The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1824-11-11 00:00:00

having called the defendant a thief, unaccompanied by any inn
endo. The anteing of the damages was inconsiderable, but the
costs were not so, and he therefore was induced to move for a rule
to show cause why the verdict ahoyld not be set aside, and a new
trial granted.—Rule granted.

THE LING V. MONT AG l'E AND OTHERS.
Mr. RNEY moved for a rule to show cause why a new trial
should not be had in this ease. The action was tried at the last
Surrey Assizes, when a verdict was found for the defendants. Ills
motion was founded on the tact of the rind in question not being a
public highway but an artificial ime, and in itself a nuisance. The
question involved the right of the Lord Mayor and Corporation
of London over the river Thames, which he (Mr. Gurney) main.
seined was fully established, and snared by the statute of Henry
the Fourth. In digging lately time. however, it appeared suf.
fieiently clear that a bridge had previously existed there, and that no
ground whatever subsisted tor. at sting that the causeway had been
there front " ancient and immemorial time." It appeared satis-
factory that a bridge hail been there—that a very large bridge for.
merly attend there, hut that it had recently fallen in. Plans were
drawn both of the bidge and of the causeway, which the Counsel
presented to the Court. lle was desirous of presenting these, for
they would clearly establish the right foe which he contended, of
the City of London to make the improvements. for etticting which
the City of London hail been complained of. The Learned Counsel
proceeded to detail a variety of circumstances, that the opening of
the creek in the manner required by the City of London would be
most available for the navigation of the river Thames and Med-
way by large vessels. It had been proved at the trial, that in one
instance a revenue vessel wax in pursuit of a smuggler, and that in
cinsequence of the impediment which was given by the causeway,
the Captain of the vessel wait obliged to have the barge of the tete-
nue vessel dragged over the en ?.k. The Learned Counsel funher
grounded his inotifin for a rule on various taints of misdiree-
non in the dirge of the Learned Judge to the Jury.
Hole granted

rt7TTEII r. RING.
Mr. Fergearo VAVOIIAN moved for a rule to show cause wh► •
new trial shoukl not be granted in this CAMe. The action was one
brought by an ont.gning against An in-coming tenant. It was
agreed to leave the case to arbitration ; the arbitrator decided that
ISU/. should he given 11 the in-coming to the nut-going tenant for
his interest in the lease, and in eot.sideration of the improvements
which he had etude. The verdict at the trial was for the defendant.
He ( Mr. S,rgeant Vaughan) submitted, that the verdict was
founded on the ground that the real and hand-writing of the arbitra-
tor were not affixed to his decision, but it would be tbuod that
both were attached to it, as the seal was placed upon his decision,
and his hand-writing would be found bath over and under his de-
cision—an:fee the decision as subscribed to by him, and 91-er it, in
the superscription. I laugh.) The other ground on which he
moved for the trial was., that the Learned Judge who tried the
ease, in his arldnits in the Jury, kft out of his consideration the
evidence of the arbiter (Mr. tsalumn) in cooseqeenee of a contra-
diction which appeared in his evidence; the arbiter (Mr. Salmon)
now put in an affidavit that that apparent contradiction arise from
■ misconception of the question. propaunded to him by the beamed
Judge. Ili% evidence, if admitted, would have fully sustained the
case of the plaintif as to the propriety and fairness of the defendant
cisinied by the out-going from the in•cutt.ing tenant.
Rule granted.

RICARDO r. LONG.
Mr. Pot Tors moved the Court that judgment in this case be
arrested. The plaintiff was a resident in wn,e part of Italy. He
purchased earthenware goods from the.defoidant. The delentlant
consigned these goods to Mason and Ca. ; they afterwards con-
signed them to tie shipper of the articles. Whilst on the quay,
about to be shipped, the goods rolled into the sea, and were unlit hoe
use; and the ground on which it was moved that judgment should
be arrested was, that the action was not brought against the person
liable. Mason was the person liable--the gocals were consigned to
him: he only procured a mate's receipt bir the goods, but lie was
legally in prissession of them until the mate's nteript was exchaeged
for the bill of lading. The Learned Gentleman proceeded to cite
the cases of Craven and Ryder. and several others, in which it had
been derided that it wet necessary to prove the exchange-mate's re-
ceipt for the hill of lading. in orate to maintain an action against
the shippes of the goods.—ltule granted.

lIVL LES T. AND It9FE.
Mr. Anotritrs moved for a role to show cause why a new
trial should rot tic granted in this ense. it way tried at Chelmsford,
hetore 31r. Justice Ilarrough, and a verdict ',stut for thidefendant.
eiretinisi.incrs were these defentlato.'s wife came to the
plaintiff's hoese; he was not at he ne wh.dst the servant went to
look fur him. ,he rettir.ieed in his room, and destroyed a picture in
it on which he set considerable value. That she destroyed it was
fully proved by the witnesses for the plaintiff at the trial, and the
Judge kit it to the Jury to consider whether they believed the
o:in:fir's witnesses : and if they did (which they had no reason to
disbelieve). they should find for the plaintiff. lie therefore grounded
his applica;:on en the verdict being contrary to the evidence at the
trial, and th, d;reetion of the beamed Judge. _ . .

The Lunn Ctztrr JCSTIC r—lhe Cont use of opinion that
thtrc should he no new trial. The costs to the parties would ex-
acd icy thi,ti; to he recovered; and out of mercy to than the
Court dir,cts ;hat the rerdiet should not be disturbed.
yot I' 11 Es applied, that the plaintiff should ba allowed
costs, but which was refused by the Court.