of Mr. Wake.
held, who complained that the motion was made in his absence,
although the opposite side were ROOM that he had instructions to
oppose it.
Mr. WAKEFIELD mentioned the case this morning, and stated,
that though he had technical objections to the form of motion on
which the order of yesterday was granted, still he would not press
them, as it was a case in which personal liberty was involved, lie
was, however, furnished with merits which must afford a fair
ground of opposition.
The VICE.CHANCELLon—het the ease come on now.
Mr. LAWRAINE—I trust your Honour will permit me, in the
first instance, to say a few words as to the mode of proceeding
adopted by Mr. Wakefield yesterday, and as to what I un-
derstand fell from him on that occasion. I have been informed
that Mr. Wakefield conic into Court after I had left it, and
subsequent to my obtaining on order for the immediate discharge
of my client; and that he then reormented to your Honour
that lie had expressly informed me of his being instructed to op-
pose the motion on which the order was grounded, and complained
of my having, -notwithstanding this explicit notice, made the ap-
plication behind his back. Now, Sir, I most positively deny
that such an intimation was made to me. Sir, I never heard front
him that he was instructed to oppose my motion. I applied about
a week ago to your Honour on the part of another defendant, the
facts of whose case were exactly the same as those of the present
defendant; and I mentioned to Mr. Wakefield that I should make
that motion, and asked him if he were instructed to oppose it. Ile
replied that he was not, but that probably he might be. I then
submitted that motion without a particle of opposition ; and did
Wakefield come to my chambers after it to complain (as lie did
yesterday) and ask me what business had Ito make the motion
in his absence,or without apprising hint of my intention? I there-
fore put it to your Honour whether I wasnot justified in making
yesterday's application, having, as I contend I did, given Mr.
Wakefield proper notice of it—ard concluding, as I had a right to
do. that no opposition wait intended, teem the tact of none being of-
fered in the former case, which was precisely the same as the pre-
sent, with this distinction only, that there, there was no imprison.
ment—whilst here, this old lady has been confined for 18 months.
What then does Mr. Wakefield do? lie comes into Court, after
the order had been made—and in my absenre he prays that your
Honour may hear him, and boastingly says, " liet me now be
heard agtffinst this motion ; I have a most triumphant answer to it
—I have affidavits with which to oppose it-1 have letters, and
what not, which •niust convince your Honour that this application
cannot be granted—that it is perfectly' without foundation." But
what, Sir, is the fact? Why, I am prepared to show, that had Mr.
Wakefield becti present. he would not be in a condition to oppose
the motion; for we have ascertained, and it is embodied in anaffi -
davit, that the affidavit of' which so much has been boasted was not
filed till a few minutes before eight o'clock last night. Under these
circumstances, {cation your Honour not to entertain this objection,
which is a mere after-thought, a little trick. When I submitted
the first motion to the Court, I did not mention the names of the
parties, or the peculiar circumstances of the cue ; and the name
of Mr. Watson I suffered to pass rob silentio. But now that it has
been revealed, his feelings are outraged, his sensibility shocked,
and something he deems necessary to prop his tottering character.
which he thinks is too weak to shift for itself; and therefore it
is, that the motion is made, and an order granted for her dis-
charge, with directions from your Honour that it should issue with.
out delay.
Mr. Waileirt.n—One of our affidavits was filed on the 22.1
of November, and meets both motions. Mr. I,awraine told me
that he had two motions to make, and I received instructions on
last Friday week to oppose them. I heard nothing of the Unice
which had been made on the first motion till yesterday. I then was
instructed to oppo,^ the present one, and had. an 1 said before, a
satisfactory answer to it both no to form and merits. It wan so de-
fective in form, that it could not succeed, hut wherethe liberty of
the subject is involved I feel no disposition to avail myself of such
an abjection, if. by shaping the motion diffirently the same object
be attained. The motion as it stands in, that the " writ of at.
tachuient against the defendant Anne Preece be set aside for ir.
regularity." if an app.:trance were improperly entered fin.
her, the motion obi-mid he dirt the entry of stch appearance be
erased from the record. Hut I shall not dwell on this objection if al-
lowed to enter into the merits, though I am satisfied that the irregu-
larity which I mentio3 would be a full, comple.e, and insurmount.
able objection. When the defendant swears that she knew nothing
of the appearance being entered for her, pane Honour will, no
doubt, beeurprised to lawn that she was fully aware of it on the

