The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1825-01-27 00:00:00

LAW 11TPFLEIGENCEr.

COURT OF CHANCERY. WEDNESDAY, JAN.
SIR Wit. ROBERTS Mill OTUEDS U. BUGGER.
In this case tile Mines of Crennis were the subject of discussion
They were, it appears, the property of /Ur. 1:0e, who became gin.
berrassed in his eiremnstanres, and wu in consequence put out of
the property, and trustees were appointed. The defendant, a
solicitor, had been long employed in the service of Mr. Roe, and
claimed a considerable sum for services, &c. Ile bad obtained a
deed for the purpose of serving himself in the payment, a .d under
dila deed he proceeded to sell the mines.
An injunction was prayed for to prevent the sale.
The case occupied the entire of the day, and will be resumed
to. morrow—{tins day).

COURT OF KING'S BEN(11, iFisTsrfustEll,
WEDNESDAY, JAN. 20.
cooxu. Ear:. r. nswq.
This mime was tried at the sittings atter the last term before Mr.
Justice Eitt'Male and a Special Jury, when a verdict was found
for the defendant.
Mr. ATTORNEY-GENERAL, for the plisintiff, now moved to Set
aside that verdict, and that a new trial should he granted. The
present action was an action of trespass by Mr. Cooke, the birristar,
against the defendant, for entering his premises and seizing his
goods, for alleged poor rates due to the parn.h of St. Andrew, Hol.
born ; and the question was, whether the climbers of Mr. Cooke,
which were situate in Stone-buildings, Lincoln's Inn, !binned pia
and parcel of the parish of St. Andrew, Holborn. Upon the teal
there was much conflicting testimony ; on the part of the plaintiff
the evidence went to show that Lincoln's Inn, was otiEinally the
residence of the Black Friars, who sold it to Henry De Lacey, Earl
of Lincoln, r.nd up to the present day, the arms of that family were ,
to he seen over the great gate-nay of that Inn. Etrl of Lin.
coin, subsequently granted it to tit Benehers, to be used as a place
of learning for those studying the law ; ilia: front thence, hitherto,
the Inn had always had a chap. I. maintained a chaplain, supportsil
their own pone, provided tee all foundlings within the Inn, had
lighted and watched the Inn, sod that the inhabit:ate of the Itin
had never been called inwin to pay rates--also nit upon the
death of any individual os-erring within the !tin, extra fees
were dedianded for the burial of such perscorni; as being non.
parishioners of St. Andrew, Holborn. On the pat; of the defendant
the evidence went to show that triennial perambulations hail been
made by the parish officers through the Inn ; that, according to
ancient plans, the Inns was /* Wl,' 'innate within the parish ; aria
that in a honk recently published by Mr. line, die steward of the
Inn, called the Studesit s Guide, and published by sanction of the
Benehers, an old deed was referred to, which described Lincoln'.
Inpfs being within the parish of St. Andrew, Holborn : tt% deEd
wa., called for to be produced bir the Benthers, but they refused to
prnduce it, and the Learned J,tulge hho tried the cause held thsr
they were not bound to do so, but bdtnitted as evidence the extracts
from it. contained in .Mr. Lane's book. The grounds upon which
he (the Attorn:.y.fieneral) now moved were—firs', that the batik
night not to hose been received in evidence; and, secondly, that
'the verdict was against the, weight of testiou fly.
The Loon ('nice t• ST IC E asked, whether the pe74mbulatienit
• triennially made were known to ;he Benchers
1111% ATTORNEY. A.N ERAL.—Certninly they were, my Lord :
for the Benehen of I.inceln's.lnn, with that hospitality for which
they have always been dl-tinguislied, usually entertained the pgraiee
perambulating, in the hall of the Inn ; they lalss, ass matter et
courtesy, allowed the 31traster to repeat a psalm or prayer in their
chattel, which otherwise he must have done in the mien air.
The LORD CtitEr JUSTILCE.—I think that-this Is very strorg
evidence against the plaintiff.
Mr. ATTORNEY-GENERAL boned that their Liotilships would
1001 at the case in all its points. That the ground of the Inn vela
lately situate within the parish there voild be no doubt, and it
las in consequence of this that the perambulat ior.s were allowed ;
bit still, although locally situate within the parish, the Inn might
be exempt from till ecclesiastical burdens to the parish: foe
stance, no !;aster offerings had ever been demanded.
The Lone Crime Jrs•rick—But suppose, Mr. Attorney.'
General. sdu succeed in showing that the Inn is exempt from ec-
clesiastical burdens, still it may he liable to the civil burdens ito-
poied by the statute of Elizabeth, which statute is the foundation of
the poor rates.
The Avinnianw-GEws:wst. thought dint the custom and
tissge he had proved, that the Inn had never paid rates at all, out.
neighed the evidence fur the defendants, en the point his Lord-
ship had referred to.
Mr. Justice BAYLEY thought that there wrs a great distinetian
..etween ecclesiastical and civil burdens, and he considered that the
allowing the perambulations was a point which the plaintiff canid
not get over.
Mr. ATTORNEY-GENCRAL said, perhaps of all other men
lawyers were the least mindful of their own rights; and when the
beechen suffered the minister, and the charily.boys who followrq
him, to pass through their Inn, and afterwards treated them in toe
hall, they little thought that, years ntterwaids, that circumstance
would be *aged against them in a law-suit.
The COURT here asked to look at sund7y documents which had
been end in evidence on the trial.

