The National Register.
London, England, 1822-11-24 00:00:00

TUE Kim; v. A MAGINTRATL OF IlEttEfoßD.

Mr. Campbell moved for a rule Whit.; on a nmaistrate of
the county of lieretoni ( whose name be dial not mentions In
chew cause why a criminal information should not issue against
The magistrate had • neighbour natn. d Austin, whose mill
was supplied from a water-course running through his grounds.
In August last, Ma. Austin employed a t.ork Inas to ft nee and
elm the water course, as he had al•rays dune without objection,
when the mngistrate directed • constable to tale one of the
eurltuen named Proliert, kin custody, and °any him to the
..ound-liouse. This wan done ; and though Mr. Austin teaered
bull and uttered to deptedt 1001. to ensure the idle:Mance of the
man to answer any cli,tge against him, the sisa;istrtte refused
to set him P: liberty, but detained bin', wet and without his
jacket, till eight o'clock i• the evenine, when he permitted his
primmer to depart, on a pa otnise to &mint at a petty sessions
then t,st day. On the morrow the mos appeared at the sessions,
whtitr he foetal two tua4istrates besides the gentleanas who

sn

had detained him ; they said that there was no ground to detain
hhsta a44Met hit sommtkrilik wrong to sit in Judgment en his
owl amass; but so mow woo they gone, than that amasser
ordered him again to be taia into custody. On the 9d of
September he pursued the some conduct towards another of Mr.
Austin's workmen.
Mr. Justice lityley asked if the nun Lad dons any thing but
commit a trespass?
Mr. Campbell replied in the negative, and added, that they
were wily working in the same way in whirls Mr. Austin bad
always directed the water•onurse in be repaired•
Air. Justice Bayley—The eliarie is then against a magistrate
in the execution of his office ?
Mr. Campbell—• Certainly, my Lord.

Mr. Justice Bayley—You may take a rule to show cause;
and probsbly we shall not hear of the matter ageis.
Mr. Campbell toko his rule.
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.

TIICRiiDAY, NOV. 21.
Mr. Sergeant Leos on this day said the defendant was not
able to accede to the offer of the plaintiff to bring 5001. into •
court making an order of reG•renoe to ascertain the real ■mount
of the goods furnished by the plaintiff as discount for the bills.
lie should only repeat to the court the observation, that the
plaiutiff could not recover more than the consideration actually
advanced, as lie had derived no benefit whatever from the bills.
Mr. Sergeant Vaughan observed, that to save further ex-
pence lie would take the verdict for the amount proved by the
defendant's evideuee, which lie believed described the amount
to be 8001.
This offer was not accepted, as the counsel could not agree
as to the sum really proved to be the value of the goods.
Lord UlisfJustioe Dallas remarked, that this case had already
been tried twice, and the question was, whether it should go
down to a third trial ? Whoever discounted hills of exchange.
to a certain extent speculated on the solvency of the parties,
whose names were attached to them. Toe plaintiff's counsel
bad most liberally offered at the second trial to take the verdict
for such sum as the Jury should think really the value of the
goods hut the Jory had given a verdict for the full amount of
the two hills, on the ground that the circulation of bills of ex-
change should be as little impeded as possible. The case bad
better stand over for the parties to look into the accounts, and
alter the verdict accordingly.
The parties, however, not seeming to be likely to agree on
the 'mount, the court refused Mr. Sergeant Len,' motion for a
new trial, on the plaintiff's consenting to reduce his judgment
from 1,0001. to 7501.
FRIDAY, Nor. 22.
Lord Chief Justice Dallas sat this morning at Guildhaif, to
bear cases at Nisi Prior. The four causes heard were unde-
fended, and of no importance.
(Sittings in Banco.)
At eleven o'clock the court met in Westmin►ter.