13th of september, ISMS. She than knew that Mr. Watson en.
tared it for her, and was preparing her answer, for we have hare •
letter from her of that date, desiring him to send down the answer
to her to Watson.euurt, that she may peruse It before It was
pig in, •
The VICE-CHANCET.LOII--What answer hare you to make t•
the fact that your affidavit was not In Court before•leat night.
Mr. Wasrrtryti—There was one filed on the 121 November.
The Vres-Cnawe eLt;tiot —Was it to meet this motion ?
Mr. WAKEFIELD reOhed, that it WAS flied generally In the
caw,

The VICE.C!TANCELLOR—That will rot do if notice were not
given that such affidadi liras not to be read on the former proceeding
—when was tho affic/ivit which yon flied last night sworn P
Law Ka IlYeatud, that it cnuld be secretly be dry, as he bed
:tflidayit that it was not tiled till a few cantatas ben:gaslight

The V :ct-CuJorcata.na eked whe:her ft was sworn when the
arnl'catinn aces made yesterday.
The plair,till Solicitor, we believe, rcpLed la the afEr-
m sure.

The VICE-CnsucELLoo—The Court is disposed totake ad'
Cartage of every defect in form where personal liberty is involved-
You come litnt, Mr. Wakefield, to oppore a motion regularly
made yeaterrlaii. upon an affidavit not filed till after the rising of
the Court, r...: .Afar the order has been made.
Mr. l;Atil:1-1ELD—Iillt their notice of motion was not nor.
reel ; it should have been to strike oat the appearance.
The VI C E •CII ET.LOR—I don't see the defect you point out ;
the complaiat against the Attorney is, that he entered an appear-
ance for this lady without her krowledge, and that Subsequent to
that entry of appearance, she still being fn total ignorance of It, he
the identical attorney, being the attorney for the plaintiff; sued out
an a tachinent against her for not putting in, her answer, and had
her imprisoned for the space of eighteen months. Now, the present
appliewzion is, that she be discharged from this imprisonment, and
discharge her I moat certsinly will. It is trite the motion might
have gone farther, and requiref that the entry of her appearance be
struck out ; but surely it cannot follow, that because it has not
pine that length, I should, therefore, deprive het of *hat she is
cleariy entitled to, namely. her discharge. I now' order her die.
charge on this view of the case, that not anti! the motion was made
y esterday, nor until the Coati terse, was the affidavit sworn ; and
when sworn, not filed till eight o'clock last night. This lady is
evidently entitled to the beet fit of this irregularity.
Mr. WAX EFI tI. n raid a notice ass served yesterday, that on
Mmilav nest a motion woull be made to refer it to the Master,
to inquire what compenandon ought to be grained to that Met bay
fur wiott was termed her false imprisonment. When that motion
cam 7, he would be clntrly entitled to go into the merits of the ease,
and he treated his Honour would allow the question of costs an this
minion to stand over. and depend on the result of Monday's pro-
m:ding ; h..s then convinced the Court that she was not
falsely imprisoned, his client would be entitled to costs on both
motive..

3lr. Ipiwnalwr. hoped his llonour would do no such thing—
but for :he interference of Mr. Wakefield yesterday in his ab-
sence. this poor lady, who had been confined within the walls
of a riron for eighiten months, would have been liberated last
night.

The VicE.CnANcEtton—Mr. Lawraine, you are certainly
entitled to costs on the present motion, but you had better consider
well the motion nit;ch you jotted In make on Monday. I question
much it what you complain of would not be a more lit in•
q u try for a Jun'
:11r. L.sivn AT NE—The Lord Chancellor has laid it down. that
where the protean of this Court has been made use of to falsely
implisen a party, the practice itere cannot be a subject of in.
Tiny in a court of law, but that the proper mode of proceeding
is to apply to the Court, that it be referred to the Blaster to
inquire what compensation the injured party is entitled to.
'lite V Ice-CHANCEL Loa ordered that the discharge be drawn
up as yesterday, on the lady's undertaking to move within a
fortnight to have the entry of her appearance erased from the faeu
of the record, and that in default of her making such applicatian,
a fresh attachment issue.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, "
SATURDAY, Nor. 26.

