The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1805-05-28 00:00:00

TIIE KING Tv WILLIAM OIMAR, esq.

The Defendant in this case was brought up for
judgment, having been conviaed of assaulting and
obstruaing a civil officer in the execution of his
duty ; of this case we gave a report its our;PAper
of Saturday last.
• Mr. Justice Gaon, in pronouncing the judgment
of the Court, expatiated upon the dangerous con-
sequences which must arise trom persons resisting the
civil process of the law. It was an obstruftion of
so dangerous a tendency as might lead in a great
measure to subver.i the ends of justice. In the pre.
sent case, however, he thought there were some cir-
cumstances of mitigation ; the Defendant had been
before deceived by false writs, and, considering it
his duty to protea persons who had been impres:ed
by him, he had, in some measure, aCted under a
mistaken principle ; but in all cases it was necessary
tliAt the civil process of the law should not 6e im-
peded under any pretence whatioever and the De-
tendAnt should have been well assures' of the fart
before he attempted to contend against the rules of
justice: taking all the circumstances into consider-
ation, the judgment of the Court was, three months
imprisonment in the Marshalsea, and to be thee dls-
charged.

THE BAILIFFS OF TEWKESBURY DYIOI4
This was a case which ha; been frequently before
the Court and the public. The question to he decid-
es! was, whether certain tolls were payable by the
buyer or saki- of corn in bulk, or by the sample in
the Market place of Tewkesbury ? The Plaintiffs
had brought this anion against the Defendant as the
seller of ecru by sample, for certain tolls, which they
couttnded they were emitted to. The case was ar-
gued at great length in the coarse of the preceding
and prnsent terms, and the final judgment of the
Court this day was, that the Plaintifs bad not swag
on; the fads of their case sufficiently, and therefore
their Lordships gave judgment for the Defendant.
THS KING T. R. M. PHLLIPPS, ESQ.
This was a case which has also been before the
Court and public at various times. The question
was, whether the Defendant had sent a letter to 'lO
Prosecutor, with intent' to pro*oke him to send a
-challenge to tight a duel? Severia must injurious
arguments Ital been. made use of by Mr. Ct.ir-
roao, ter the Defendant, or. former days, to which
Lord Et LENzonootm, in pronouncing the judg-
ment of the Court, adverted. Those arguments
chiefly went to show what might be the real inten-
tion of the party t Isttt his Lordship said, twat how.
ever the allegationin the insliament which was re.
lied %pun by the Counsel might support his argu-
men, yet, in looking- into the introduaory part of
the indidment, he fonnd an alleghtion of an actual
intention of doing some grievous bodily harm ;
and, therefore, their Lordships discharged the rule
for an arrest of judgment.
'rhe attendance of the Defendant•was chspensea
with by the Court fur die present ; but he will be
braught up fur judgrocut in the course of the nest
Term.

THE BAlLll,llor•Titz *Aloft or BRIORTALLMITONE

V.ICPTT.

This was a question Whether the Steward of the
Manor was entitled to fees .upon ten or five tene-
ments, to which the Defendant had succ-eded ? and
the Court, considering that the several copyhold
lands in vestion were each a distinct and separate
tenement from the other, thought the steward wa.,
entitled to his fees upon the whole tee, and there-
fore gave judgment for the Plaintiffs.
Lord Et tteieosoeou sits at Nisi Piis,at West-
minster this day.