The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1826-05-09 00:00:00

ROLLS. COURT.
General Petition at the Bali• this m
Milne v. Gordo° Sylveater ♦. Dellsser
Same v ame I Holm' v. Laney

lu re Providing Bro.
tber4. Charity
Potts v. Norton
In re Relocate Charity
In it Bent

Meade V. Heade
In re Mayor, &c. of
London
Minds v. Pugh
Simon v. Barber

In re Adams
Riddulph v. Hushes
Theßoson v. Wood-
ford
Same V. same
Jenkins v. Houlton
Get*, v. Torbock
Smale v. Smale
Barry v. Barry
Castle v. Sanders

Goodwin v. Trinder
Lawrence v, Hihm and
Marlyn v. Hobbs
Silcox v. Bell
Exports Powell and

Bellamy v. Bridges
Lora v. Gem,lln

Lindley v. Cawthorna
Jamey v. Parnell
Edgar v. Harland
Milken v. Cooke
Calddengb v. Reid
Fielding v. Prequn
Bryan v. Twin
Garvey v. Hunt
Wilmot v. Blaytrave
Meyer v. Haticle.ley
Ridley v. Osborn
Eider v. Elder

Moberly tr. Moberly
Reddish v. Stevens
Forman T. Gibbs
In re Providing Bro-
thers' Charity
Civilly v. Sanders
Wilson v. Robinson
Groeock v. Hnbinson •
Attorney-General v.
Haberdaabor's Com-
pany
Same v. game
Attorney-General v.

Sale V. INUIT!
1 hoyts v. Thoytn
Hayes v. Toned
Graves v. Hearin
Gray v. Hontingfield
Hammond T. Maher
In re Myers Chun,
Fenton v. CorraU
Wilson v. Markenzle
Radnor y. Rath and
Wells

Aide
Withers v. HOW
Davison V. Davison
Gray v. Field
In re London Dock
Company
PrPak v. Vl'alters
Butler v. Harrison
Short causes

r, at ten la the morning.

COURT OR RING'S BENCH.
TIIIIDAY, AT MALF-PA4T,141•71.

Mtddirrez Common Juries.
Doe, on the demise of Les& v. Barrutt and Wiggins V. Goodinge,
Cohen, v. Jacobs another Gent. &c.
Wood v. Bailey Crace v. the Earl of Davis v. Ridge
Broome v. Winter Strathmore, of King. Same a. Kerby
Bennett v. French horn Wood v. Large
Garry v. Hobley Snewln a. Brown Shaddick v. Ballachey
Willis v. Conde* Chippendale v. Vallop Miles v. Jones
Fairman a. Crimple Edwards v. Trimmer Handy v. Bowser
Howell v. Trotter, Esq. /limn v. Johnson Gould v. Harris
Davis v. Bryan Morow v. Belcher Shipway v. Green
Kerbyabire v. Smith Bryant a. Leslie Rebbeck v. K night
Odell v. Smith Bryant v. Arnatt Mlles v. Smith
Slater v. McNeill Levy v. Jackson Dawson v. Jones
Buckluid v. Badcack Davis v. Evans

MT OF COMMON PI
TRIM DAT, AT TIN.
ez Common Jariel.-11
Copland and other. v.
Prance

Whitmanh and (oibere

Welker and another v.

v. Oke and another
Daniels v. Cooper
Badhato v. Toovey
Ricketts v. Bellcham-

Chance V. Levy

New Causes.

Plltrnen V. Culver and

hers and another
Orr and others v. W.

another
Nenby •. Fanner
linnin v. Daleety
Merle and another T.