THE KIND ADT.ARD.
The Loan ClitEr JUSTICE, as aeon as he had taken his teat,
proceeded to deliver. from a written varier, a very elaborate judg-
ment in this case. The question simply was, whether the defend-
nnt, who occupies premises in the pari.h of St. Bartholomew the
Greet. where he carries on the business of printing, but neither
himselfror ar.y of his servants alcep in them, be liable to serve this
office of constable. The Court, from a view of the circumstances
under which these premises were held, and the mode of electing,
the constable in ancient times, held that the occupancy of the
premixes in question did not entail a personal service, but only
pecuniary liabilities to the rates of the parish in which thry are si•
tooted. i lr. Adlard, therefore, is not liable to save the Aka of
constable.

CRIMINAL INFORMATION AGAINST THE COMMON

SENS E NEWSPAPER.
Illr. J. XVI t.t.TAMS appeared for the defendants in this ease, to
show cause why a criminal Information should not be granted
against them at the snit of Mr. Bunn. The grounds upon which
he was prepare" to resist the Buie were those of recrimination.
He wen name that, as a lawyer, he coald, not ask the Court to set
off one libel ageinst another, when an application of this nature was
male for their interference ; but when it was sought to do that by
the strong.band of the Court, which meld be-done by anotherpro-
eess of law, he thought the Court would be disposed to require that
the party applying should come before them with clean hands. Now
he was prepared with an affidavit to prove that Mr. Bunn eras
him-
self a libeller, and had, in fact, by his unwarrantable attacks, pro-
voked the resentment of Common Scum in the manner in which he
now complained to the Court. This affidavit stated, that Mr. Bunn
was proprietor, or conductor, of a Sunday Paper, called the Age.
Of this paper he (Mr. Williams) professed to know nothing,
never having rend one line in it, or even so much as heard of it be..
fore the present application ; but he understood it was established
upon very singular principles. Ile was informed that this print
was set up as a sort of recompense to the reading public of the me-
t/at-to/is, during Chnrch hours upon the Sabbath day, for the fall-
ing off mid tameness of John //a/l.—(A laugh.) John Bull was
considered as having greatly degenerated front his former boldness
and violence ; and whether it was true or not that there was any
remarkable difference between John Ball "as he was" and Joins
Ball " as he is," of this there could be no doubt, that he was very
tar behind the Age in the spirit of virulense and invective. In-
deed, the extreme heat of John Bull was no more than the tempe-
rate medium of this new Journal. John Bull having lost all his
fire, and being now, in a manner, completely burnt out, the Age,
as anew light, had burst forth from his almost expiring embers,
and was destined entirely to eclipse him. The affidavit he pus-
seined went on to recite certain passages from the Age, chiefly in
notices to Correspondents of a most offensive and libellous chime-
ter. These could be submitted to the Court, if their Lordships
thought necessary. This affidavit also stated that Mr. Bann de-
scribed himself as the respectable Stage Manager of DTUrrillall
Theatre, whereas there was good ground for believing that he was
no more than the manager of a band of strolling players appear-
ing upon the buerds of a country play-honse. So far his afHda-
♦it were; and upon this he was prepared to show mule why the
Bide should not be made absolute against his client. He did tingle
their Lordships might leave the prosecutor to his remedy by the or-
dinary course of law, via.—a bill of indictment before the ("mad
Jury, seeing that he was himself a libeller.
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE said, that the affidavit ef the beam-
ed Counsel did not go further than to state the knowledge and be-
lief of the deponent, that the plaintiff was connected with the Age
newspaper. No direct evidence of the fact was produced, and 'it
was impossible the Court could act upon anything so vague in a
else of this kind. Neither a., he prepared to say that if direct
evidence were tendered it would be accepted. In obtaining this
Rule to show cause Mr. Bunn had distinctly negatived the truth of
the libels ; and if it were permitted to oppose that Bele by a new
statement of this description, the judgment of the Court mast le
further postponed until Mr. Bunn had time to answer that awe-
ment, and /41 nit ad ittfittitum, new matter hieing upon each oat-
Sion introduce'. Its knew of no precedent for such a coven, add
lie hid no hesitation in saying it would be a very dangerous one to
establish.

The other Judge ecneurring, it a =ordered that the rule be ready
absolute.

