The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1826-04-15 00:00:00

Causes, Further Direction% bkonsent, 01. day, before the
M:I +ter of the ',tolls, •t nine In the murninf.
. _

Brown v. Grootnididge, petition
Watron r. Linn-IMF, ditto
Aitt.worth r. IVbitrdiead, fnr. dlr.
Ezparte Reignold,, petalon
nothul v. Rode; p, fur. dir.
rilklngton v. Smith, petition
Mount v. Hari., fur. dir.
Fird.ar r. Gibbon., can4e

Reran v. Reran, petition
In re Chatfield, petition
Ronald. v. FeHamm, fur. dir.
Sandford r.liniott, petition
Fenke r. Pavitt, ditto
E= ante Avey and Muria Canal,
ditto
Heaford and Harledine, fur. dir.

Chc•hire v. Luta.:l,lr.
Davenport •. Tudor, eau.,

Besnmont v. Paine, petition
Sanderson v. Walker, ditto

Markham. I Bishop of Carlisle v.
Blain
Wollaston v. Marsh
Godden c. Milburn
Tay v. Mead
Medealre v. Meiknife
Partriihre v. Fled:nue
Gale v. Lathan.

• pall._l-7.

EMCHEQUER.

Flyby,' v. Lord Gravel,

COURT OF
1111%041r,
Redford v.
Petition
Jones v. Thomas. petit.
Pritchett v. Honey-
bourse
Ripley v. Stockier
Mayor v. Moon
Ward v. Davin
Reid v.Robertson

report
ChWen v.Workman,do
Davis T. Evans, decree

uirl
lo re Bishop of Ches.
ter, Petition

Extuirte Bow Church
Act, du.

LAW INTZLLIGENCE.

VICE.CIIANCELLOR'S COURT, Fain r, AralL 14.

His Howoust tont his seat in the int time la the New Court
at Westminster to-clay.
The Court is about the same is.. as the one in Lincoln's Inn.
It will, however. be necessary to make Nome slight alterations in
the arrangement of the seats behi'd the bar, there tint being mufti-
cient room now for the counsel to pass by each other. in consc-
titmice of broad sloping ledges running from one end to the other
iu hont of each seat, for the purpose of writing on. There is like-
wise another alteration requisite in the back pen of the Court, to
prevent its being disturbed by persons passing to and from the
Low Chancellor's Court. In addition to this inconveniency. a
strong current of air is felt by those who are seated on the benches
behind.

At the rising of the Court, the VICE CHANCELLOR, accompa-
nied by Mr. AGAR and colter couns.l, went over the Court and
inspected it. Ilia Honour was pleaesd to give some orders, with a
view of remedy trg the inconveniences alluded to.

COURT OF RING'S BENCH, FRIDAY, APRIL 14.

TOMKINSON V. BENTAI.L AND ANGTDER.

.......
This was en action for work and labour done by the plaintiff. a
surgeon, residing at Malden. in Essex, for the cure of a pauper;
and the action was brought against the overseers of the parish of
;At. Mary. Malden. At the trial before Mr. Baron GRAHAM, at
the last Chelmsford Assizes. it appeared that the pauper, -whose
settlement was in it. Mary. Malden, was run over about eleven
o'clock at night, in the adjoining parish of Heybridge. She lay in
the roal fur some time calling for assistance, but in vain. At
length a contoable of Malden came to her relief ; but at that late
hour of the night, he did not know whither to take her. Ile ap-
plied to the parish surgeon of Heybridge, who declined interfering,
as the Me did rot belong to his parish ; and finally, at the en.
treaty of the unfortuete pauper, the constable took her to his own
house, where she was attended by the plaintiff, at the solicitation
of the constable, and ul'imatcly cured. It appeared, however, that
the overseers never interfered after the plaintiff had been employed,
nor did the constable of Alalden ever take any further noti:e of the
case. Mr. Baron GRAHAM was of opinion that the case was more
properly chargeable to the parish of Heybridge; and aunt elle that
the circumstance of the plaintiff•ttending the pauper, without the
privity or direction of the overseers of Malden, excused them from
any liability. The Jury found for the defendants.
.Mr. NOLAN now moved for a rule nisi, to have a new trial, on
the ground of misdirection by the Learned Judge, and cited Lamb
v. Dunce, 4th Mettle and Selwyn, 475, in support of his applies.
Lion.—Rule granted.