Wakefield v. Chettle
Robinron v. Paletborpe
Hatton v. Bristow and

Seddon
Same v. J. Seddon
Same V. Bomber
Daniels V. Cooper
Willingham T. Green

another
Rehden v.Wright.E.q.
Macdougall v. Wing
sully v. Marlin
Dobree v. IVilcoz

sure
Hodson V. Ware
Cburcb Y. Ilolmiard

and a collar,.
Due v. Browne

Tucker v. Gwynn@

CONS 'STORY COURT.
THIS DAT, AT TAN.
Fourth mad lad Seatlon of Easter Term.—Before Sir C. Itobtasat.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.
?MR DAT, AT TEN,.
Customs.—Sperlal Juries.
Attorney-General T. Thos. Morley I Att.-General v. H. John F.uthoven
Motions will be heard on Thursday next, at Gray's inn-hall.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF CHANCERY, MONDAY, MAT 8.

BRITISH ANNUITY COIETANY.-.TAN SANDAU V. MOOSE
AND OTHERS.

The Loan CHANCELLOi gave judgment in the above case
this morning. and entered at great length into all the circum.
stances of it. The present application was an appeal motion from
an order made by his Honour the Vice-Chancellor. The mo-
tion to the Court below was that it Might be referred to the Muter,
to inquire whether the fourteen answers, put in separately by four-
teen defendants, were different—whether there was any necessity
fcr the defendants to answer, and whether, if the Master found af-
firmatively, there was any netestity foe repeating the schedules to
all the answers that had been annexed. His Honour made the
or,ler, saying that he felt satisfied that it had been made from the
best of motives, namely, with a view to prevent opprestion which
had been the declared object of the Solicitor, who had advised pat-
ring in the separate answers. Whatever might be the proper course
to be adopted with respect to calling upon the defendant to pay the
unnecessary costs incurred by this mode of putting in the answers,
or with respect to calling upon 11r. Wilkes, the solicitor, to pay
them, or with respect to an application to strike him off the rolls at
some future stage of the cause, there was no existing rule, by which
the Court could compel defendants to put In a joint anrxer. Defen-
dants, by the constitution of this country, were entitled to take such
a line of defence, and in employ such agents in the conduct of
that defence, as they thought proper ; but the Court would not
do its duty, if, when it came to make a decree, it did not make
the unnecessary costa incurred fall upon the proper parties.—
Perhaps also, in some future stage of the cause, it' the cause
were to proceed further, an application might very properly
be made to the Court to strike the Solicitor off' the Rolls, but In
this stage it would be premature to deal with that question In any
shape. Looking, howevet, at the difficulty, and the Immense ex-
pense that would attend bringing this cause to a hearing, with
nearly three hundred defendants, surely it would be a wise thing
for both plaintiff and defendants to consider whether it would not
be much to the advantage of them all, to settle all their disputes
amicably. Parliament too, in passing an Act, affecting this Corn.
pony, had, if not incorporated it in the Act, so dealt with the deed
regulating the Company, by calling for it, as to have made it that
deed on which alone the institution was to be founded, and by the
terms of which it was to proceed ; and upon that deed a serious
question arose. whether any one shareholder could, at his pleasure, '
dissolve the Company. as a partner could in any common partner-
ship. Upon the whole, there being no authority in existence,
which would enable the Court to order the defendants to file a joint
answer, and to take them into custody by attachments if they did
not; and, looking at the impropriety of sending so many defen.
dints into the Master's Office to be examined on interrogatories,
and there, at this early stage of the proceeding, disclose the whole
of their defence, thereby giving the plaintiff an opportunity of
having the case heard by a side wind; upon this motion, it was
the duty of the Court to discharge the order that had been made.
His Lordship then intimated that suitors, and the public, might
now understand, that atter the Parliamentary. Sessions shall be ,
closed, he will employ every Monday in giving judgments; letting
nothing be put in the papers for these days but hie judgments, and
informing parties on the Fridays preceding what judgments he will
give.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, MAY 8.

RULERS OF THE KING'S BENCH PRISON.

