The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1826-10-18 00:00:00

LiW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, OCT. 17.
LONDON RF.IIANET SITTINGS AFTER TRINITY TERM.
Before the Lonn Cum- JLSTICE and Special Juries.
At the sitting of the Court. Mr. TINDAL, whu has bcrn ap-
pointed 'o the office of his Majesty's Solicitor-General during the
vacation, took his wonted station behind the bar.
The Lonn I:ttrre JUSTICE, on entering the Coort. requested
that the So r. t c ITOR.GENERAL would take his seat within the bar,
by virtue of hi. appointment.
The So tic tron.OENEUAL then removed from the seat he oc-
cupied to the centre of the seat appropriated for King'. Counsel,
and recciand the congratulations of his Lamed Friends with much
diffidence, but with a great deal of urbanity.

OUTtIWAITE AND OTHERS n. WILSON.
This was an action brought by the assigneesof a bankrupt linen.
draper, formerly carrying on business at Lyme, in Donets:lire, and
afro at Sit:mouth. in Devonshi.a. against the defendant. a wharfin-
wr in London, to recover a quantity of linen-drapery goods which
had coma to his hands in the way of business, being unshipped on
his premises. The goods were directed for one Leonard, into
whose possession they hail been traced after they had been parted
with by the bankrupt; and Leonard having become bankrupt
(after the goads reached the defendant's bandit, his assignees wrote
to the defendant, telling him not to deliver up the goods, and they
vrotild indemnify him.
It appeared from the circumstances di.e.lneed in evidence, that
the bankrupt, to whose estate the plaintiffs were assignees, was in
very embarrassed circumstances in the years 1824 and 1825, and
after several acts of bankruptcy committed, by keeping out of the
way from writs, absenting himself from his shop, &a he assigned
the linen-drapery in question to Leonard. Leonard had them
shipped for London, perfectly well knowing that the person from
whom he received them had committed divers acts of bankrurcy.
.
VI foie the goods were is fransilis, Leonard became a bankrupt ;
and when they reached the defendant's warehouses, Leonard's as-
signers lodged a detainer against them, undertaking to indemnify
the defendant against the consequences of not delivering them up.
Under that circumotsnees, there was a verdict for the plaint id's,
and it was agreed that the value should be settled out of Court.

MARSDEN V. WATTIIHAN AND ANOTHER.
This was non,inally an action of trespass, brought by the plain-
tiff a repeatable inhabitant of Thavies-Inn, Ilolborn, against the
defendants, two Aldermen of the City of London, for signing a
distress warrant, authorizing the parish officers of the parish of St.
Andrew, Ilolborn, to levy on the plaintiff's premises for poor's-
rates and parochial dues, to the amount of 41. and upward.. The
real question in the cause was, whether Thavies-Inn is or is not ex-
tra-parochial?
Mr. fiuRNET (with whom were Mr. F. Po (LOC ti and Mr.
BROUGHTON) simply stated the facts of the trespass, and that at
all times Thavies-Inn bad been considered extra-parochial, though
locally situated within the patish of St. Andrew, Holborn. For-
merly this Inn had been an appendage to Lineoln's-Inn, and had
been the residence of law students. Latterly it had become the re-
sidence of other persons; but until the last few years no poor's-
rates had been demanded of its Inhabitants; and only three years
ago, when the parish mooted this question, they were defeated by
the verdict of &Jury against them.
The trespass was admitted on the other side.
Mr. SCARLET,. (who was assisted in the defence by the Coin-
mon Sergeant and Mr. Merewether) stated to the Jury, that
be should be able to prove the inhabitant* of Thavies-Inn were
am only rateable to parochial dues, but had actually been rated
from the reign of Queen Elizabeth down to the year 171 ifs, when it
got into the possession of lawyers, and than the inhabitants ceased
to pay rates; not because the Inn was not rated. but because the
parish officers, who were much more negligent of their duties then
than at the present period, did not choose to litigate the question
with members of the law. In the reign of Edward 111. this pro-
perty belonged to one Thavy or Davy, but by the corruptions which
accompanied the Improvements of ages, after this Inn had been in-
habited by lawyers, Its name was handed down to modern times as
" Fhiczea' inn." This Thavy or Davy, when bequeathing his
property, described it as being situate in the parish of St. Andrew,
Holborn; and this, combined with the parish rate hooks, which the
Learned Counsel would produce, clearly established that the houses
in Thavies-Inn were MA only within the parish of St. Andrew,
Holborn. but were rated to parochial dues, and the inhabitants paid
such rates until when lawyers became tbe inhabitants and
disputed them. If this place, however, was extra-parochial, it
would have to pay tithes to the King, and it was incumbent on the
other side to prove that the inhabitants not only did that, bat also
buried their owu dead, supported their own poor, Ac., as was the
custom in all extra-parochial places.
Numerous old parish rates were then put In, which exhibited
hea tines of " Shoe-lane." " St. Andrew's-court," "
buildings." " Dyer's-buildings," all the courts ow that side et
Hatboro from Fleet-ditch to the Bars. After each-or these bead-
ing,. followed divers names, apparentle of inhabitants riled to pa.
ro.hial dues, who in most instances had paid. It was remseltable,
however, that there was no apparent rate on " Holborn" tommstste;
but, between the headings ThseiesAnn" and " Bardetes.build.
tops" there were tin mast of the books) exactly eight names, ow-
napanding with the number of houses in Holborn between these
tvmoutlets.

' ly, contended that the names of them dlf-
iwwwe malmoMour rq. jtnerted in.** TOW ildtts, and the
istmetbllwarismslasen. were only inserted so a directory to future
peeoehtal Akers. whereby they might IWOw how many rateable.
Inhabitant householders there were between one enttrt and another,
In Holborn ; and it was evident that these wee exhibited nn entire-
goo of dues within Thavies-Inn. Therefore it was considered
extra-parochial.
The CHIEF JUSTICE sumincd up to the Jury leaving it for
them to decide upon the documentary evidence, and they tound for
the plalntiff—Damages 4/.