The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1821-05-25 00:00:00

LAW INTRLLIGENCE.

COURT OF CHANCERY, Weimer's law,
TIIIRRSDAY. NAY $4.
The Lord Chancellor came into Court at bale.
past ten o'clock.
[iii 'mu 01 WCSTUCATH a. Tug COUNTS= OF
WEsTIIIATH.
Mr. Houma said be was requested to ask his
Lordship for his jurlgareist in dna case.
• • The Loao CRANCRLI.OI.`" Let it be put in
the paper for Tuesday fleet. This is one of that
class of cases in which I had hoped it would not be
necessary to ask for judgment."
Mr. BLAIR, Counsel for the Countess orNest-
swath, stated, that the Earl of Westmeath had in-
stituted a suit in the Ecclesiastical Count Ihr the
restitution of conjugal rights.
Mr. Houma said, that the itstement of his
Learned Friend was correct ; it was a fact that he
did not wish to keep beck from his Lordship.
The Loao CHANCIILLOR—" This will create a
new difficulty if the deed of separation between
the noble parties does not go far enough to enjoin
each a suit in she Ecclesiastical Court. I am aware
there was a rase in which Lord Bathurst went the
leogth of granting an injunction to restrain such *
suit in the Ecclesiastical. Court. I will give you
,any judgment on Tuesday next."
COURT OF KING'S BENCH, Werrissarna,
TISORSDAY, MAT H.
THE RING c. CARTWRIGHT AND OTHERS.
or- The LORD Cniair Janice read the opinion
of the Court on the application made last Term
• for a new trial, on two grallsOla : the refuse' of the
bAwd Chirf.Baroir, isholried she cause, to allow of
„es eliallenge to the stray, and aa' har refusal to
allow of • challenge to the poll. His Lordship
entered at considerable kiwi% into the retrains en
which the opinion of the Court was founded, and
quoted • great member of authorities, con-
cluding, by stating it to be the unanimous opinion
• of the Court, that challenge to the array could ant
be taken at fsisi Pei*, out the ground of the an-
indifferency of the officer of the Court nominating
a Special Jury; but, if it were granted that the
am. could be rhea challenged, the Court did not
.:think: that any of the •objections taken in this
case would be sufficient ground for such challenge.
To the objection that the Master had selected,
the names of the Pannel. it might be said that he
had done no mote than what was (loos in all oilier
cases where there never was any reference to chance.
' and it would be absurd to suppose the object of
the Act of Parliament, which' was to obtain a Jury ,
of superior information to a Xinnmon Jury, could'
be attained by any other
.epode than by 'tontine-
'lion. The second objection was, that the officer
had• taken those persons against whose names
Esquire" was fixed, or those of a higher degree,
and it had been attempted to throw some ridicule
open it, by stating that it was the constable who
made the Esquire; but the list of the Special
Jury was fixed on the church doors, and it was to
he supposed that the additions were given by
which the parties were moat commonly known. If
the constable had given any additions not do-
served, he had done nothing against the preemie
Defendauts, the gist of their complaint being
that they were not tried by person. of cog.
mon degree. There was no doubt 'the officer
had the power of nomination, and from the affi.
davit of the Maker in the present case. there
could be as little doubt that he had duly exercised
it without any bias or partiality. Another grouud
of objection was, that the officer bad named some
persons to be on the Panne! who were in the corer.
mission of the peace, and u this we, said to be a
political prosecution, and that was sin office held
at the pleasure of the Crown, such persona could sot
be impartial. His Lordship said he knew net
exactly what was meant by a political prose.
cutiosr; this was a prosecution 'for a high m*
demeanor. The office of Justice of the Peace,
though appointed by the Creoles was not
office of profit. It had been the constant prat.
tire to retorts such persona on the Panne!, and no
clan who wished well to his country would desire
to tee them as a class excluded. The next ob-
jectitio was the refusal of the Master to strike off
the names of those persons who had served on the
Grand Jury. The Master had afterwards struck
them off. It was impossible to support any par-
tiality on the pert of the officer, and oo prejudice
w haievee had resulted to the parties. The last ground
eY challerge to the array was the unindtflerency of
the Sheriff, as manifested by his omitting to summon
one of the Special Jury. mimed Peach. But them
could be no ground to charge the Sheriff with par..
tisility, as the person was actually summoned by
the Under-Sheriff. though iii a slovenly manner.
The last ground for a new trial was, the refusal of,
the Lord Chief Barou to allow of a challenge tab
the poll. It was not proposed to prove that any
of the Jury had expressed any opinion to the pre..
judice of the Defendants, but it was wished to ex.
tract that fact by questions to be put to the Jury.
men. This the Lord Chief Baron refused to al.
low, aid in the opinion of the Court he was right
in his refusal. In confirmation of which his Lord.
ship read extracts front Serjeant Hawkins, Fitzher.
bert, and others. Upon the whole matter, the
Court were unanimously of opinion that the rule
Nisi most be discharged.

The Defendants, it Wail intimated, would be
brought up to receive judgment co Wednesday
next.

THE ZING N. JOHN HUNT.

The ATTORN ItIr• GEN ERAL prayed the judgment
of the Court OH this Defendant; but the Lord Chief
Just►ce, before whom the Defendant was tried, not
him.% his notes ill Court, it was ordered to stand
user.