The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1826-05-02 00:00:00

LAW NOTICES.

COURT OF
Hymn lox LOAD OMANI

App
Duke of St. Alhan's v. Duchess of
Rt. Albatee, ?appeals and supple-
mental Mg, part beard
Lord Deerhorst v. Reatheote, ditto
Same v. Duke of St. AlLan'e, ditto
Millman v. aoudadld, appeal per
order
Parker v. Rayner, oapeal
Edenborough v. 011itlef. per Judg-
ment

CEET.
Tuts DAV, Mr TIM.

ram.
Carter v. Skil. p of !Medan. par
judgment
In re Elephant sod Castle Ckartry,
per •udurnent
Crawshay r. Coigns, excei.tiona and
further direction', per yodinterit
F.iparte Grinraeini, bankrupt pod.
rim', per rttfuntent
In re. Ilhartwell, lunatic petition
In re White, bankrupt petition

TICE-CHANCELLOR'S COCRT.,
sairoas TEI TICI-CMANCITALOIII. TM t• !lA.'', AT MALI-t•AT
Prwrler v. Bunten, part Harding v. Lovering *biting v. Wllltlug
heard I F.ley v. Bicknell I
Harrison v. Brook
Currey v. Melleish Hunt v. Benison King v. lifootseis.
Trustees of the British Harrison v. Blum Sca V. nners
Ilweentri v. White Prowtin
OMIT.
The Roster of the lls will sit AM evening at elm o'clock.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH.
MIDDLIr•SX.
Notice.--l'ilhefended causes only will be tried in Mlrldleore on Aridity
neat, t►e ,th tn.t. Notice roust he given at the blarehsi'a office of racy
Mlle, DO Ore undefended, or the Record* will not be soot to Westminster
foe telat.--Dineel May I, 1e26.

LONN.
Notiee.—rndefentiled closes DO
es only will be tried fa London on fatsutleY
nest, the 4th ln.t. Notice moot be given at the Marshal's nines of sm.'
eats% dare undefended, et the Records will not Levant to fluildhal4
triaio—Nial. Pries "Glee, May 1, t'i2s.

dOURT DP COMMON PLEAS.
testa DAT, AT lIIALT.TA•T
er Middlesex Common Julies.
Farmer v. Pam Rartlett v. Reertoet Walker and another •
Rogers v. Pipers. gent. Copland nod otbers v. Williams
Same Nib*" gent. Prance Allionn v. Faulkner
Daniels v. favor Drne T. Parker Heauab and another v.
Carlon. gent. v. Prance Slr R. Phillip.
London Common Juries, appointed for to-morrow, at hslf.east nine.
Remaneot.
Berry v. Pieter . Lloyd and another v.
Wharton e..rebfer [ Whytehead
Watson v. Earl of Bel. Aldridge v. Taylor
fart Fowles v. Cain
Scales v. /stoles I Turner and another v._
Crundall v. Wright. Lewis
New Canoes.
Pieldes and another v.
Marsden
How v. Hallett
Chinn v. Morris
Crowder and wilather v.
Griffin
Chantherialn v. Strut.
tea

Wheeler v. Airman
Williams ohtd others Y.
WilLsau
RaTllO6 v. Potter
Carr madras. V. seriven
Nanney •. Kenrick
Smith anti others v.
Humphrey
Hutton v. Godwin

smith •. riff
Zane, v. Ward • aa►.
Wetriter V. Riskin.
botham•

Parker v. Poreeter, pet.
Exposit Bow Chart%
Act, ditto
Gale v. Walters, to be
rpoke to
Reel •. Davies, part
beard

IVRT OP EXCFIECtIiE.
TITIS A'T
Bishops)! Carlisle Y.
Blain, per order
Jackson r. Bourn per
order
Brooks Y. Parker
Putney y. wentiororth
coven& r. Douglas

I. Scott and anr. void. C.
Hiteticli and enuallar
Su.e and soother v.
Hastte
Derrtwv C. Robins
Robert. v. Caaspbeilf
Collins, v. Plumy

nesting. v. Slarppadf
bill and answer
Hawley v. Carter
Edwa,de v. Rowan'
Palmer v. Spell
Ingewortli v. Debi

iRT OP ADMIRAL"
WM DAY, AT TIN.
Do In Hester Term.—'

'north and last

1.011
Willi* ♦. 5,029

LAW Mili I,LIi4NCIE

Lord Stowell,

COVET OF KING'S BENCH, !HAT I.
&Moto in Banco.
TAR NINO V. THE JUSTICES OF waittercgsntnt.
This wu a proceeding instituted by a Coroner against the JINN,
tlees of Warwickshire, for the purpose of ascertaining his right to
charge, on three several inquest., 9d. per mile; on the distance
from his own house to Birmingham, being 20 miles. The
Coroner hyl been obliged Logo to Birmingham to hold one Inquest,
and when ne arrived there he found that there were two other his
quests to be held, and he charged his mileage in each.
When the case was called on,
Bnot:011.411, who appeared for the Justices, mentione4
that Mr. Searlett was on the other side, and petiribly their Lord.
ships would Ict it stand over until he came into Court. The Cu.
of :11e11ish v. Richardson wu appointed as tint: and as it wet
known that case would occupy some time, and as Mr. Scariest hat .
been heard in it on a former day, probably be was absent from these
The LORD Ci.ttes JUSTICE said the Court coup( not ter
the public business to stand still on atcount of dm *Wean of
Counsel.
The case was then argued on one side only and the Coon wets
i unanimously of opinion, that all the allowance given to Coroners
for holding inquests by the Statute wee 20s. for each inquest
holden. and N. per mile as a travelling charge on the distance thew
were obliged to go to hold artch inquest. Here the distance the'
Coroner had to go was only to Birmingham ; and the eireumstaecti
of his having held three inquests after he had got there, could not
entitle him to make three separate charsee for once travelling the
same diatence.
r. SCAR LET T afterwards, 00 Corning into Court, stared to thee
Lordships that he had nct been heard in the cue; and that it had
been decided in his absence.