IN TILE MATTER OF T. JONATHAN woocEn.
The Loan CHIEF JUSTICE addressed the Bar, and said,
.thaar
as Mr. Wailer had been waiting several days for an opportunity
being heard upon a motion of some importance, if the Bar had no
objection, the Court would now hear him. No objection being
otlered.—
kir. Wooler came from the Jury-bon, where he had heele3illiaff,
to the Hoar, for the purpose of making his motion.
Mr. Wooler then stated, that the application he had to make
was, for a rule to show cause why a writ of mandamus should boa
issue, directed to the Treasurer and Masters of the Beady of the
llonourable Seciety of Lincoln's Inn, commanding them to admit
the individual who had the honour of addressing the Court as a
member of their society, for the purpose of qualifying himself to be
called to the degree of a barrister at law. This application arose
cut of circumstances. which, being verified be affidavit, he would
state to the Court. He then stated the folkiwing facts from the
affidavits which he held in his hand. In Michaelmas Tenn, in the
year 1824. he made application at the Steward's office of the so-
ciety, to have his name enrolled as a member, and he left a
pipet containing his name, &c. conformably to the regnfatiens
of the Society. Ile was told to call in a few darn, when he would
he informed of the result. When he called again, he was told a:
the office that the Bendies had postponed the consideration of his
application till the last day of the Term. In a few days after
the end of the Term he c died again, and wen inhumed chat the
subject was farther postponed until the first council day in the
then ensuing, and now last Hilary Term, for the purpose of in-
quiring into the particulars of a similar application which Isa,t
been made at Gray's Inn. On the second day of Hilary Tins he
called again, and was then informed by the Steward that his ap-
plication had been rejected, but he, the Steward, was ignorant or
the reasons for SuC,I vjertior. (In the 27th January, however,
he received an official letter from Mr. Lane, the Steward, in-
forming him that he, the Steward, had been dirzened by the Trea-
surer and Masters of the itench of the Society to transmit him the
cony of an order, whit's nos as follows:—•' Lincoln's Inn. A t
a Conned held on the 24th January, 1824, upon lb farthes consider-
ation of the application of Or. 'Mamas Jonathan Alroolt.r. to
be admitted a member of this Society, it I. ordered, that a truer
be written by the Steward to the said Mr. Worder, informing hiss
that his application to the Society is rejected by the Troatorar„
Masters, and Benchers." No reason being assigned for this re-
*aid; sad me beiag aware of any solidest twin, and ba

