The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1825-06-09 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
COURT OP OF CHANCERY, WEDNESDAY, JuvE 8.

lIIPPOST V. MEREDITH AND OTHERS.
Ins Lostosit IP opened the pleadings in this cant this morning,
ascontained in the bill tiled in the month of January, 18t/ The
plaintiff represented herself as outriding In the place of Francis
Peacock, a creditor of the late Andrew Robinson Hawn, who was
a steward of Mr. B. from the year 1788 till July 1791, and who
claimed a sum, with interest, amounting to about 10,00 W. for mo-
ney paid out by him on account of Al r. 8., and also on account of
salary due to himself. The bill prayed that it might be referred to
the Master to take the plaintiff's account, as administratrix, that
she might be admitted as a creditor, snu allowed to have the a-
mount of her claim purl pasai with the other creditors. After go-
ing over the bill, his Lordship said, he would yet take till Friday
to consider whether he should permit her to go in, and prove to the
amount of 3,2130/., heing the sum claimed by the adminianstrix of
the late Mr. Peacock (there having been a suit instituted in this
Court by the late Mr. Bowe' against Mr. Peacock); if he did this,
it.would be on condition that the plaintiff undertook to pay what
might be found to be due from the late Mr. P. on taking the ac-
wants. His Lordship would desire to be informed on Friday
whether Airs. Nippon would consent to give such undertaking.
DROWSE V. DE TASTET.
31r. PORNE sold this was the day these exceptions were to have
been in the paper, but not having been in it in consequence of some
mistake, he hoped his Lordship would again appoint an early day
for the hearing of them.
Mr. HEALD opposed the case being set down before Mr. Pepys
could spend, who was more aware of the particulars than himutlf,
.11r. P. being absent In consequence of the late death of his father.
His LORDSHIP ordered it to be set down for the day before the
last day of term.
SOURT OF KING'S BlINGfi, WEDXCIDAY, /UM 8.

THE RING V. HOLLINIERY, ROWLEY, AND SMITH.
The case of these defendants, convicted of a conspiracy to obtain
money from Josias Taylor, the gambling-house keeper, was men.
Curried yesterday, and was deferred to this morning in consequence
of Rowley not being present, he being confined in Whitecroes-
street prison on a civil 'roues.
Mr. COMMON SZE/RE•NT baying intimated that the defendants
west all in Court,
The LORD Cuter JUSTICE asked whether be had any motion
to make ?
Mr. COMMON SEROE•ET—I move 01 the behalf of Howley for
a new trial. It is a universal rule that the parties on whose eve.
dente the bill of indictment is found by the Grand Jury should
appear at the trial, to give the defendant an opportunity of con-
fronting them. This rule was departed hum in this case, Taylor
and Swain (upon whose testimony the bile was found) not being
called ; and another witness, on whose evidence alone the charge of
conspiracy could be supported, being a complete surprise upon us.
Having made these observations, the Learned Gentleman said he
would not press his motion.
. The Loau Gni Er J varlet—Then you niake no motion.
Mr. C.....111/MON SERGEANT—No, my Lord.
The LORD CHIEF J u tcE-11 eve you any affidavits?
Mr. Cosmos SERGEANT—I have affidavits front Hollinbery
and Howley, denying in very pointed terms that they had ever
made use of the cx pre.ssions ascribed to them by Wesunacott. •
.31r. JESSOP, tor Snitch, moved also for a new trial on the.
same awards. He comertited very urgently that the evidence of
Smith's hand-writing was not such as ought to have gone to the
Joy.
The COURT, after a short consultation, said that there was no
doubt that the evidence was rightly received, but that the weight
and Importance was another matter.
Mr. CHITTY moved, on the part of Hollinbery, first for a new
trial, end next in arrest of judgment. On the first part of his
motion be adverted in considerable detail to the testimony of
Westmeeeet. Had they been aware that he would be called, and
consequently had they been in a condition to put in legitimately,
evidence of a variety of facts, of which they were conscious u soon
as his name was mentioned, they would have invalidated his testi-
mony ; the facts, for instance, relative to his Catalogue of Somerset
House Exhibition, which be had put forth with the name of a
very distinguished artist.
Mr. CHITTY having passed rather suddenly to the third count
of the Indictment, and having observed on the words " to corn-
bine, conspire, and confederate to extort money," that they conede
toted no crime—
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE—DOeS this apply to the serest
of judgment ? foe I really cannot understand what part of your
argument applies to the new trial, and what to the arrest of
judgment.
Mr. CHITTY having stated that he was now speaking on the
arrest of judgment, went on to contend that the word '• extort"
had in. itself ao legal and technical signification of criminality;
that the crime was always laid ; that the money was laid to be ex-
torted " by unjust and unlawful meant.," or " by unjust and undue
means ;" and That rot being laid so in the present indictment, he
was.eatitled to an arrest of judgment.
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE—Mr. Chitty,'as far as concerns
your argument in arrest, it wilt be sufficient to read some passages
from the indictment. (His Lordship here read several passages, in
which the intention was said to be " wickedly, corruptly, and un-
lawfully, ite.") I have &limps understood that the word "uteri"
implied in itself an unlawfulAwans of obtaining money. In
re
to the new trial, we are all of opinion that there is no grounsiro:
one. When the report is read, we can see whether there be any
point which can be raised.
Mr. Justice BAYLEY—I wish, in respect to Smith, not to be
understood as giving any opinion till I hear the report read.
The Conte now inquired of Mr. &vim, who had just come
in, whether he would move for judgment ?
Mr. ScAttLITT—I have no such instructions, my Lord.
On Monday being suggested for the defendants being brought
up, the Court seemed to accede to this proposition, without
however absolutely pledging themselves to give judgment on
that day.
The Lord Chief Justice left the Court shortly after twelve
o'clock, to sit at Nisi Prior in London, and was followed by the
greater part of the Bar.