CAI 11AM P. lIYAM.
Mr. Sergeant HoHock in the course of the present term ob-
tained a role to shew cause why the award made in this ease
should not be set aside. The ground of the application was,
that the authority of the arbitrator had been revoked by one of
the parties to the reference before the award was made, and the
affidavits imputedimproi er conduct to the arbitrator, and also

- . . .
•barged some of the witnesses with perjury.
Mr. Sergeant Cross proceeded this day to show cause against
the rule, and contended that this was not a case in which the
court would interfere to assist the defendant. The original
action was one of assaunpeel for money had end received for the
plaintiff's rise. The defendant admitted the receipt of the
money, but defended the action on the ground that he bad paid
it over on the plaintiff's arecnut. When the cause came on at
the York :►seizes, 1820, it was referred to arbitration by We
recommendation of the Judge who presided, and an order of
Nisi Prins was made to that effect. After this the defendant
frequently :ailed upon the übitrieur, and canted severe! di.1.9 •
hr, the award, and at length revoked the arhitraten's authority
b? deed. The arbitrator, however, proceeded is the afitir,
and made his award in a few d. 3 a after. The learned Sergeant
submitted that if the court were to set aside the award wader
such circumstances, they would be opening a door to the meat
•ezatioas proceedings on jthe part of fraudulent defendants,
who, after a cause was referred, might, when the matter was
about to be finally settled by the arbitrator, Wino in and :evoke
his authority. and thus delay theplaintiff and defeat the purposes
of justice. He submitted therefore, that in the present case ULe
defendant was not entitled to relief, and that the ride oeolit to
be discharged.
The Lord Chief Jastice Dalian risked what was there in this
case to take it out of the general award ? The general rale
was, that to award was null and of no effect, wbe■ wade after
the revocation of the arbitrator's authority. here the award
was isade after the authority had been revoked, and the order
or Nisi Prins was not made a rale of the meet emit after that
award had been decided. Had the award been made under
deed of reference, it w. uhi undoubtedly be had if made) after
the revocation of the authority. The question Ono was,
whether there was any,siel what differeoce between a deed of
reference and an order of Nisi Prins. In the rate of Smith v.
.►stun, the counsel for the award argued as the learned Sergeant
(Cross) did in the present, and maintained that an order of
Nisi Prins would be used only as a means of delay, if the party
could, before the term, and before the order could be made a
rule of court, revoke the krbityllnes authority. In that ViSe,
however, the cowl decided t at flue award could not stand,
thonOt they cidiwctd part of the order by rendering the party
creating the delay liable to costs. In the present case, what-
ever might be the writs of application, the strictness of prao•
tier required that the rule he made absolute.
The other Judge coucurred in this opinion, and the rule was
made absolute.

By an order of last Sessions, no shop of any kind
will be allowed to be kept within the walls of War.
wick Gaol or House of Correction, and that no ser-
vant of the county shall directly or indirectly sell
any thing to the prisoners therein confined. Like-
wise, that no apprentices, or other persons, commit.
ted by magistrates as a punishment, nor any persons
sentenced at the sessions to confinement as a punish-
ment, will be allowed to purchase victuals or to
receive any from their acquaintance, but that they
are to partake of no other diet than the county al-
lowance of Lread nod water, unless in case 61 sick-
ness the surgeon and ap.ithccary who attend the
prison shall direct otherwise.
A rewcvdlale 1.1r111..-r s"1,1 a N•uth Pohertno fair PO
mime Somerset owes Or 131. saint farms r sold a
two years ago, fur too. uwte than the vg ewes now

PRICE
Rank Stork 9491
I per Cent. Red. 80f
3 per Cent. Consols
24 per Ceut. 93
4 per tem. 98f
New Fours, 102 i
wc Aline 20i

Nov. YY
Seoille,3o—Gibra I it
Lettlwrit,47*—Genoa, 4:4
Nlalta,43—Veslice,27
Naplek,3o —Liaboo, 921
Oporto, 521-11oltio ,40
ItioJaocis'o, 46
Palermo 118

91 per cent.
Curt, Lie per cei.t.
Foreign goldin liars,3l. I
lid. per oz.
New Doubloons, 31.148.0 d.
New Dollar., O. OJ.
Silver in barsoitnuttardEls.
94d.