The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1825-06-22 00:00:00

t Alir NFE L'LIG RATE.
----. .
COURT OF CHANCERY, TUESDAY, Jrwr 21.
!' EMI A4TTORNEY.OENERAL V. Tint SIiNNERS. cos:rase.
The Loan CHANCELLOR intimated, that it was his intention
to come down to the Court on Secure/Ay nut, anti give judgment
herein.
ELEPHANT AND CASTLE CHARITY.
The Lone Cuarecctsoa. edettroting one of the Solicitors
herein; observed, that he Via uncertain ilicther there was not a
report in ;he rinse which he had not amongst the Faeces ; and they
were handed to the Solicitor, to supply what was &ballot-
. I
COURT OF MO'S EENCII, INEtrstisrerss,
Tesspav, Jess; 21.
The Loan Cutrinr Jurrick bei^g detained sitting at Nisi
Pi tai in London, this morning, the Court did not sit until after
eleven o'clock I their Lords!) ttatt then proceeded to deliver judgments
in several unimportant user,. s
THE KING V. MONT. WM. STEWART.
This defendant. a young man of colour, up found guilty at the
last Assizes for Oxford, *line Al r. Berekritarrow, dais assault
upon a lad of colour nestled Philip Themlatip„, 'lt appeared Irons
the affidavits, that the riatone4ne watt mapey percent, and the pro.
manor under servant, in the.ttla Mrs. Storer, in Oxford-
tl
shire. The pinsectutor had 000 .t . .oc7 ille that lady front the
%Vest Indus ; a dionte ittosElsOt co them as to the mode of
wiping sou* knives; the poi lecutor me thecae' lal dant rather a saucy
.answer, the defendant struck him, and in SO doing, cut his hand 1
.wi;lr the knife which the Prosecutor was wiping ; this rather en.
raged the- defendant, and lie took the prosecutor, locked him up, j
and on the next morning fOgged him. I
Alt. JEnv/s, for the deleittlani, said a few words in mitigation
of punishment.
Mr. Tat.tronD, on the part of the prosecution. said that thc un-
fortunate bid who stood in the situation of prosecutor, was a total
sarauger in this country, without either a relation or a friend ; but
this circumstance, lie was sure, would rather operate on the minds
ofeheirLardships to his favour than to his prejudice ; he hoped
theethe Court would, by its judgment. say, that even a poor black
lad, like the prosecutor, should not be unstilted with impunity,
particularly when it was recollected that the defendant wee not sa-
tisfied with striking him in the • irritation of t:te moment,but that
lie afterwards ticked him up, and then, in a pretneelitatedenensicr,
inflicted punislatient r.: him.
Mr. Justice Bev Letv, in passing judgment, said, that even ad-
mitting that this lad had behaved improperly, yet the conduct of
the•defentint had also been highly improper : the rights of all
persons must be protected ; the judgment of the Court therefore
was, that the defendant do pay a fine of 21W. to tl.e Kirg.•
After the judgment was pronounced, the defendant, in broken
English. endeavoured to address the Court : he said, that it their
Lordships knew this boy, he was sure they would not punish him
st all, for he was the worst buy in all the parish, as the church-
warden would certify.
THE SING R. SAMUEL HARDT, JOHN WEBB, SEN., AND JOHN
IV EBB, JUN.
Thin wi•s an indictment preferred by the Mayor and Corpelretion
of the City of London, against the detendents fir a nuisance, arising
from certain gas works erected at Woolwich, from which a quantity
of poisonous mutter ran into the River Thames, whereby the fish
were destroyed, and the fishermen on the river were grievously
injured.
The trial took place before the Lord Chief Baron, at the last
Kent Assists; when the three defendants were convicted ; but Mr.
Linsey, who was also is cluded;in the indictment, was acquitted, in
order that his evidence might he taken.
Mr. GututEr now prayed the judgment of the Court against the-
defendarts.
The affidavit of Mr. Hardy stated. that he hail formerly had an
interest in the gee works, and ouperintendel the!doperations ; but
that previously to the trial of the indictment, he had disposed of the
whole of his interest therein ; and that, if any nuisance then ex-
isted, he had no means whatever of abating it.
The affidavits of the other two defendants stated, that they had
only been employed as labourers at the works; that they had both
discontinued to work there before the trial ; and that if any nuisance
rusted, they had ro means of abating it.
Mr. BRODERICK, en behalf of the defendants, said, that the
Lord Chief Baron at the trial observed, that this was a civil rather
than a criminal prosecution, as the object was merely to havethe
1 t sauce abated. lie agreed with his Lordship, and he was there.
fore surprised that the defendants should be brought up for judg.
ment. at could only be for the purpose of obtaining rook which
lie trusted :heir Lordships would net allow, as none of the parties
had any interest eitaicver in the premises at the time of the trial,
and they could not therefore have abated the nuisance, for which
alone the indictment was preferred. The evidence was altogether
vague end general; it was stated, that some Mot:mends of fish were
destroyed; but tiny could mention no specific time when such a
circumstance occurred. There was, in fact, a total misapprehension
as to the nature of the nuisance; the drain which was complained
of had no rommuuicatiort• with the gas works : there was no
nuisance at preterit. .
Mr. Justice fievi.tv—lfave you any olijection that a person
should see wittier such is the fact a