•
DOUGAN V. ROLLAND AND OTHERS.
Mr. SCARLETT (with who-n was Mr. Chitty), stated that this
was an action of debt brought by the plaintiff, Mr. Boagan, as ckrk
to the Commissioners for paving the Lucas estate, in the pariah
of St. Pancras, against the defendants, who are the assignees of
Marsh, Stracey, launderoy, and Graham, late bankers in Berners-
street, to recover from them the proceeds of certain Exchequer
Bills, amounting to 1,70111., which had been paid into Messrs.
Marsh and Co.'s bank in die year 11t24. (The Learned Gentleman
detailed the facts, as they afterwards appeared in evidence.) The
11 appointment of Mr. Fauntleroy, one of the partners in the late
bank, to be treasurer to the Commissioners for paving the Lucas
estate, was put in and read; it was dated June 10, 11110. It was
admitted that the plaintiff was clerk to the Commiutoners, and the
defendants the assignee' of the late bank.
James Golightly said, in September. 1824, I was a clerk In the
banking house of Messrs. Marsh and Co. This the pan book
between that firm and the Coinmissioners. The cash balance in
favour of the Commissioners was 248/. I4s. 3d. The pass book was
put itt. The tide of it was, " The Commissioners for paving the
Estate of Joseph Lucas, Esq., in account with Messrs. Marsh,
Sibbald, and Co."

A receipt, signed by Mr. Golightly, for the firm of Blessrs.
Marsh and Co., for the Exchequer Bills in question, was next put
in. The amount of the Exchequer Bills was 1,7001.
Mr. Golightly examined by Mr. BoLaaxn.—The Commis.
missioners always drew their checks on Mr. Fauntleroy alone, and
not on the firm of Marsh and Co.

Re.examined—These Exchequer bills were paid in at the counter
of the Bank.
John Worrel said—l am collector of the paving rates of the
Lucas estate. I carried these Exchequer bills to Messes. Marsh's
bank ; I paid them in and took a receipt. This took place on the
4th of June, 1824. On the &h of September I, by the direction
of the Commissioners, went to Marsh and Co.'s bank, to get
back the Exchequer bills, taking with me an order signed by live
of the Commissioners, for .that purpose. I first saw lily. Go-
lightly; and afterwards Mr. launderoy came oat of a back room,
and said that he could not deliver them to me without I gave
him the receipt that had bees given to me when I paid them in.
I had it not with me, but offered to endorse a receipt on the
Cornniisaioners' order, but he would not give them up. lie ob.
served that they were advertised to be paid off; and I replied,
that was the reason we wanted them, as we wished to get them ex-
' changed. lie sail they had sesithem to the Exchequer Office, for
that purpose.
Cross.examined by Mr. Poixocx—l called again at Marsh's
bank, but never saw Mr. Fountlevoy afterwards.
31r. Stephen Francis Fox said—l produce the Exchequer bills
inquestion from the Audit Office : they have been paid off; they
as . one of 1,0001., one of 5001., and two of 1001. each.
111 r. BOLLAND, for the defendant, said, that this was a case of
very great importance, as the object of this action was to compel
the Assignees of Messrs. Marsh and Co. to pay the amount of
these Exchequer Bills in full, instead of the Commissioners of the
Lucas Estate proving their debt under the Commissions of Bank-
rupt that had been issued against these Banker*, and come in
with the rest of the creditors; and if the plaintiff in this action
succeeded. there were • great many other persons who would com-
mence other actions under circumstances nearly similar to those of
the case now under cousideration. This was a case depend i ng more on
law than fact, as there appeared little difference with regard to
the latter between his Learned Friend and himself. On the law of

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, WEDVESDAY, Jars 3.

MEYER V. CUArbfAll.
Thls was an action brought by the plaintiflagainst the defendant,
the treasurer. as representative of the Governors of St. Thomas's
Hospital. The cause was triedattGuildhall, before the Lord Chief
Justice, in Hilary Term, and a verdict taken for the plaintiff, sub-
ject to an application to the Court on some legal points.
The Governors of St. Thomas's Hospital had entered into an
agreement with the plaintiff to grant to him a lease of certain' land
belonging to ths hospital for a long term, upon which the plaintiff
ass to erect buildings to an amount named. It had been usual for
the Governors not to execute the leases in such cases until the
buildings were erected, and the same course was adopted in the
present case, and the plaintiff erected buildings of the value of
several thousands of pounds. When he had so done, he called
upon the dtlendant for his lease, to which there was not any ob.
jection made; but on an examination of the Governors' tide, it
was found that by an Act of Parliament they were restrained front
granting leases for more than 40 years. Since the trial, a Bill has
been brought iqo Parliament for the purpose of legalising a great
number of leas& granted under similar cirsuinatanors, which the
plaintiff has opposed. The present case, on this account, has been
standing over.
Mr. Sergeant Hosawtturr, on the part of the hospital, to.day
offered, if the plaintiff would withdraw his opposition to the bill,
to wave his legal objeeiotis, to let the plaintiff's lease be added
to the schedule of the bill, to submit to the verdict, which of
course would carry costs, to refer to Mr. Phillips to say what
damage theilaintiff had sustained, and to endorse the sante on
the 'mites, ing judgtnent as of this term.
CRIEI urr IcE—Brother Pell. they are sliowering down
benefits upon you, and we think your client should consent.
Mr. Justice PANIC thought it was the best mode of settlement,
particularly as there were so many cases of the same nature. He
believed there were more than a hundred.
Mr. Sergeant PELL consulted with his client, who assented to
the suggestion of the Court.