r~

Waite) bane anxious affnol erery Information to the Beni:hen
tiesimenag i i. character and coialues, as well as to remove any im.
einadon non hi• ehaactor which folds refusal was calculated to
eget o wr it, at the Jan. he presented c petition to the Soci-
Any. r•aylne to he heard on the subject on hie own behalf. In COO.
tetra's, ot haug unable to precuts any answer to his petition, al.
fbaftgli he was informed by the Steward that it had been duly pre-
meted—a-A deponent despairing of a hearing OP the part ot the
Rerobew. he, on the 4th April, addressed a petition to the Lout
Chief Justice of the lime'. Clench, the Lord Chief Justice of the
4 otmainn Piety. the Lord Chief Baron of the Court of Exchequer,
mid the retruireto of the twelve Judge... ssuing forth the arcum.
stung of his ease. and praying their lordahipa, as 'inters of the
and Inn of Court, .0 efford him such Tedrow in the premises, as to
thew wisdom ahosild seem meet. On the 20th of April lest. he re-
union a letter. alerted "J. Waters," to the following effect:—
•• The lined ( bite Jessie,. of the King's Bench has desired me to
inform yon, that the Judges have no power to interfere on the pre-
sent oceasom." It appearing' ham this ante, that the twelve
.Itsdrea had no rower to interfere ir his ease, he, on the 17th May,
artoreaaost ones:soy petition 111 the Reedier* collectively, and ad-
thoseed a ropy of it to each individually, ptaying an opportunity of
hang heard neon the matter of his former apploeition ; or that the
beret, eastohl twain their reasons fer their refusal to admit him a
member He met subsequently informed. verbally, by the Stew.
Oat, that hie Pre^fiti pet` tiro had been rejected by the Council,witli.
Pal ara'nfi Int as rejection being assigned. Under these cit-
ron:wane-a. ea:orient having sustained serious injury, and being
Bent to wilier will more grievously ion his future prospects in life.
town the wieetron of his uppliration in the manner stated. he felt
tlw.t the only legal mode of redress left him was to apply to this
leaounahle Coen tOr a mandamus. Mr. I'Veoler, having
lbw elated the facts of his case, observed, that in consequence
it en intimatinn of some &titbit'. suggested on a former day,
whether: this Court had jurisdiction to interfere in the matter,
be had implied his mind to that point and he was now
eretared, he nutted. to satisfy the Court that they had
tt is wan. He admitted that be had not been able to find any price.
deer preenely in point, but the authorities he had to produce were
eurrmely mode es to his case, and went to establish the general
prornsition that the writ of mandamus was now the only mode of
redeems applicable to his ease. The writ of mandamus, being s
prerogative writ, WU calculated to afford a remedy for the injuries
where there WWI no either prescribed mode of redress pointed out by
the law. The c•se of the King e. the Benefices of Gray's inn, on
the proaseutitm of William Hatt, in Prugne's Reports 31:9, esta-
Sillehed that thieCourt had jurisdiction to interfere where an Jam
of ('our' refused toadmit a gentlemen to the degree of a barrister,
Ober he had conformed to the regulations of the Society. That
caw wens to imreurn a eranteary doctrine previously laid down in a
cave rave:red in eliteh's Repasts. Lord Mansfield. in deliyenng
the oseieton of the Conte said he had consulted with all the other
Jiwires npnr the origin and conatitution of the inns of Court, and
torn., that they sere " volumary Societies submitting to enem-
y...err-tit," bat that all their powers were delageted to them by the
Jester.. to whose control they were subjected as •iaitere. In the
ern rired, however, though the mandamus was refused, yet it was
Pet on the ereirel of waet of jurisdiction. but because the Judges,
as Jo:reelere f no, was the proper tribunal for redress, by way of sp.
frrwn l,e detieion of the Benchers. if. however. ea he had been
7 &wow, E) the nn:e %riven by the Lord Chief Justice', ordee, the
Jacl:wi, bed no jurisdiction in his ease, the situation of a large pin.
Non of bin Majuty's suhjects would be extremely grievous. The
Penrhrri might a-bitraily refuse that which arrested to be the
tight of every rehieu of the Crown, to whom no personal digs.
catild be ohj vett. without any aereal. Such a right was
care-sty to eery analogy. It would be even at variance with the
roceedings of the Ingmities, whi h. though an institution
fat peed Orion principles the n ost alhorrent and odious to the first
ref• chiles of natural juke, yet ga.o its victims the opportunity
et' being beard, at d went through the form., at least, of judicial
I •qui• y. Here. however, he had to complain not merely of a re-
fuel to grant that which apre %red to be his right as a British sub-
iect, hut that the Benches declined siting any raison whatever
for the refusal. Serb conduct impreoll some objection, which, if
well founded. as applied In him personally, at lest ought to be
stated, in order that he might be heard in vindication of his cha-
nce?, which was thus implicitly impeached. As, therefore, the
twelve Judy (shad nn power to roteefere as visitor's, then his only
teemed,' was the prerogative writ of Mandamus, to which he sub-
mitred he was entitled. He referred to the King v. the l'niveraity
se Cambridge. Strange 1257. sec. 1., Lord Raymond 1334, and
Rex v. St. John's College. Cambridge. 4 Mod. 233. as authorities
analogous in principle to his case. Before he had applied to the
Society for admission, he bed conformed to the regulations pre-
scribed in a work called the Stedeat's Guide, published br 51r.
Lace, the Steward. under the sanction of the Benches. dis-
ability had been pointed nut as affecting him personally, and.
therefore, unless some was suggested, he contended, that an a
British subject he had a right to be admitted. Possibly the
Reacher, might have very good reasons for rejecting his appli- '
cation; but, until those reasons were assigned, he apprehended
that he KM entitled to admission. Under these circumstances he
submitted his rase to this Honourable Court, being quite convinced
that they would afford him that redress which law and justice de-
manded.
As soon as Mr. Wieder had concluded, the Loan CHIEF JUR.
Tree told him, that he had addressed the Court with great pro-
priety, and in a manner which was highly creditable to hint.
After remaining in deliberation for a few minutes. the Judges
deevered their opinions seriatim, that they had no jurisdiction to
grant a mandamus. As the reasons given by all the Judges were
the came, it is unnecessary to give them in detail.
The Judges were all of opinion, that the Seciety being. in the
language of Lord Mandeld, " a voluntary Society," this Court
bad no jurisdiction to compel them to admit members against their
own inclination, even supposing their refusal should be perverse.
The very character of " voluntary," implied a negation of the right
of this tribunal to interfere in the proceedirgs of such a society. It
woo true that the twelve Judges were the linters of the Inns of
Gore but that SAS only in matters relating to actually admitted
members. The words submission to government," as used by
Lord Mansfield, meant aubmission to such rules and regulations PS
were ordained for the internal government of the Society; but did
not noon a submission to any ordinances of a foreign jurisdiction.
It, indent., a person heti an inchoate right to he admit as a mean.
her, that might be perfected by the twelve Judges as Tipitent. But
Alt. Wisner had no inchoate abstract right to be admitted a member
of a voluntary association, and therefore he had no locus stand' to
Insist upon being admitted. The same title applied to corporations.
A engager, wishing to become a member of a corporation. had nu
inchoate right to be admitted to trade, or for any other purposes.
The cases cited hail no analogy to the prune for in all of them the
persons applying to the Court were actually members of the society,
and fought aometiling to which, as Members, they were entitled.
But it wit never heard of. that a mere stranger bad a right, abstract-
edly, to he admitted a member of an Inn of Court, of an University,
ar of a Corporation. If. indeed, the applicant had been admitted a
Member of the Society for &particular purpose, and had conformed
sa its government, then he would have an inchoate right which, in
the absence of any satisfactory reason to the-contrary, might be per.
. faded but here no ground of that kind had been laid before
the Curet. and, therefore, a mandamus would not lie.
inleeefued.
SITTINGS IN BANCO AFTER TERM.
The COURT, in the course of the day, observed. that ea it was
unlikely the bunnesa which stood for Monday could be finished
so that day, three of the Judge+ meant to sit in an adjoining
cairn on Tuesday. to dispose of such cases as the parties consented
to safer to them.
rat KARQUIR Or lITRTTORD V. TAR HON. AUGUSTUS
STANROPE•

