The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1825-05-12 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT'OF CHANCERY, irEDNEssuir, NAT H.

ItIATOIL OF FOWEY.
The Icown CsawcF,t.LOa gave judgment herein this morning.
The debt dne to the petitioning creditor was a joint debt, due from
the .Mayor and three others, for prof( ssional assistance in a political
pars in/he borough ; the docket was struck. as on it separate debt
flue from the .llayor' whereby a misrepresentation had been made
to the tire* Seal. but the debt proved before the Commissioners
was a joint debt due atm the Mayor and others.
The CUANCTI.I.O2 condemned the practice of any person being
at once a petitioning creditor and soliciow to the Comniission, and
declared he could not support the Commission.
It appeared by the affidavit of the Mayor himself, and another
highly respectable gentleman, that his circumstances were not only
solvent. but highly respectable; that his stock in trade and other
property were very valuable, and that he had money in the public
stocks.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, WELIZEBOAE, MAT M.
THE Intl; a. CATtLTO,c AND crninis.
. In Hilary Term. 1824, a Rule was obtained. calling upon the
defendants, who are the printer, publisher, and proprietor of The
Beitislt Press Newspaper, to show cause why a Criminal Informa-
tion should not he tiled against them, for a libel which appeared in
that Paper. reflecting on the diameter of Sir George Chetwynd,
Bart, 31. P. In the Easter Term lollowing, Mr. Scarlett and Mr.
Sergeant Wilde were heard against the Rule; and in the following
Term. Mr. Attorney.Heneral was fully heard; and Mr. Russell
heard in part, in support of the Rule.
Mr. RUSSELL resumed his argument In support of the Rule,
and contended at considerable length. that It was quite clear from
the affidavits filed, that Sir George Chetwynd had folly answered
nil the charges contained in the libel, and therefore the Rule ought
to he made absolute.
'Choir Lo1111:411trs having consulted together for a few minutes,
The Loan Citivr JusTice. said the Court would take time to
consider their judgment.

T/IE EMI V. OUTITHTE.
Mr. Ilnornnast applied for a Rule, calling on the defendant.
who is the Editor of the Sunday herald, to show cause why a cri-
miral in:ormation should not be filed against him. for writing and
publishing a moat gross libel against he Rev. Mr. Cooper,. who
was a Missionary stationed on one of Mr. Hibbert's estates in the
West Indies, and the libel charged this gentleman and his wife
with hiving been guilty of very improper conduct, by which the
Negroes had refused to attend on him at his Chapel. He was re-
presented as having taken a bottle of brandy and getting drunk
with it, anti then accusing one el the slaves of having stolen it.
The libel was in the shape of an affidavit, purporting .to be made
by an Overseer on Mr. llibbert's estate, and it was aggravated by
the comments of the Editor. Mr. Cooper made affidavit denying
the whose of the sist:ments published.
The Corny—Take a Rule to show cause.

THC ZING V. SHACKELT.
Mr. fluor mum made a similar application against this de-
fendant for having published the same lihd.
Ur. Justice BAYLEV-Will not one criminal information Jo,
Mr. Brougham ?
Mr. BaOCOHAM said both parties pretended they possessed
means of proof, and Mr. Cooper was therefore desirous of putting
them all to the proof. Ile defied them to prove any one of the
charges.
The Court granted the rule.