IN lig TINDAL.
Mr. BROUGHAM moved fora rule to show cause why William
Tindal, Eq. who is now a prisoner in the Rules of the King's
Bench prison, should not be deprived of the benefit of the Rules,
and confined within the walls of the prison. It was sworn by the
plaintiff at whose suit the defendant was originally confined, that
the debt was 2.3001 and after the derendant had been imprisoned
some time, the plaintiff agreed to take from him a bend for 9001.
only, on payment of which he agreed to release him. That bond,
however, which had been given several years ago. had never been
paid; but two years' interest bad been paid, anti both principal
and the remainder of the interest were still due, though the de.
fendant had ample means to pay. He had 18,0001. stock standing
in the name of a trustee for his benefit, also an annuity of 250/.
and several other sums of money which came to his possession;
but refused payment, and was now living in a state of great comfort,
and even luxury, within the Rules.
111 r. Justice I.ttrtr LEDA LE, who was alone on the Bench, said,
there was no precedent to warrant the interference of this Court
under such circumstances.

Mr. Buono:11;am said, that It was sworn in addition that the
defendant had been in the habit of transgressing the Rules, and had
acknowledged that about two years ago he had gone to Bath, where
he had remained six or seven days.
Dir. Justice LITTLEDALE—Then take a rule to show cause on
that ground only.
LIABILITY OF CARRIERS.
)(ASSN V. NOVICE.
The judgment of the Court in this case, which was argued on a
former day of the present Term, wee now delivered. The argument
way fully reported in our paper.
The Loan Crime JUSTICE—This Mute came before the Court
on a special verdict. It is tin action brought against the proprietor
of a stage roach for the loss of two boxes containing silks of consi-
derable value, sent by the defendant's coach, for the purpose of
being delivered at Bath. The declaration was in the usual form
of assumpsit. The special verdict states, that the defendant, be.
ing proprietor of a Bath stage-coach, published an advertisement,
by which notice was given to the public that he would not bold
himzelf accountable for the loss or damage of any parcel or package
of above rd. In value, unless the same was entered as such, and
paid for accordingly, when delivered to the defendant or his agents
in town or country. The plalatilE In delivering the two boxes to
the defendant for etmveyance to Bath, knew that the defendant had I
given such a notice; and the defendant was aware that the two
noses (which contained silks of the value of 2281. 3s. lid.) were'
vollh more thin bl. Ile, however, undertook to carry them
safely to Bath for a reasonable reward, to be paid on their delivery
It Bath ; and the verdict the goes on to state, that the defendant
did not Carey them safely from London to Bath. but that, during
the progress of the coach os its intended journey to Bath,
they were lest or stolen from the back-boot of the coach;
but no extraordinary risk no incurred. Upon these grow*

it was contended, on the part of the plaintiff, that, u
the defendant knew these goods were worth more than St. It lay
upon him to ask for an insurance ; not having done so, he waived
his notice : and it would be an incongruity to allow a carrier to say
that he had not undertaken to convey the goods, under such cis.
eumstinees. We think, however, that It is not so. There is no
such incongruity ; because a person msy undertake to put goods
in a course of conveyance, and yet declare that he is not answer.
able for their loss; and it might be reasonably supposed, under
such circumstances, that the plaintiff was his own insurer. If It
were otherwise, that argument would defeat the effect of these no-
tices, which have prevailed for a great many years, and overturn
the decisions of this Court, which have repeatedly recognized
them. There are two decision, in conformity with our opinion.
One Is Harris v. Blackwood, 3 Taunton, 264, and the other is
Lewis v. Waterhouse, I Price. 280. For these reasons, and upon
these authorities, we think the judgment must be entered, in the
present Mt, for the defendant.