After some deliberation, the Ammonsttm-Gownitak said, that
one of the jurymen, e Mr. Reeve, was a Lrge proprietor of pro-
perty in St. Andrew's relish; he, of court.; did not Isiah to tin:
p•te any thing improper to that gentleman; but their Lordships
would take that into their consideration, which fact, coupled with
the immense amount of property which would be affected by the
present quo.. ion, could, be hoped, iodnee their Lordships to think
the case worthy of further inquiry.
. Their Lo tenant Pe consulted together for some time, and then
granted a rule to show cause.
CRIMINAL INFORMATION.
TFIZ ZINO V. JOUW IAULIENE• AND ovntii.
This was a Rule Nisi, obtained by Mr. Searlett last Term, call.ing on the defendants, namely—Faulkner, Griffith, Harris, Evans,
and two others, inhabitants of the city of Chester, to show cause
why a criminal information should not be tiled against them for
certain misdemeanors committed by them in that city, at an
election which took place there in October lint.
Mr. JOHN Wlktiams said, he now appeared to show emote
why the rule should not be made absolute, as against Mr. Faulk.
ter, who was made Inc head and front of the offenders. The
circumstances out of which this case arose were in their na-
ture very familiar to their Lordships. The persons on whose
affidavits the rule was endeavottred to be sustained, and
the parties against whom the proceedings were taken were the
partisans of opposite inttrests existing in the County Palatine of
Chester. The eon:plaint against the defendant °riposted out of
an election contest between the Grosvenor or Corporation natty, on
the one hand, and the Whittaker or Independent Party, on the
other. The defendants were partisans of the latter; and be need
not therefore say, that the complaint came from those whe
espoused.the cause of the other side. On the 25th Of October
last an election took place for the Sherif of the County Palatine of
' Chester. On that occasion it is stated by the other side, that some
disturbances occurred both in the Town-hall of the city of Chester..
where the Mayor and Recorder were sitting to receive the votes of
the freemen, and also in the public streets. It is alleged that the
defendant Faulkner, with others, was very prominent in promoting
those disturbances; and that, by his addresses to the mob, he en.
couraged and cheered them On in their violent conduct, both toa
wards the Mayor and Recorder, and also towards several indivi-
duals of the opposite party in the town. That the windows of the
Exchange, of a public-house, caned the Saracen's Head, kept by
a Mrs. Len, and also of the house of air. Sheerink, the successful
candidate, were broken, and a considerable riot created, by which
the Mayor was prevented from proceeding with the business
of the election, and of swearing in Mr. Sheeting, as the new
Sheriff. It was very remarkable, however, that the greater
part of the affidavit! which were filed, in support of these
allegations, were mere matter of information and hearsay ; there
were only three persons who spoke as to matters of fact, the rest,
including his Worshipful the Mayor, swore tin support of a cri-
minal Information) to mere hearsay. It appeared, by theaffilaviis,
that thete were two distinct allegations as to the ',soaking to Mrs.
Leer's windows; to this he should not offer any dental ; but, be-
yond this, he could nut give notch credence to anything contained
in the affidavits, corning, as they did, from persons who were
Strong partizans to the interests opposed to the defendants. The
persons who swore to the facts were Edwards, Topham, and Gar-
ner. The first was a clerk to a person who once bore the name of
Pinchant, and was Town Clerk of the City of Chester. but who did
not go to gaol with Fincham, who did (a laugh). 'l'opham was
another clerk of this 1l r. Fincham • these two swore to the fact
that the defendants ascended the table in the Town-hall, and bran.
dished their arms (not bludgeons, but those arms only which na-
' ture gave them) in the faces of the Mayor and Recorder. They
swore to this twitc—ottee in the middle of their affidavits, and
once at the end of them. They also swore that Mr. John Faulk-
ner, jun., while the election was going on, was aiding and assisting
in preventing the proceedings, by frequently interrupting the Mayor
from receiving the votes tendered to him, and that, although he was
no freeman, and had therefore no right to vote or interfere with tha
election, yet he endeaeoured all in his potter to prevent Mr.:herring
from being elected that the !Mayor, observing hiseoaduct. recta--
soloed with him, and finally ordered him to go away and leave that
Hull, and which he, the said John Faulkner accordingly did. NOP/
this was all they swore. And what did it amount to when es.
plained ? The facts were so much like what Mr. Faalkner hienseir,
and several other persons who were present, and whose affidavits he
now had in his hands, deposed to, that it seemed scarcely necessary
for hint to trouble the Court with them. 31r. Faulkner stated that
he was present at the election on behalf of Mr. Whittaker, who had
engaged his (31r. F.'s) professional assistance on that occasion;
that he was frequently obliged to address the Mayor and ltecordcr
as to the admissibility or rejection of certain votes : but owing to
the very crowded and inconvenient state of the hall, he found it
necessary to else on the table in order to make himself heard. Ed-
ward, and Topham, however, were very violent in the:: conduct
towards him, and Thpharn at length got upon the table, and
said to the Mayor, that Faulkner was no voter, and that
he ought to be turned out of the ball. The Mayor did
not pay attention to this, and soon after, Tophant declared
with an oath that he himself was a voter, and that if no one else
chsetib,:cot:elretfhtatthehenshidoul.ld
So mach,
would turn Faulkner out, he would. The Mayor then addressed
Mr. Faulkner. and said, that he must perceive a very strong feet.
against hint. lie (the Mayor) would appeal to It's
then, for that part of Edwards' and Tophato's affidavits. These
dilknitagf re. prevailed
iklwne whether
Faulkner, upon
r it d not
persens then proceed. .1 to say that they bad been informed and be.
heved that Mr. Faulkner and his party were concerned in the riot
before Mrs. beet's house, but they did not say by whom they were
informed. The affidavits then went on to say, that "at and re