The National Register.
London, England, 1822-05-05 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH.
MONDAY, APRIL 29.
PUBLICANS' LICENCES.
Tug RING O. NM N. CONANT AND OTSCRA.

The solicitor General moved iu this prosecution for a
mew trial on behalf of Mr. Collins, one of the defendants
only.
The Indictment was tried at Westminster. The defen-
dants, four in number, who- are magistrates of the county
of Middlesex, were charged with conspiracy, and cur.
reply refusing to grant ■ licence to a licensed victualler
named Meek, residing iu St. John's-lane, Smithfield. The
withholding of the licence was imputed to gross partiality,
arising from the iuthience of the house of Meux, Reid,
and Co., brewers. The second count charged the magis-
trates with refusing to grant the licence on account of
favour and partiality to the said brewers. The Jury ne-
gatived the change of conspiracy. They also, in giving
their verdict, said there was no proof of partiality to any
house. They found that the magistrates maliciously, and
without reference to any house, refused the licence. That
was the nature of the charge, and he had to subnsit, upon
the evidence offered in support of the prosecution, that
there was nothing to prove Mr. Collins was guilty eithe.
of corruption, partiality, or conspiracy.
judge Bayley.—The charge against them was, that
they conspired to refuse• licence from cot rupt and par-
tial purposes.
The Solicitor General said, it was not pretended there
was any ground to impute motives of partiality to Mr.
Collins. Their tonight's* would recollect the gnestion
came before the court two years ago, when a criminal
information was moved. The object then was to prove
motives of partiality with reference to the house of Meux
and Co., and the point wa► not proved. It appeared to
hint that the Jury by their serdict had acquitted the de•
fendants of ►hat part ut the charge.
The Lord Chief Justice.—" It was opened by Counsel
for the prosecution ou the ground of a corrupt motive
with respect to the house of Meux, Reid, and Co. That
was the feature of the cense. As far as I can secollect,
the, motive assigned wan partiality, to the house of Meux
and Co. I told the Jury to consider whether that motive
was made out. I was surprised to find the verdict as- it
was, and it seems to me the matter should come urforc the
court again, amid be Wither considered. Von may take a
rule to shrew cause. The costs may be arranged, if there is
to be a urw trial, when it comes againhefoi e the court."

TIJESOAT, APUIL 30.
DEDFODD U. DIRLEY AND °TIMM

Mr. J. E•aos mused to set aside the verdrtt tuuod for the
defendants in Ibis cause, and to °Mara a new trial. The
action, which was tried before Mr. Justice llolroyd, at the
last assizes for Lancaster, was against the deten.lieutv, ahu
are meinbers of the Manchester yeomanry cavalry, tor an
assault made on the plaintiff, a ben the Manchester meeting
ass dispersed. The Irarurd enamel made Iris ■pplreatiou
upon four grounds :-Ist. The learned Judge refused to re-
ceive rvidtoce a hick he was bound to receive by law ; 2dly.
Evidence was received which ought not to have been re-
ceived ; Sdry. The learned Judge misdirected the Jary ;
and 4thly. It was a •erdrrt against evidence. Mr. Evans
uelilre”ed the court at considerable length in support of his
points, and contended that the case ought to be reconsidered
by a Jury.
Mr. Ju.tiee Hulroyd staled shortly the grounds of his
charge to the Jury, but out having the report of the trial in
court, the application was ordered to stead over to a tuture
day.