The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1818-11-21 00:00:00

low quietly, until a proper opportunity occurs to
loss oil. It appeart, from Cie affilaeits. OW one
side and the other, that publication., attrilnit.
nig blame to each party, respectively. h•sve Ise -1)
*rid forth to the world. All "itch pishliestimi• are
wersgsg--assel, therefore. the Court, iu discharging
this rule, mean not to sanction them. Looking to
■ll the circumstances., thy Court feels that this not a
case which call. for its tuterference—still brining in
gssis:d that the door of justice is not thereby closed,
toot that Lord C. Churchill, if sa advised. may yrt
Lave recruits, to law. Rut, though she Court di..
charg►s this role, Lhey do not think that the Editor
against *lmo it Was grooved ttandt in a ottnestiots to
call for cost*. let it therefore lx disclurged with-
cut coat..

CRIMINAL INFORMATION.

TVS SING S. TWO stactsrarras OF TOE COUNTY

07 lift D MUM.

Mr. lit/RIMY trioved for a rule to sliew cause
why a criminal ilifurination 'lmola not be filed
*geisha two Magistrates of the 'chanty of Alidene-
wt, for misconduct, in refusing. from improper
Hornets*, to liceme a public-huase. At present,
the Learned Getitlemon conceived 'it would be
better not to name the parties.
The Came JosTice—" It is always better, no
such met: s, to withhold the Games."
dlr. Gu.ansv said, his application was made at
the sessialice of a Gentleman of the name of
Arsitiniiiit, who was himself in the Commission of
the Pratt; and he swore that he believed the refir-
ed' of the Magistrates to license a politic-house.
built on Ins estate. arose from private pique against
io consequeuce of his biteilig taken nu active
pert ih expostitg in the licensing system,
which hart rendered him obnoxious in the parties
against whom he moved. Mr. Beaumont had, at
Shepherd's Ludt, a eunsiderable estate. on which
many houses were' Wilt, and he was requested, for
the convenieuce of his tenants. to erect a public-
house. He did build a very saperior public-
house, at an evprosa of two thousand pounds ;
hut every application. on the part of his tenant, to
procure a heel's. had failed. At one lituethe'rea-
sou **sighed for the refusal was, that there were not
houses enough—when houses werebuih, it was said
there was not a sufficient number of inhabitants,
although the Magistrates licensed a house. much
inferior, in the same place. the reason last ad-
vanced, when • respectable man, regularly certi-
fied, ri quested a license, was, that his certificate
was Not signed by the Clergyman and Church-
wardens, without which, by Act of Parliament,
they could not grant the license. Mr. Beaumont
'Mewed them that such signature was not nee e y,
hut still they refused, for private reasons. They
however granted two licenses, to persons whose cer-
tificates were not ,;gored by tie Clergyman and
`Churchwardens--and, in fact, the Clergyman of
Hammersmith, in which district the house
.lay,
'lever was in the habit of signing.
The CHIMP JUSTICS said. if Mr. Gurney had
given the usual notice to the Magistrates, he might
'take his rule.
This nut heing the case, Mr. Gulags' was ob-
liged to withdraw his motion for the present.
The followiug ere the affidavits on which Mr.
Custi Sir grounded his application :
The affidavit of George Rands stated, that he had mask
*meal I applications fur a license to open the house
tenanted by him at Shepherd's Sash, but had always bees
refused. That having had the signatures of the thurcls-
wardens and Overseers, besides all the principal inhabitants,
o ilie etitilleate of his character on former appiiratioos, be
Irad only taken signatures of she inhabitants on the last oc-
casion. But the festive' refused the license, Aiming, that
the Art of Parliament revoked the signature of the Minister
and Churchwardens to the certificate of his character, which

lie denied, and stated fiat they had nut required such signa-
tures to other eases. _ .