The Loan en Isr JUSTICE—We do all we can to ICCORIMO:
date the gentlemen at the bar ; but we cannot suffer Futile business
to mend still on account of their absence:
MT. SCAR LF. T T —Your Lordships know that mama the COMM
pointed out by your Lordships is ehered to, it is impossible for ono
FA to regulate my conduct as to meet every emergency. Your
Lordships fixed the case of Mellish v. Richardson as the firm this
morning, and as I had done my best in it on a former day, L did
not thiuk it necessary to be in Court until I thought it would pro.
bably he over. This cage was taken out of its turn.
The Lrsan CHIEF. JUSTICE—If my brother Bayley had bona
here, he Would have gone on pith &knish and Richardson; bee
he was not, and we mutt not suffer the public time to be wasted on
account of the absence of Counsel. I do Dot think, however, if
you had been here that it could have made any difference ; it wait
a very plain case against you, indeed.
Mr. Scartit.ETT—lf your hardships think it was so clear a ease,
then I have done my duty in mentioning it.
The case of Mellish Richardson, which occupied the whole
morning, was of no public importance whatever.
THE KING V. CUNNINGHAM, I'iIUCHEE, AND wassosourah.
The A TrOIiSEY-GENERAL, in the-last Term, moved for and
obtained a rule, calling upon the above-named defendants. the
printer. publisher, and proprietor of the English Gentleman news.
paper, to show cause why a criminal information should not be filed.
against them, for an alleged libel on Mr. Rothschild.
Mr. BROUGHAM now showed cause, and submitted that at all
events, in the aflidavit of Mr. Chatfield. the Solicitor to alr. Roth'.
child, on which this rule was obtained, quite sufficient was dia.
closed to warrant the Court in discharging this rule as against the
two lirst.mentioned defendants. 51r. Chatfield stated that the
alleged libel having appeared on the rfith.of December last, In the
English Gentleman, on the 19th he wrote to Mr. Cunningham
and Mr. Puncher, the printer and publisher, and told them that
Mr. Rothschild had directed him to inform them that it was
his Intention to apply for a criminal information against.
them, for having inserted its their newspaper a certain false and
libellous statement, in regard to an alleged transaction which
was represented to have taken place between Mr. Rothschild and
Messrs. Jones, Lloyd, and Co. blinkers. The letter, which was sea
out, contained these words—" The reason that I make this applies.
titan to you Is. that you may give up the author of the
_paragraph
complained of ; but In case you decline doing so, Mr. Rothechat
has instructed me to proceed against you accordingly." The
Learned Counsel submitted that this letter evidently by implication.
contained a pledge that proceedings would not be taken against tber
parties to whom it was written, unless they did decline giving tap
the RUth.lf et the paragraph. It appealed further by affidavit of
Chatfield, that Mr. Wasterough, who was the author, and
the proprietor of the paper, had been given up, and had had,
• personal interview with Mr. Chatfield. The Learned Counsel,
therefore, submitted that the rule ought, at all events, to be dia.-
charged, as far as Mr. Cunningham and Mr. Pouchtie were con.
cerned. With respect to Mr. NVasborrugh, it unto tunately hap.
pened, that thaugh affidavits had been filed, which, in the estimation
of the Learned Counsel, would have c early convinced the Court
that this was not a case in which they would have thought it right
to interfere by criminal information, yet these affidavits were bled
only the day before the Term. indeed of a week, as required by the
conditions of the rule, and therefore the Learned Counsel feared
they could not be made use of on the present occasion.
Mr. Hot?, on the same side. said that he was sorry he was put.
eluded from making use of the affid.vits tiled by al r. Wasbmough,
but submitted that it would be clearly a breach of good faith, if
the pledge contained in the letter of Mr. Chatfield was to be dim.
garded, and this rule made absolute against all three defendant.
Mr. Wasborough, who was the proprietor of this paper, and was
the author of the supposed libellous. paragraph, had conic forward
and avowed himself as such, and it was extremely hard that bier
affidavit could not now be gone into, as it would give an ample ex.
planation of the whole case. The Court, however, would not for.
get the fact that such an affidavit had been filed ; and they would
in this, as in all other cases, be very cautious bow they exerted the
extraordinary power of the Court, by interfering with a criminal
information. Upon what principle was it that Mr. Rothschild
particularly should have the extraordinary assistance of the Court,
when the ordinary means of redress by indictment, which was open
to
public character.
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE—EMIT person is entitled to pro.
tection.
Mr. Hove—Certainly, my Lord; but not by criminal infor.
matton. That is an extraordinary mode of relief, which the Court
only grants in such cases a.• it Minks call fur it. But Mr. Rothe...
child is no public futketionary who requires the special protection
of this Court ; he is may a dealer in money—a bitllionist, as he is
called. He is a dealer In a commodity which every body has great
need of, and so far he may be a person of importance; but he is,
no more than an ordinary stock-jobber, and the circumstance of his
being connected whit a grist many loans does not entitle him to the.
protection of this Court rams than the lowest individual In the city
of London. Under all these circumstances, I submit that the rule
most be discharged midi respect to Mr. Cunningham and Mr.
Pouchee st least ;- and 1 regret exceedingly 'bat we "a" IP jam*