At Init.-past five o'clock Mr. Bloutsmis rose in the matter of
the don. Augustus Stanhope.
The holm Cuter Jusricr—The gentleman is, I suppose,
Air. Brnugham, in attendance to give sureties ?
Mr. BRotrogsa—lle is in attendance, my Lord, but I am in.
steueted to apply for his discharge from the articles.
The LORD Ctillr JUSTICE—Upon what grounds ? We SIC
•et to hear the came ova yelp.
Ir. BROUGHAM—There is an ambiguity in the articles, as well
se omissions in the statement of the facts; and these we mean to
sepal! from Mr. Stanhope's own affidavit.
The Loan Cams Jur.rics—l never knew anything of such a
nature, in articles' of the peace, to be supplied by the affidavit of
We adverse party.
Mr. BROUGHAM...-1 mean to show the omissions on the face of
die art Ida themselves.

The Loan Cu acr JUST tai—But what objection have you to
glue 'sureties?
111 r. Bitoooaast—l have ranch to say, both as to their time and
mount.

The Loan CHIEF JUSTICE—Yes, but bow objeet, before both
an named ?

Mr. Bawronsst begged to be allowed to proceed. He said
that, in the first place, he was quite aware he could negative (at
t►is time) what teas sworn on the front of the articles; but he had
a good deal to say in mitigation of the course pursued by Mr.
Susehore. _

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE—But it cannot be done, we tell
you.
Air. Hnoutinare—Suppose. my Lords, that Lord Hertford hid,
since the occurrences had taken place which led to these articles,
pun what amounted to a pardon, far previously alleged trans.
treesiona ?
•• The LORD CHIT? JUST ics—VVhat reason have we to suppose
say such thing, in direct contradiction to the Noble Lord's affidavit
Were us?
• air. liwocrostam—Tben I won't suppose, hut must directly
state, that be but entered ioto negotiation with Mr. Stanhope since
the affair.
Me. Justice BATLEY—What, since ibis application ?
Mr. BROUGHAM—Not since the application to this Court, but
auksrtient so the occurrenee.
The Co MIT said, they could not listen to such a statement.
•Mr. BROUGHAM said he was only anxious to explain, that all
tip propneitionit for money, interest. Sm. alleged to have been
•ado by Mr. Stanhope. were. so far from having been made by
him, equally made to him, in his conversations with Sir Richard
as well as by letters from the latter. There were five letters li
Tel lax interviews to establish that
fact, since the 24th of last
!NrAr Tourney -Gr. Yr. Rat., for Lord Hertford, unqualt.
Sway disclaimed that he had beau a parry to any such negotiation.
•Tits Lono Ciiitr JUSTICE inquired, how it could be shown
. *at Lord Hertford aM privy to any such negotiation
• Mr. Bacousitax—By Mir Richard }Wolf's constant use of
Lord Ilertford's name. in his Interviews with Mr. Stanhope, and
acing backwards and forwards, professing to take and return state-
. tuqui.
'fire Court decided that Mr. Stanhope's affidavit could net be
be received, to convey racye hearsay impressions.