The affidavit of J. T. Barber Beaumont, Esq. the Magis-
trate, stated, that the Jo‘tirea bad declined to him, that they
refused the licease because the certificate to character had
nut the 'M mister and eh to rch wardens' signet um, as required

by Art of Partitionist, w►ic► ►e denied toeing 114.1 required by
the Actor to ►ave been required by t►e said Justices its othr r
cases ; that he was ground-landlord of 70 houses in the
•illage; that several yea.s ago ►e was urged to build Ibis
house by his tenantr, for their necessary are ~,,,, motels .... ,
there being hut one public-house in the village, sod that
one a great distance off ; that he bailt the how., three years
I.efisie he ems iis the Commission of the Peace, at en em.
prow of nearly 2,000/ ; that seven annual applications bid
h llt made fur leave to upeu the hone, by respectable
tenants, who bid all been refsmed. on •asiuna grounils—
Ara, that there were not new Insures enough—then, when
the., increased, that they were nat all innalotesl—and when
ioliabitassts were procured, soil a license agreed to be issued,
it was denied to Denonessi's bowie, and grants d for a
meals thatched•building. slanging alone at ass incosivessieist

disisuce ; and that :-601. was -peril to the Vestry ('lark
fir procuring such license. that upon the license bring
graiited fur the thatched house, the bind shoat it, which had
been offered to be let as 'ridding rewind for several years to
no purpose, became forthwith tateii and covered • ish houses;
and that Depostent's land, which bail Arco previously freely
taken, being then deified ilw conveniesice of • public-house,
Com th:it time c‘-aped to be applird for as builifiug ground.
'Phut in the same hour sheu the !notices at Hainmerarulth
I met fetuses' the license to his house, they ranted slew
lie. lists in favour of Mr. Thunipsou (a brewer be She ',riffle-
hourhodel.) RIO UilWI S. fur two low tippling houses. which
hail beeu suppressed by former Justices a. disorderly or un-
weeessary, both of which houses were adjoining or direct),
opposite to existing licensed houses, sod in the immediate
vicinity of several others ; amt that in neither of the oboe*
waist wee a certifkate front the prodeced or jos-
speared fur. He lastly declared his firm belief that the cos-
tumed refusal of • license fur his house, so incousistent
'with the facility with which the said Justices grant ticcuses
fur low tippling hulloes in places crowded with sock houses,
to serve their friends, arose from • desire to injuie him in
the fair eujionieut of his estate, in cousequence of the ',art
he had take* during several years in opposing and exposing
the errors of their conduct, and of the present iiceustug
sysiti-iii generally.
The affidavit iff William Cottee stated, that lie had built
*even thod houses iii Beaumont-place, Shepherd's flush ; that
in cousequence of the want of aeesperfable public house coo-
lithos's, he and usher tenants of Mr. bemisinwit persuaded
him to build she public-house winch be had dune. There
h.. no pulilielsouse widths three quarters of • mile of it,
uo the lose of Winsil•lssie, or within a considerable distance
un the road to Lowsion, and mine near the villeae which
off. red a decent lodging that Were had been upwards of
nor hundred new houses balk wtllstu the last seven yea's,
and to the whole there were six times as many houses now
In the village, as there were thirty ,r forty years toad., but
that the umber of public-bosses (Iwo) remained the same.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Wimoureta,
Fawar, Ruvuma O.

TIM Duke of NEWC 4sTe.K. as one of the Contsnie.
orto,s er/ .seorris if Hat and the adjacent Coun-
try, V. I'he ILOASI.ShIONIUS of IYli lIAILIIOUR.
'fity Plaintiff.. esti:tot a flaw a .(1 %Imcr on a
u.stig dole strr4us, ruuuiug into Rye Ihrtmur,
wt vusituse of thaunag us IJj4ccut Laud, lautirr

