The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1825-11-09 00:00:00

•
Hamar and Ryan, the printer and publisher of a newapaper callel
Common Sense, or the Weekly Globe, for a libel on Wm. Fitz.
herding likrkeley, claiming to be Earl Berkeley, Colonel of the
South Gloucester Militia, and one of the magistrates of the
county. The libel in question was contained in a paragraph headed
" Miss Foote," which appeared in the number for the ''
-"-id of Oct.
last. It began by adverting to the statements which had recently
appeared in the Edinburgh Papers, grating, that some unmanly
ruffian had secreted himself in the bedchamber of Bliss Foote. It
then went on to say, on the authority of a private correspondent,
that this unmanly ruffian was no ceher th.e. Colonel Berkeley, who
had contrived to introduce himself into Miss Foote chamber '• in
the disguise of a gentleman." Mr. Ilrougliam said. that lie had
affidavits of Colonel Berkeley, In which he stated that he had not
been in Edinburgh within the last four years ; that neither there
nor in any other place had he aver secreted himself in the manner
described, and that the whole paragraph, as it respected himself,
was utterly false and destitute of foundation.
Rule granted.
LATIMER T. BATSON, HIGH SHERIFF OF OXFORD.
This was an action of trespass, tried at the lest Oxford Antizes,
before Baron (Jarrow. The plaintiff is die assignee of a bill of
sale of certain property of the Duke of alarlitorough, granted under
a writ of ji fa, issued some years ago. in execution of a judgment
obtained by a person of the name of Richardson against his Lord-
'hip. An inventory was taken of the goods, which consisted of the
furniture of his sitting and bed-room, and his wines, She rest of
the furniture of Blenheim being in the nature of heir.looms, and
consequently not liable to an execution. Richardson assigned this
bill of sale to Latimer, the plaintiff, for two HUTA of 7001. and
1.0001. Latimer put Into the house a fanning man of the name of
Wilson, to hold possession, and suffered the Duke to enjoy the
free use of his furniture and wines. Subsequently a person of
the name of Neste obtained another judgment against the Duke of
Marlborough, and levied under a f. fa. to the amount of upwards
of 7,0001. of the goods which were already in execution under the
prior judgment obtained by Richardson. It appeared, however.
that Mr. Latimer, the assignee, instead of relyin• on his right had,
at the time this property was seized under Mr. Neate's execution,
procured, by Wilson's assistance, private admittance to his ser-
vants, who took away all the wines. Under these circumstances.
the only question which the Judge left to the Jury brae, whether
the assignments to Latimer was a bona fide transaction.
Mr. Jr avrs now contended that there was another question still
more material which ought to have been presented to the Jury,
namely, whether there wassufficient notoriety of the first execution ?
He argued that the manner in which the Duke still continued to
hold his property, so completely disguised the real state of the case,
as to justify his client in taking pos tendon under the writ of execu-
tion issued at the suit of Neste. Ile cited the case of Worrier v.
Smith 4. Camp. 333, as containing a very strong opinion on this
subject by Lord Ellenborough. He also referred to Leonard v.
Baker, 2. 3laule and Selwyn. Ile insisted that there was no pos-
session on the part of Latimer which would protect him from aft-
jrt. issued subsequently ; his, at the beat, was only a joint posies.
aeon ; it ought to have been an exclusive possession.
Mr. Justice BATLEY—If there is a notorious change of property
may not the plaintiff leave the defendant in possas.sion ? If it be
notorious to the neighbours that a person is in possession under •
writ, is not this sufficient ? Was it not known at Woodstock that
IVilson was in possession for Latimer ?
Mr. JERVIB.—ft was known certainly at Woodstock.
lilr. Justice BAY LEY.—That is the place where it ought to be
known.

The LORD CHIEF JIUSTICE.-1 think that the direction of
the Learned Judge who tried this cause was right. It has been
attempted to make the opinion of Lord Ellenborough bear upon
the question ; the circumstances of that case are, however, entirely
different from those of the present. There the assignment was
madam the creditor without any previous execution ; here the as.
signment is made under the authority of the Sheriff. In that case
the goods were the property of the plaintiff himself, who was the
keeper of a public-house. and the business was c'arried on as it
nothing of the kind had happened. In this case it was notorious
to all the neighbours that a person was in possession under an ex-
ecution. I agree with what has been said by Mr. Jervis, that the
possession is a matter very much to be regarded, but it is to be re.
garded in respect to the bona fides of the transaction. An execution
unfortunately cannot be put into the house of a nobleman without
being well enough known. I think, therefore, that the question
turned on the bona fides of the transaction, and that the direction to
the Jury was right.
The other Judges delivered their opinions to the same efikt.—
Rule refused.

THE LING V. GEORGE HARRISON,If AVOR OF CHESTER, AND
JOHN HARRISON, SHERIFF OF CHESTER.
This aas a criminal information in the nature of a writ of Quo
Warrant°, against the defendants, for usurpatiou. It was tried
before Mr. Baron Gam., at the last Shrewsbury Assizes, and a
venlict found for the Crown.
Mr. Tworrrow now moved for a new trip!, on the ground that
this case had not been fully tried. The pleadings were very com-
plicated, but the Learned Counsel said that it would not be neces-
sary to trouble the Court with the details of them, as the only
question was, whether the custom by which the defendant,' were
elected was good; the customary mode of election being different
from that prescribed by the charter of incorporation: in other
words, whether the custom should prevail against the charter.
The Jury found ,for the Crown, by which they invalidated the
custom. Mr. Taunton said that his Learned fiend Mr, Camp.
bell had at the trial told the Jury that if they were not satisfied that
this custom was from time immemorial they would find for the
Crown ; the whole Jury rose, simultaneously at these words, and
said that they were of opinion that there was no proof of the custom
being from time immemorial, upon which the Judge said that there
was an end of the case. Mr. Taunton contended that there never
was a stronger body of evidence, both documentary and parole,
than that he had produced to support a custom. Ile said that the
Jury had not had the benefit or the Judge's summing and obser-
vations, that they were not familiar with questions like these, and
consequently unable to draw just conclusions without the assistance
of the bench, and that under such circumstances their decision
must be considered as premature. They said they were satisfied,
and I have no doubt, added Mr.Taunton, that they were satisfied—
that the trial had lasted long enough.
Mr. Justice BAILEY—But that was a satisfaction that did not
satisfy you.
The Loan CHIEF JUSTICE—Did the Learned Baron give
the Jury any opinion?
Mr. Tanozow—No; he did not give any intimation whatever
of his own opinion.
The COURT considered this as a question of great importance,
and granted a rule to show cause.