The Lona Cuter JUSTIOE—But why all this objection •to
give .uretie. P It Mr.S:anhot,e really lovers to keep the peace.
why hesimte to give them P they can du hint no harm. If he does
not intend to keep the peace, it is right he should give them—even
fur his own good.
Mr. Ile ounitax—Many irrelevant things were dleplayed in the
statement in the article,. These have gone forth to the public, and
created an mutat outside influence against Mr. Stanhope.
The Loon Clime Justice—What have we to do with that
—we ("omen be influenced by these statements.
Mr. BR ouGHAM said, it ens hind that Mr. Stanhope should rot
have the power of repelling these unjust imputations. Then, as is
the timeof the application to the Court, Lord Hertford bad allowed
two Sessions of the Peace to elapse since last August.
The Loan Caner JUSTICE—But he' Ita come here at the
first term which wastapell to hint, and that is sufficient.
Mr. BR ottoffAM raid, that he had not come until ten drys after
the term had commenced. Tf e Learned Counsel then called the
attention of the Court to the facts on the fare of the articles; and
insisted, that no m this hour, Lord Ilinford had not sworn that lie
was in such bodily fear as entitled him, according to all mecums
precederuts. to the interference of the Court, in the form ruled tor.
Ile quoted Ilawkine, and other 'law authorities, to show that the
exhibition of such uncles was not only booed to swear that lie was
in acme' bodily fear. but also set forth :lost and probable reasons
hir rational and not a far-fetched apprehension. Now, Lotd
Hertford had not only avoided making such an affidavit, rut he
had, since the 24th of August, the day of the last occurreoce be-
tween him and Mr. Stanhope, employed Sir Richard Binds to
negotiate with hint.
The ATTIIItIiEYMEXERAL again diaelnimed, on the part of
Lord Hereon!, that he had employed Sir Richard liirune for any
such purrese ; he had merely applied to him in his magisterial
atrocity.
Mr. Ilitoutatsat reiterated his remark, and the ATTOIINEY-
OTWFARAL his thichomer, when the Court interfer:d, and mid,
that on the like of the ankles, no such term as " employed" hod
been used. It was, as the Attorney-General had said, an applica-
tion to a Magistrate to act in his magisterial Catweity.
The Loan Cater Justicz again interdicted Mr. Brougham
from imputing any negotiation upon this business to Lord Hen-
ford, unless he was prepaml to establish that tact he the affidavit
of Sir Richard Birnie, whose name he used, as hating been a party
to the negotiation.
Mr. Raoul:Dam admitted that he cmild carry it no father than
Mr. Stanhere's effidavit of his conVerations with. and letters Imo
Pie Richard Birnie, He then proceeded to enforce hie former
position. that Lord Hertford had not given that punitive deposi-
tion of his having bodily apprehension, which he was bound to do
Retarding to the imperative course of law. This apprehension
must, he contended, be received by express and positive aver.
meet, and not caught up by infererce on implication. The
Learned Counsel recited the words of the affidavit, which, he
insisted, were insufficient to merman this application.
The Coital interfered, and said that Lord Hertford had, in his
rain nice oath before them, deposed to his personal apprehension,
which, coupled with the character of Mr. 'Stanhope* art., as set
forth in the article. of the peace. was sufficient. Mr. Justice flay.
It, had the oath taken to Court by Lord Hertford read, in
which there was a positive averment of *prehension of " bodily
harm."

Mr. BRODERICK followed at the same side, and strongly con-
tended that the precedents were quite uniform, that t:te Monde-
non of applications like this must unequivocally be. that that
has occurred convinced the ezbibitant he ass really in actual fear
of danger.
Mr. Justice BAY LET—So the Noble Lord has sworn here vita
ro

Baonza lc a—lt is not on the face of the articles, and no-
thing can, viva voce, be superadded.
Mr. 'twice BAYLEY—Yea, there can here, by ndmintitering
the usual form of viva yore oath, which contains, in terms, the
exptession of Ws apprehension.
Mr. BRODEIIII:Ii insisted that the apprehension should be ex-
Primed on the f ce of the articles ; acconliog to all the ;wadies of
ancient times, the exiiibiumt must swear that he apprehends this
da-ger.
The COUNT said that he had expressly sworn so by his corporal
oath. . .