the powers (as they conceived) a their commission.
'rule Defendinits.polled both down in the year
1816, as obstructing the navigation of a stream
which ought to remain open fur the purpose of
public convenience. An action of trespass was
brought again-t the Defendants, and tried at
Lewes, before the ',resent Chief Justice of the
Court of Common Pleas, in August, 1816, where
a verdict was found, and damages given for the
Plaintiff for 6661. 10. 641. In the following
blichaelmna Term • rokle had been obtained to
skew cause why the verdict should not be set aside.
and • new 16,1 wanted on different grounds. This
day was fixed for *hewing cause against the rule.
The CRIER Justice first read all the evidence
given no both sides, which went, ou the one side, to
show that the erection of the darn and sluice was ne-
cessary for the drainage of the adjacent land, and
that 3,000 acres were overflown occasionally, and
more or less deteriorated in value by their destruc-
t' ; and, on the ether, that the construction of
them prevented the navigation, and was unsieces.
sery—the inundation having been before prevented
by walla, which latterly were suffered to go to de-
cay, and the materials in great part removed by the
proprietors of the land. The Chief Justice then,
after having stated groerally the oetnre of the ac-
tion. explained the first objection made after the
trial, VIZ. that the parties had no right to bring an
actiuu tar trespass, us not having a sufficient poems.
sion. That ohjecti.in, in his opinion, ought not to
have been made, after sq much had been done by
two companies of a politic nature, towards settling
a question of great importance, and after so large a
hotly of evidence had been given. On the trial the
Juicy, after being out about an hour and a hall',
came in and asked him (the Chief Justice) whether
thestrearn was a navigable one, lie had told them
there was a question of that, because it was admit-
ted on the pleadings, but that it was not material
'for them, the only question for their consideration
'being, whether the erection was necessary for drain-
ing the hawk; because, if the Plaintiffs did possess
the power to stop the navigation, it must have beau
only•iii-case of absolute necessity.
Mr. Justice PACK said. that the form of the rule
granted was 5, to anew cease why judgment shook!
not be entered for the Defendant, non Admits ye-
redkto," on the groudd that the stream was a navi-
gable one.
Mr. Serjearit.Ltits.said, that the matter had been
before the Court on different days; but that the
rule granted on the last 12th of NI/ember compre-
hended three points-1. To shew cause why there
should not be 'a non-suit, as there ergs too individual
possession ill the Plaintiffs to enable them to main-
tain an talon of trespass. 2. Why 'the verdict
should not be set aside, and a new trial granted,
the Jury having drawn • wrong conclusion 'from the
evidence given. S. Why, as the river had been ad-
mitted to be navigable, judgment should not be
entered for the Defendants, won obstaste verediete.
The Cater Justice allowed that the rule ulti-
mately ran in the above terms. Fie added, that
Admiral Mark was one of the Jury, which was most
respectable, and composed of such persons as might
be sopposed excellently qualified to come to a
right conclusion on such a sullect, though their
verdict was certainly rather against his opinion, but
that was, in the then stage of the business, material.
The Counsel had now (hr continued) heard read the
report of all the evidence ; they had. therefore,
saris what possession was proved to have been in
the Plaintiff., so as to enable them to bring
the action, and whether they should judge it
advisable to adhere to the first objection ; if they
did, it would be better if that part was argued se-
-1 parately. As to the point of setting aside the ver-
dict, lie should be glad it was 'considered in the
most extensive view, as it was • question of great
moment.

Mr. Serjeant Best said, he was now willing the
case should go to a new trial, if the other side
would waive all objections.
Mr. Serjeant LENS replied, that that proposi-
tion had been already before the parties, and he
was instructed to ►ay it would not be acceded to.
The CHIEF JUSTICE observed, that when a pub-
lic body stood to such en objection, it must be on
advice and consideration; and, therefore, it was to
be supposed there was something of weight iu it;
it consequently ought to be argued separately.
Mr. Serjeant LENS had no objection to a new
trill any where out of the county of Susses.
The Cuter JUSTICE said, he cuuti not consent
to that ; it would be another thing if it had never
been tried ; but having been tried by a most re-
spectable Jury, it would be a wort of reflection un
them.

Mr. Serjeant LENS livid, it would not have that
eliect, as ail the grialestieas of the county of Susses
must be supposed to have an ititerrst in the ques-
tion, as connected with one or other of the parties.
*Melt would probably operate without their owu
knowleave. _ .

Tile CAIEF•JUSTICE I saw nothing of such
ferliiig."