THE ICING V. J. I. CLEMENT, ESQ.
The ATTORNEY.GENESAL said that he was Instructed to
appear on behalf of Mr. Clement, the proprietor of the Morning
hroniele, against whom a rule for a criminal information had
been granted for a libel on the tirm of Messrs. [lntim, Brothers,
anti Co., and be begged now to say, in the name of Mr. Clement,
that he considered the prosecutors most respectable gentlemen,
against whom he regretted extremely that his journal had been
made the vehicle of any aspersion. The libel complained of had
come to his establishment in the form of an anonymous letter, and
had been inserted wholly without his knowledge. On inquiry,
however, he found that the imputations cast upon the prosecutors
were without foundation, end he hoped that this public expression
of his regret that they had been published would induce Messrs.
!lunette from any further proceedings in this case.
Mr. SCANLETT, on the part of Messrs. Mullett, said that they
had no animosity towards Mr. Clement; that they believed the
libel complained of had been published without his knowledge,
and they were perfectly satisfied with the very handsome man.
ner in which the Attorney.Oenerai had expressed Mr. Clements'
regret.
THE KING V. AUGUSTUS THESSIGER AND WILLIAM KEEN.
In this case, a rule for a criminal information had been granted in
the present Term against the defendants. fur certain libels upon
Francis Freelinie, Esq. published in The General Advertiser and
Post-d/fee Gazette.
Mr. BROUGHAM apologired on the part of the defendants for
the aspersions that had been cast upon Mr. Freeling, and said that
he agreed to the rule being made absolute without opposition ; but
as his clients promised solemnly that the like cause of complaint
should not again exist, they hoped that Mr. Feeding would not
press the matter further.
The LORD Cu El JuSTICE said he had no doubt Mr. ,Freeling
would be satisfied with this; and the ATTOENEY.OENE•AL ac-
quiesced, after stating that Mr. Freeling's sole object was, to put a
stop to the attacks that had been made on him.

IN THE MATTER OF LATOUCHt.

This WA% a rule wiling upon the Marshal of ti;e Ring's Bench
prison to show cause why he did not restore Mr. Latouche, a pri-
soner In that place of confinement, to the Rules.
It appeared that Mr.Latouche had been deprived of the Rules on
account of his having, in i state of intoxication, tired • pistol at
one of the patrols in the neighbourhood of the prison.
The Couar refused to make any order upon the Marshal, com-
pelling him to grant the Rules to any prisoner, as it was entirely at
his own risk that he suffered any to enjoy that indulgence; but
they would recommend the Marshal to restore Mr. l*eiuche to
the Rules, on his entering into his own recognizance, In the sum of
1001. and finding two sufficient sureties in the sum of SOL each, to
keep the peace towards all his Majesty's subjects.

THE KING V. 6NX:it:ltem.
This case, wherein a rule was granted in the present Term
to show cause why a criminal information shou'd not be filed
against a clerk in the office of the Secretary of State for Foreign
Affairs, for sending ■ libellous and provoking letter to another clerk
in the same establishment, was postponed, on the motion of the
ATTORNEY GENEEAIs, until next Term, as there had not been
sufficient time to answer the affidavit of the complainant.

IN T/IE MATTER OF ROBERT BLIOH, ESU.
Mr. CURMOOD moved to make absolute the rule he obtained a
few days since, calling upon the :Marshal of the Ring's Bench
prison to show cruse why Mr. Bligh should not be re-admitted to
the enjoyment of the Rules.
Mr. GURNEY appeared on the part of Earl Darnley and Lord
Clilden, to oppose the rule, on the ground that Mr. Bligh had an
often violated his promises to preserve the Fence toward' the Noble
Earl and his family, that he could no longer be trusted.
The LORD CIIIEF JUSTICE said, that if there was say op.
position to the application, the Court could not interfere; and per-
haps the leas the subject was mentioned the better.
[These cases were the only subjects that were brought before the
Court worthy of notice. To obviate the inconvenience usually
arising on the last day of Term, from the Isle hour to which the
Court has been obliged to sit, owing to motions behind the bar be-
ing postponed until the last, the Lord Chief Justice commenced
this morning by calling first on the youngest members of the pro-
fession, by which means more business was got through, and in
a less time, on the last day of Term, than has been known for some
years. Their Lordships were enabled to vise about al: i and usually
the sitting of the Court on similar days has been protracted until
eight or nine o'clock at night.]

POLICE.