Mr. Drone/mg—But these articles most be established upon
dick own insufficiency, and not by any coll►teral inference.
This case must stand or fall like all others; it must be dealt
with as the commonest cue, when the glare of great names are got
rid of.

The LO D CutEr Jusrict —We have nothing to do here with
the glare of great names, we have only to deal with the law and
the fact.
Mr. linonEn lc x still persisted in his objection to the sufficiency
of them articles, and repeated his argument, that all the precedents
rendered it imperative fur the cxhibitant in express terms to swear,
in the articles, that he was in bodily danger—nay more—that he
has just and goad grounds for feeling himself in apprehension of
danger. Here Lord Hertford only swears that on the 22d of July
he arts insulted (rot saying how) by a gentleman, who afterwards
tarried out to bs Mr. Stanhope. He never
.pretends to say he was
threatened or assaulted—and in August, again, all he states is, not
that he was struck, not that h. was assxultrtl, but that a stick was
pushed against his carriage window, and that Mr. Stanhope, ac-
cording to Sir R. Birnie's statement, merely said he would not as.
fault Lord Hertford till after the death of his father, Lord Har-
rington ; PA it must be taken, even then, by Inference, that any
emelt was conttmpiatetl. It was ti hardship that any calumny
should be heaped upon a gentleman in Court, which yet he is de.
ninl the privilege of answering. This would certainly render it
incumbent upon the Court to compel the exhibitatit to adhere to
the prescribed form in the formation of articles.
The COURT held that the apprehension was sufficiently express-
ed, and overruled the objections.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL contended, in reply, that the ar.
tides were on the face of them amply sufficient. Lord Hertford
had, Indeed, shown the most scrupulous caution throughout the
whole of the prozeedings. He began, in his articles, by showing
the cause of Mr. Stanhope's hostility, his trial, and disnissal from
the army. He also referred to the averment in the articles, which
he ask! fully and adequately sustained this INdication. here was
• gentleman prepared, by his awn admission, to go all lengths,
short of actual assault, during his father's life-tinte, merely be-
cause Lord Hertford, in his capacity as parent and guatiian of his
child, had taken a particular course, in consequence of the conduct
of Mr. Stanhope. It was quite clear, when the passion of the latter
had so far committed him, that he could not an.wer for his own
temper I(whatever his intentions might be) in his future proceed-
ings. Surely this was exactly the case which required the interpo-
sition of the Court. _ _

The Loan CHIEF JUSTICE interposed, and said, that the
Court had determined to bind Mr. Stanhope over, in sureties to keep
the peace. It wan quite clear, without going into the particulars of
the transactions between these gentlemen, that a state of irritation
prevailed in the mind of one of them, which, from a knowledge of
human nature, it was very unlikely would be confined within legal
limits. The facts were sufficiently set forth, and, as guardians of
the peace of society, the Court must hind Air. Stanhope in sureties
to keep the peace for two nears towards Lord Hertford, himself in a
bond of Five Hundred Pounds, and two sureties of Two Hundred
and Fifty Pounds each.
These sureties were immediately entered into by Air, Stanhope,
and the Court rose at half-past six o'clock.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS. WESTMINSTER,
SATURDAY. Nov. 2n.

WALKER, CLERK, R. lIDOWAT.

This was an action tor not properly setting out tithes. The muse
was tried at the last Assizes for Hereford, before Mr. Justice Bur.
rough, when it appeared that the defendant, who was a farmer, had
cut his wheat; but, instead of letting the bundles stand the usual
time, and then tithing them regularly, lie made up the sacks of an
irregular number of bundle', by which It became difficult, if not
impossible, to count them, so as to ascertain whether the number
set out was correct. The Learned Judge charged the Jury for the
plaintiff; but, after some consultation, they returned a verdict for
the defenant ; a verdict with which the Judge expressed himself
strongly dissatisfied, a rule having been obtaired in the commence.
sent of this Term, to set aside the verdict, and grant a new trial,
on the ground that the verdict was against evidence and the opinion
of the Judge.
Mr. Sergeant TADDY row showed cause against the rule, and
*wended that the Court ought not to interfere with the verdict.
—The Jury were the proper and conmitutioral Judges. of the feet,
and sa the law had been correctly stated to theni, there could be no
ground for disturbing their verdict.
The Corral' were of a contrary opinion, observing., that the very
fact of the law having been stated correctly to the Jury was an ad-
ditional reason for setting aside the verdict; since it appeared that
they had determinedly given their verdict against the Judge's state.
merit of the law.