Mr. Serjeant BEST said, that if the cause were
vent down for trial at the Spring Asoixes, it would
come on at Horsham. If what war urged now
had been brought forward before the trial, a trial
at bar might have breu very proper. It was set-
tled, that the argument should be at first con-
fined to the 'first point, and then--
Serjesant LENS commeored by declaring, he
never saw less ground for a new Isis' in his life.—
The evidence to sustain the action hail been re-
spectable in the extreme, slid the verdict of the
Jury was founded on it, and only contrary to the
opirsiosis of speculative mess. He had come pre-
pared to argue the three points; he was sorry, how-
ever, that the first objection to the form of the ac-
tion had beers brought forward iss such a case us
that ; he was astonished it should lie persisted in
'after the advice which (he was suit) had come
from the ClllllllO in Court. The first question
was, whether the Plaintstfs were so imissessed as to
be entitled to loriog the actom ? lie contended
they were, for this simple rearms, that if that pub-
lic body hail not a right, nobody had : the property
was the right of no one. if not of the l'lnissitlf..-
11 was material to consider what *on of property
that in toes was, and in what relation the
at Ito it. It was a batik c posed of
linsiwr and fa..wits. and other materials purchased
elsewhere by the Plaintiff., and brought to thespot.
Mr. Justice PARK observed, the structure was a
wall, and riot a bank.

Sir. Srij vital Lets—lo the pleadings and all

The Adivits it was rated • wall ;but it would
answer his purpose to take it as composed of tim-
ber and faggots brought from other places. That
distinction was taken by Calhs, in his book on
Sewers :—" A wall doth differ in ownership from a
bank"—a batik is the property of the owner of the
land--"■ wall is an artificial edifice, not part of
the very soil on which it stands, hut of which the
materials are brought from other places, and erected
ad propria 111Nere et eostagia partis—so that the
ownership and property of a wall doth appertain to
him who has beets at the expense of erecting the
same." Now, it was clear that this wall had been
erected at the expense of the Plaintiff.; and there-
fore they had that kind of possession of it to enable
them to bring an action of trespie,s. If they could
not, the consequence would be, that that specific
wrong would be without a remedy.; no other per-
son could maintain the action; the owner of the
adjacent laud could not, because he had no pro-
perty in it. It might be said, that an indictment
would furnish • remedy; bat it was insufficient{
because all it would do would be to inflict • pu.
nishment for breaking down the wall ; but there
was no other mode of obtaining compensation in
damages than by a civil action. Conld it be
said, that any property in this country was nut
protected in both ways ? At the time the tres-
pass in question was committed, the parties had
bought the materials, and built the wall, and
in order to that must have had exclusive pos.
session ; and if they had exclusive possession,
whether fur themselves or as trustees, without
question they might maintain trespass. He always
understood this to be the distinction between tres-
pass and a certain other species of anion, trover,
where there must be a right of property either ab:
solute or qualified. In trespass, the right of pos.
Keeton only was necessary, and here the Plaintiffs
had that single requisite. It might be said the
poesession was in the-King, and that they were only
his servants, but that was not so; in many similar
cases, the possession was considered not to be in the
Crown, but in others. For instance, an officer un.
der the Crown who had a house attached to his
office, was considered in possession of it, and might
bring trespass certainly.
The CUM JUITICI called the attention of the
Counsel to a case of a nature something moiler tried
before him at Maidstone.

