The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1825-06-04 00:00:00

77

"

..~,.

MAJORITY AND .1: N 0111 Ty
OW TIM THIRD READING or Till nit.t. FOR ORAITISO
COW A TZAR TO THE DUEL DT CUMIERLAR LI.

AIAJORITY.

_____ ...... ..
Alexander, J. Gordon, Hon. %%. Palmerston, Viscount
Brogden, J. Grant, A. C. Vhilliniore, I.
Bentinck. Lord F. Berrie*. J. C. Robinscn, Hr. Ho. P.
Heresford, lard G. Holmes, W. Southern, Frank
Burgh, Sir 11. Bochum, J. A. —S:rutt, J. A.
Canning. Rt. Hon. G.Huskiason.R..lln.WTwiss, H.
Cutwright. R. W. Horton, R. W. Trans, W. H.
Congreve, Sir W. 'larding., Sir H. Townshenal, lion. H.
Cooper, R. 13. Ilan, G. V. Thomr,ou, A Wen:oats
Calvert, John Hope, Sir W. Tindall, N. C.
Collett, E. Hulse, Sir C. Ure, H.
Cockbuni Sir G% Holford, G. P. Vvvyan, Sir R.
Chnion, Sr VV. King, Hon. H. Vivian, Sir H.
Davies, R. H. • Kerrison, sir E. Wynn, Rt. Hon. C.
Dawkins, J. Leader, W. Wodetiouse, 110 a. J.
Dawkins, H. landaay, Hon. ii. Wilton. W.C.
Douglas. W. K. Lindsay. J. Wellesley, K.
Dalrymple, A. Lushington, Colonel TELLERS.
Green, Thomas Lushinaton. T. Crokee. J. W.
Graham, Marquis of Noel, Sir G. Clerk, Sir U.
Braves, Lord Pi.cl, Right Hon. R.

•
MINORITY.
Allen, J. ti. Orin% J. P. Pares, names
Bent, John Griffith, J. W. Pryae. P. •
Kenyon, B. Guise, Sir W. Rice, T. S.
Burdett. Sir F. Hughes. W.L. Rob ins, G.
Flynn, G. Hume .1. Smith, Abel
!lentil, John Hurst, Robert Smith, George
Blake. Mr F. James, W. Smith, Samuel
Bernal. R. Leyceater, R. . - Smith, William
Cumming, G. Luebingtnn, g. Tierney, Rt. Hon. G.
Corbett. P. Lloyd, Sir E. Townsnend. Lord C.
Drake, T.T. Mundy. Y. Whitmore, W. H.
Denman, T. Alsrjuribanks, S. Webbe. E.
•Davenpnre. D. Martin, J. Williams. John
Evans, W. Misule, Hon. W. Wrotteiler, Sir Jobn
Fine, John Mora. J, B. VELLUM,
Farquharson, A. Osborne Lord F. Dunrinnors, Vienouna
°silken. IL Osborne,
F. Nugent, Lord
Graham, Sir T.
The nuns of 51r. Rumbold wits by mistake omitted in the
Minority on the 3ith May, on the Grant to the Duke of Cum.
berlantL

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF KINO•S BiEVCII, FIIIDAY, Jcws 3.

-

This being the first day of Trinity Term the Judges did not Inter
the Court.till nearly one o'clock.

IitSTDLLY v. TM: DralQlllll 0, WESTraItATTI.
Mr. SCAftLEtT said this was an action agsinst the Noble de-
fendant for the board and rusintenanez of hi. lady, horn whom he
lived apart, under a deed of separation. On the trial a question
was raised an the part of the Noble Marquis. as to wheher, by this
terms of the deed, he was not exempted from the charge of maintain.
ing the Marchioness. A verdict was given for the plaintiff; subject
to the defendant's counsel having leave bi move that the tame
should be set aside and a TONINUit entered. lie (Mr. &mien) now
moved for a rule, calling on the plaintiff to show cause why a 1100.
suit should not be entered.—Ksda Nisi granted.

?RE ZING V. 1100,7.
A rule Nisi having been obtained against the defendant. calling
on him to show cause why.a criminal inKirmatioa should rot be
filed against him for having written a letter to Mr. Wilkes, an mt.
tomer, purporting to convey a chullenge to that gemletban to fight
a duel, and thereby to induce-him to commit a breach of the peace
the Attorney-General, last term, showed muse against the
rule. by producing an affidavit of a person who way the friend
of the defendant, in whictr it was stated that Mr. Moran was in
Parisbt the time the letter. purporting to have been written by hid),
was sent, and that the deponent believed the said letter was a
forgery. Mr. Chitty objected to this answer, and said an affidavit
ought to have been obtained from the defendant himself. The
Court therefor* allowed the rub to be enlarged to the first day of
this term, to give the defendant an opportunity to make an affidavit.
Mr. H (retell a ES now showed cause against the rule. In addi.
tion to the former affidavit he had now the affidavit of the defend.
ant himself, in which lie denied having written any letter to Mr.
Wilkes, challenging him to light a duel, and stating that the letter
Purporting to be written by him was a forgery. The Learned
Counsel submitted that this was • complete answer to the applies,
tion, and hoped the Court would therefore discharge the rale.
Rule discharged.