IlnonEatcx—Not the' least, my Lord.
Mr. GURNEY believed the nuisance had at length been abated ;
bat it persons who erected gas manufactolies would not take tare
that nuisances did not @list they had no reason to complain it those
pewit s,whom they inured Isms-et:tett them for it. It had been
said by his Learned }fiend that neither of the defendants -had any
interest in the works, ar.d ought not therefore to pay the costs.
Tne tact was, he had submitted to the Learned Juege at the trial,
that Mr. Liresay ought not to be acquitted until all the evidence
had been heard againat the other defendants ; but the pertinacity of
his Lem n d Friend prevailed, and the consequence was, he &amine('
Mr. Liresay's acquittal before it was ascertained that Mr. Hardy
hsd disposed of his interest in the premise.. Had the Learned
Baron fo.lowed what he (Mr. Gurney) humbly submitted was the
usual course, Mr. Livesay would not have been acquitted, because,
as it was well known he had an interest in the rrernime., the prose-
cutor would Lave ceaainly secured the costs by obtaining his
conviction.

The COURT s,ggested that the !woke ought to go before the
Muter, t.r elae that Mr. biresay should give an und.rtaking to
pay thr cots. If he should nor accede to this altanatire, then the
defendants were to he brought up again to-morrow.
Mr. BRODERICK undertook to see :dr. Livesay on the subject.
QUO WA lIRANTO.
_ THE KING V. ATARTI N.

This was a role nisi. obtained by the Attorney Genera last
term, calling on the defendant to show canoe why an information in
the nature of a quo warrant(' should not be tiled against him. In
order to try the nght by which he held the situation of a capital
Burgess for the Borough of %Vest Lone.
The object of the parties in obtaining this rule was, to try the
right of persons not timid ing within the Borough to hold the office
of capital Burgess. A rule had been obtained by the Attomcy
General last Michaelmas term, calling on the Mayor and Stewards
of %Vest l.ooe to show cause why a mandamus should not brae,
commanding them to enrol and swear in a person who was an in..
habitant of the said Borough, u a free Burgess thereof.
This rule was obtained upon the principle, that under the
chant, of Elizabeth, by which West Looe was made a Royal
Borough, all the Inhabitants of the town were ipso facto members
of the Corporation. In II ilary Term, caul* was shown against the
rule, on which occasion the cuutitution of the borough and the
history of the Corporation was very elaborately entered into by Mr.
Adam, who oppored the rule, anti the Attorney-General in sup-
' port of it ; when the Court discharged the rule, on the ground that
the words " being inhabitant' of the Borough," which were in the
charter were words of qualification, and meant only that before a
person could be made a member of the Corporation, it was necessary
that lie should be an inhabitant; and that a man did not necessarily
become a member of the Corporation by becoming a householder,
and introducing himself into theßbrough.
In order, however, to hare the question tried, the present rule
was obtained, upon the ground that three of the capital Burgesses,
who elezted Mr. Martin a capital Burgess, were not inhabitants at
the time of the election.

Mr. ADAMS this day chewed cause against the rule, and eon.
tended, that tilt the Charter required ass, that in order for persona
to be quslified to be chosen as iatpital flurgesses, they should be re.
sidmts. but it was bot necessary that they should continue to be so
after their election.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL, In reply, argued, that by the
words of the Charter, and the 32d Geo. II I. it was requisite, that
the capital Burgesses should not only be residents at the time of
their own election, but also ever after, in order to entitle them to
the privileges of a capital Burge's-. The Learned Counsel was
about to enter into details, when he was interrupted by
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE, who said, that they had already
heard the facts ; and whatever might be the result of the trial, he
thought facts shown were sufficiently important to require that the
question might be sent to a Jury.
The rule was accordingly made absolute.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Tussamr, Juxi 21.

Siltivf in lento.
DISCHARGe OF DEBTORS.

Richard Rowlat:d,Willi;m4)WSell,J;trteiiliaselrline. and Tho.
etas Spearing. were brought before the Court on petition to he dis-
charged under the Act of Rarliamrnt, commonly called the Lord's
Art.

31r. Sergeant Coons (on behalf of Mr. Wisby, late proprietor of
Me Brut Jams Bull) opposed the dischatge of Howland, on the
ground of alleged fraud. It appeared that all the effects of the pri-
soner had been taken in execution; that he was in durance; that
a commission of bankruptcy had been sued ouparairtst him ; and
that the property take.) in execution bad ht•en recovered by his
a•signces. l'he questions of the Learned Counsel tended to show
that the commission was collusive, anti that the prisoner had po-
pert y at the time he was first imprisoned.
The counr over-ruled some question put to the prisoner as
tending, if answered, to criminate him, for if the commission watt a
collusive one, and he replied to the question, he made himself a
party to a conspiracy. This was contrary to every principle acted
upon in an English Court, for a man to give evidence against him.
self.

The prisoners took the oath prescribed by the Act, and were dis-
charged.

ANDREW n. 1.0. D ALVANLEY AND LORD FOLET.
The ntle obtained by Mr. Sergeant Wykle, calling upon the
plaintiff to show rause why the judgment obtained against the de.
fentlants upon an annuity deed should not beset aside, was enlarged
till next Term, without staying proceedings. The annuity was oe-
goeiated by the wall-known Bran of Howard and Gibbs.

~~ - -

..

ntige==2