Mr. Serjesnt Laws—The action to which his
Lordship alluded, had been brought by Surveyors
of Enclosure. There were two counts ►n it—the
first for a trespass on the land, on which there war a
verdict for the Defendant ; the second for a trespass
in taking certain stakes fixed by the Plaintiffs on the
land, on which there WS4 a verdict for the latter,
But he submitted the case did not at all make
against him ; the Surveyors of Enclosures could not,
from beginning to end, be considered to have pos-
session of the land. They had merely the right to
go on the land for the purposes of their office; but
here, the moment the Commissioners of Sewers had
put the materials on the ground, they might say to
the world, "You shall not come here, the po,session
is ours." His Lordship said it hail been doubted
whether the a..tion of trespass Would Ir, because
three was not an exclusive possession iii the Plain-
tiffs. Without saying that that case had any appli-
cation to the ',resent, he wished to have a note of
what passed at the time, if there was any. He he-
hewed, that as to the second count, when the sur-
veyors had lawfully fixed down the stakes, the
owner of the land had pulled them up. a►►d threw
them away.
Mr. Serjeant BEST replied, that he had applied
to the gentlemen who reported in the Court, who
stated that no report of the cilia had been taken.
There was no pretence for saying that the Survey-
ors of Enclosure ever had any possession of the land,
but here the Commissioners were possessed of
the focus qao. But in that case it was held,
that the possession of the stakes was in the
Surveyors, and on the same principles here, that
of the timber and faggots was plainly in the
Plaintiffs, the Commissioners of Sewers. He did
not mean to say that the timber, &c. was put there
by the Duke of Newcastle himself, but it was put
there by those in his employ, and a " quifueis per
ohm:n/41cl, per se."
The Cntar JUSTICE—" ft has been admitted on
the pleadings that this is a highway, how will you
prove exclusive possession of a highway ?" If amen
were allowed to build a house on the highway, the
possession would be in him. It made no difference
from whom tl►e wages of the labourers employed on
the work came lastly—it must have come by the
orders of the Commissioners. The agents who

paid the money were their servants. It was quite
impossible the Commissioners could receive and
expend the money themselves, they must do such
things by their agents. But the expending of
money in that manner came clearly within the de-
scription " ad propria ',sera et eottagia perils."
Mr. Justice PARK said there were Special Offi-
ten appointed by the Commission.
The Learned Council continued—The Commis-
sioners were the only persons to represent the owners
of the rates collected in • Court of Law; other-
wise it would follow that no one could maintain a
civil action for them, for the receiver could not.—
In a Court of • Law the Commissioners might be
considered as trustees of that property, and might
maintain an action for the property vested in them ;
on this principle Churchwardens and Overseers
might have an action fur injuries done to work-
houses and similar buildings in their parish.—
But. on other grounds, it wrs quite clear
that the Commissioners had possession of the

wall ; as such they were expressly recognized
by the statutes 4 Geo. 111. p. 845, and 37 Geo. 111.
c. ISO. sec. 8. He could find no case exactly pa-
rallel ; but the captain of a ship was, with respect
to Ins ship, in a situation something like the Plain-
tiffs and it had been long since deter 11l i l led, that
he might maintain an action of trespass against •
wrong doer. In I Sulkeid. p. I I, Lord Milt said
"the ship does not belong to the master but the
owner. but the master may bring all action of 'rea-
p's."
The CUM JUSTiCE.-•-" Because he has exclu-
sive possession, which is the point for you to make
out."
The Learned Counsel—Assuming •nch posses-
sion to be twee he contended that the Com-
missiones• had posseision against all the world
the moment one barrow of materials was put
there. Hut he granted more than was neer*.
try, because two persons in many cuts had

an action of trespass, as appeared from 2 Rol?:
44ridgneerit, p. 551, where it was laid clown
that the possersion of tenant sit will Hull by
sufferance, war the po.session of the laudlord, snit
that both might bring trespass; at the leapt he
could mondani that the Contiiii.siotters might
bring trespass againq all but the °wile's, tie
slow COMIC to that part of the c:t•e which related
to the place whereon the erection was made,
been a highway : and he admitted that if the place
consinued a highway, the mdion could not be matte.
tuined .; but the Commissioners of this district

had power-to stop the highway ur tiatigoble river.
under laws peculiar to them. The Learned Coun-
sel here again veferred to and quoted star. 37
Geo. Il I. c. ISO. sec. 8. The Act aas a general one.
and did nut require to tin particularly pleaded. ll'
the Plairititio had not sufficient possroonni to enable
them to bring a possessory action, the care relative
tu the stakes had been wrongly decided.

