The National Register.
London, England, 1818-12-21 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

'cwlrr OF CHANCLIiY, ‘VEDNIcsvAv.DEC.I6.
Ihr Ihihl .C 44 4111:1' M1C11.1011144 Irnr, Ihr Lard
Cisakeelloi tprllell a AI hill boose,prepor story 10 his Honour
the Vice-I:hones:110r licooing Iti. 14,11614 W 'notions.

I tW PltoM,,TiohS.

'flee Lord Chaneell..r afterwarils A wore in the following
Loomed Consist:l to their srveral offices :—Mr. Sao joont Cop-
as king', Serjrant aiid Chief Justice of Chester ; Mr.
tirrjuant Pell, as King's Serjrant ; Mr. Oiffrn Wilsoo, n( Ike
cli.nierry Bar. a. lisle's Connvel ; Mr (i4selre and Mr.
biatati, of the King's floods Bar, as-Kind's (;ouum:l.

• (mina OF KING'S TvesnaY, Dec. 15.
The KING V. caultarit.
The defendant was indicted for perjury, committed in an
affidavit swum before the signer of the writs, for the IMO pose
of art ebting the preneentor, Amon Moses. The affidavit
salted that Most•s was indebted to the defendant in the SIMI of
il. for money paid, laid cost aad expended to owe of the pi u-
seetitur : and the circumstances mem:wird on the pail of the
Vroaecut' were as tallow :—Moses hawitig come to England
in a foreign .hip, with some packages of shells, picture*,
china jars, and oilier articles, employed the defetidant as his
broker to get his goods ashore. and through the Cnstuat•
House. Foe dna sea vice, and for the duties, the de feud:ant
eharged the prosecutor 331. and kept bark sonic of the at ii.
sirs. on the• wound that it was necessary to give sonic to the
Custom-Home officers. lei pat denier he de►ained three
jars. 'fur iiroscentor paid I 321. 11b. ; hat when he asked
fur a receipt, and insisted oil ha:Anglia china jars, the
fendatit beat hint violently. For this assault the defendant
had been indicted s and having suffered judgment as in case
ease of a tionsuit, in the action in which he had tett the
prosecutor, the prosecutor had in turn sued and recovered a
verdict against him for the arrest in that artiosi, as being
grostidless and malicious. In addition to this, he now in-
dicted 1 • for the sake of public justice, on the ground of
the lake affidavit with which that action bad been coin.
The witnesses called for the prosecution proved that only
about 16$. was paid at the Cnstuouffionsc, and that the reward
for delendmit's services. together with other charges, could
not make sip e►en the 521. that hail been ;laid, so that there
seemed no pound whatever fur the additional charge of 251.
Fur the defendant it was stated, but not very clearly proved,
that the VA. was due fur the defendant's services in getting
ashore and through the Custom House some beds and other
articles not included in the former charge, aud for charges in-
terred in a smuggling transaction carried on at the same date.
It was also said that the charges being of this statue, was
one of the reasons why the defeudant bad abandoned his
action against the prosecater.
The Jury found the defeedaut—Guilty.
aniTeon V. DAVIS.
This was an action to recover Money which had been
placed its the defendant's hands, as a stakeholder, to be paid
to the winner of a wager made on a foot race. The defelo e
set up was, that the plaintiff's own stake had been paid him:
but that the defendant refused to pay the stake or the loser,
because the race lad been what is termed cross ; I. e. one
of the runnels had been bribed to test. The repayment of
the plaintiff's stake was proved by a whiten who was present
at the 'ace ; and who said that he saw the stake repaid the
same niett. Rut another alluvia having said he saw the
plaintiffs stake tendered two days after the time at which
the above witness said it Was paid, the Learned Judge left it
to the Jury. whether the witners who proved the tender misfit
not have been mistaken as to the day.
The Jury found a verdict for the defendant ; and
Cihel•Justice Abbott added, that though he had suffered
the cue to go to them as to the fact of payment, he was very
doubtful whether the plaintiff could have recovered at law
even his own stake from the stakeholder, toot-races beta
within the statute of nth Anne.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Curiae'.
W•t.Ditt:RAVE V. BIGNOLD.-A(LIBEL..)
Mr. Serjeant Lens said. that this action came before the Jury in
consequence of &cruel and malignant aspersion in vain attempted to
be thrown upon the plaintiff. Far be it from him to blame the pub.
licatioo of all the proceedings in Courts of Justice, which was not
only a source of amusement but of instruction. It was the great cause
wby men discharged their legal functions so well in all parts of the
country. The practices and the proceedings of our Courts, and the
principles of English law, were daily read by all persons. from
the highest to the lowest. But the defendant could shelter him-
self under no privilege of this kind. He was the last person that
should have published or remarked on a trial in which he had
been a patty. The assignees of Mr. Waldegreve had brought en
action against Mr. Bignold, m Secretary of the Norwich Union
Fire Office, and recovered the sum estimated to have been lout.—
Mr. Bignold afterwanh published. in the shape of hand•bills. re-
marks upon that trial. His " Sinumary." sulijoined to his re-
marks, was the libel which formed the ground of this action. "It
4.* should be remembered, that Mr. Waldegrave was insolvent. The
•o fire happened on Saturday night. All suspicious fires occur on
Saturday nig'ntror the next (Suoday). No cause has appeared tor
sothis fire." Phcy multi nut doubt fora moment, that the object of
these obeereations was to fix upon the plaintiff' the imputation of
having wilfully set fire to his premises. This was as false a. it
was malignant; tt was suff cient. in order to show this, to refer to the
verdict of the jury, who found the insurance bound to pay. This
mid not have been done, if any suspicwa exited that the fire was
wilfully mentioned. '• He heftiest bad terms with the landlord and
occupier of the house." The house was the Bull-inn, Bishopsgate-
street. and the plaintiff was himself the landlord. This part, was
exposed by its own absurdity. A mar. might be sometimes out of
humour with himself. but that could nut be the defendant's meaning.
Melted been then landlord of die Bull-inn ;he now kept an hotel in
Brighton, in which it was hoped better fortune would attend him.
.0 The property was not his, but John and Mary Williams's." It
vu sworn by die plaintiff (for the action having been brought by
the assignees, he WAS a witness) that the property had been his.
" The action having beer in the name of the assignees, he was a
I, him's ; while I, by_ being defendr.nt, was prevented from giving
tvidenee which would contradict him."' The members of the Nor-
a ich Union being very Numerous, it was noreasary to select some one,
and none being better khown, or more naturally lined to represent
their interests. the action was brought against their secretary. •• The
sum insursd for was five times the value of the goods." This WAS
false. for the whole WWI was recovered. Thus he never happened, by
cadent, to be sight. They would give such reasonable satisfaction as
the cam estened to diem to require. The plaintiff had once had a
fortune t be hoped he wuuid have a fortune again. lie always bad a
character unsullied and unassailed till tins malignant attack was
node upon it. All that was to be done an the part of the plaintiff
was to prove the defendant'.. hand-writing.
Jeweph fames .knew of dm tire at inn it Was on the sth
of Match. It was caused by a warn horse-keeper; who Wag
blTTUNitOttittit ‘•
4 ;voige Calif:tail had valved she 49111b:if bemuse 7191: !Is.. That
wen thaftiemehariet. , • , ,
"174" "10 I ffrAturTri inse.aa s.tk”o39)4lrot 44e adezain4' :rho