Mr. Juatice BuaaouoH said there was no distinct
question about the stakes, that was only a part of
the trespass. It did distinctly appear that there was
a trespass on the materials as well as on the land.
Mr. Serjeant VAUGHAN argued that an indict.
ment did not affurd compensation to the party
injured.
The Carer Justice observed, that it appear-id
from the 41h volume of Ws.. koone's Comententarits,
that in all such cases the punishment was the only
cum pen's, ion.
Mr. Serje■nt VAUGHAN said, that in many such
cases reparation was made to the party by ratite-
lion of his goods when stolen. He cited Mk Bar-
room, 1487, to shew that the law allows an action
to a man though nut in complete possession, where
there is no other to bring it. Of two tenants in
common, one might bring an action against a
wrong doer, though there was no exclusive pos.
seession. In the case 6:4 East, 154, Lord Ellenbo-
rough was of opinion, that as against a wrong doer,
the property of a bridge (in that case) reverted to
the original owner, to Nimble him to maintain a
poslessory action, and that a scintilla of property
was sufficient for that purpose.
The Cuter JUSTICH intimated, that he would
be glad the Counsel who is to follow (Mr. Serjeant
Copley) would examine before next day whether
there was any instance of an action brought for
injury done by persons merely having the conduct
of public works, stating the possession to be in
themselves.

The COURT asidast rising, that as theta was but
one caw more on tTie paper, it would be better to
Boish it, and let the argument on this case ataud
Over.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER, Wursvaria,
FRIDAY, NOVIIIIIIM 20.

RUSSET. v. BUCHANAN and WIPE.

Mr. DAUNCET had obtained a rule in this case
to abets cause, on the part of the Defendant, why
the iuterlocutory proceedings already had should
not be set aside with costs. The application was
founded on the affidavit of Mr. Levie, ass attorney,
which stated, that Mr. Buchanan, the Defendant,
had appeared by his attorney, but that his wife had
never entered an appearance. In consequence of
her absence, she was served with • writ under the
statute. It was therefore contended, in support of
the rule to vet aside the interlocutory proceedings,
that the appearance of the husband singly was a
mere nullity, and the proceedings already bad in-
formal and incomplete.
Mr. MANNING was heard against the rule ob-
tained by Mr. Mimicry. He opposed it on two
grounds: the first was, that the parties were ac-
tually in Court, and it was quite immaterial how
they got there ; and the second, that, according to
the statute, there was no distinction between the
one Defendant and the other in the manner con-
tended for. The Learned Counsel, in support of
these two points, sited 33 Henry VI. fol. 43, p. ea,
and 43 Edw. 111. fol. I, p. I, which shelved, that
the husband frequently appeared for himself as
well as wife. He said, that the Defendant endea-
voured, by the course be had taken, not only to
plead alone, hut also to harass the Plaintiff, by
putting in that sort of plea which would not be re-
plied to without a re-pleader being awarded.
Mr. DAUNCEY, in reply, contended, that the
interlocutory proceedings were erroneous. The
Plaintiff should either have made an application to
the Court to compel the husband to appear, or an
appearance muter the statute should have been en-
tered for both Defesidonits.

The COURT were of opinion, that the appearance
of the hub!)and was not a nullity, and that the ill.
teriOcutory proceedings were regular.
The rule was diocharged, with costs.

PRICE OF STOCKS YESTERDAY.
3 per Ct. Red.... 76N I India Bonds ..86 87 pr.
3 per Ct. Cons. 77ifl I New Annuities ....77i
31 per Cents B6k I Es. Bills, 4..19 10 pr.
4 per Cents.
5 per Ct. N. Au... 1081 I Cons. for Acc...77M
Batik L. Auu 4O

COURSE OF EXCHANG
Amsterdam.... 11 7
Ditto at algid .. 11 4
Rotterdam ..... 11 S
Antwerp ex. Mo. 11 11
Harobargh F
Altuoa ......... 33 9
Parili 3 day 's date 23 tis
Ditto 24 15
Roordeaux, do. 24 15
Frankfurt on the

Main l3O
Madrid
Cadiz 4O
Hilboa 39/
Barcelona 30
Gibraltar 34
Leghorn
Genoa 47t

The overnice prier or wheat, fur the lust six week*
of the quarter (milli% Nov. 15, ie Piths. 'ad. come-
quently the ports are again open fur importation
Irom all plates between the Cyder nerd the Bit booboo.
To the more distant parts, itscludlrd tinder the pro-
visions of the Corn Bill, no prohibition had taken
place, as that eau only occur whets the average fur
the whole quarter is under blur.