The National Register.
London, England, 1819-05-24 00:00:00

THE NATIONAL REGISTER.

charted to bo inserted in the London Gazette. This set to con-
tinue nll in the ycur but it mAy ba sepealctl
or altered at any time.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, WESTMINSTER,
MONDAY. MAY 17.
At the Sitting of the Court, Mr. Hunt appeared. anti moved
for a Rule to whew cause why the Master should not review his
taxation of costs, in a cause wherein Mr. Hunt had suffered
judgment by default, and a writ of inquiry was executed against
him at Winchester. The ground of his application was, first,
that the Master had allowed 501. for witnesses; 161. for Counsel ;
and lastly, that he had only struck off from an extortionate
bill of 304 i. the sum of 17b/. leaving him to pay 178/.
The Court asked what ground he had to object to the allow-
ance.
Mr. Hunt said, he did not complain of the Master; but the
misreoresentation of a Country Attorney, by whom the action
against him had been brought. He then handed in a long &Si-
lken, by which it appeared that he had been sued for breach of
covenant with respect to a farm, of which he was tenant, and in
the proceedings against him the attorney had introduced impro-
per charges to the Master. Ile therefore contended that the taxa-
tion ought to be reviewed.
The Court observed, that the affidavit contained much irrele-
vant matter, and therefore directed Mr. Hunt to reform it, con•
fining the contents to the taxation of coats.
He accordingly took nothing by his motion, but withdrew his
application in order to amend the affidavit.
CONSPIRACY TO MACE A BANKRUPT.
The King v. Firth, Tate, Bodges, Brooks. Taylor, Lane, Fi-
gure, Sherwood. Shaw, and Brman.
Mr. GURNEY moved for the judgment of the Court on these
defendants, who were convicted at the Sittings after last Teemeat
Guildhall, upon an indictment charging them with Conspiracy to
defraud the Creditors of ore Jahr. Stnith. et Huddersfield, and
elsewhere, by making Lim a Bankrupt. and inducing bins to
sanction a vast number of fictitious promissory nicees, fee notes
given by him for value received.
The seven first-mentioned defendants appeared in Court, but
of the remaining three, Shaw, who had suffered judgment to go
by default. hail absconded ; and Sherwood and Hessen did cwt
appear. The latter were called upon their txognizariers to save
their bail, but did not answer.
The Learned Judge then proceeded to read his notes of the
trial, which have already been puhlished in our Journal.
The Court sentenced themes :V...0 ea
Ends to 18 months ; Ta'e and Hedges to 13 months ; Vigor*
to 12 months ; arid Law. Brooks, and Taylor to 9 months im-
prisonment in Coltffiatii.fields Prison.
Wnroceanee, MAY 19.
7HE KING V. TM: BIRMINGHAM CANAL. NAVIGATION
COMPANY.
The Court was called ueon to decide whether an order of the
Quarter Stneions, which mode the Proprietors of the Birmingham
Canals liable to pay parish rates in respect of that property, was
to be suceined. The Proprietorsclaimed exemption from rates
upon the conetruction of the Art; of Parliament for msking and
managing the said Canals. The Judges were unanimously of
opinion that the Proprietors had no just claim to exemption. The
parish had a vested right to rates, which could not be taken from
theta. 'the order of the Sessions was affirmed.
MERCANTILE CONSPIRACY.
Mr. Gurney moved for a rule to sheer cause shy an Attorney,
who came forward as a volunteer in the matter of Kinnear,
Woolf, Levy, and others, convicted some time since of conspi-
racy, should not produce Edwards and Jones, who made false
affidavits in the above prosecution ; and why he should not an-
swer the matter contained in affidavits charging him specifically
with having prepared affidavitc for two persons not in existence.
Mr. Justice Bayley asked if they had applied to the Attorney
to know who the persons were.
Mr. Gurney answered is the negative, but observed, that the
affidavits not only stated where they lived, but the numbers of
the houses.
Mr. Justice Bayley said, the Attorney might have been leo-
pmed on.
The Chief Justice recommended Mr. Gurney to extuhine
Crossley's case before he pressed his motion on the Court.
Mr. Gurney consequently did not take a Rule-.
Mr. Mills, the prosecutor of an indictment against Mr. Brice,
an Attorney at Bristol, for perjury, appeared in Coutt to move
fora new trial. Mr. Brice was acquitted by the Jury, there being
no evidence to support the charge. Mr. Mills endeavoured to
prove that the proceedings were irregular. and that the Chief
Justice had given a misdirection to the Jury ; but, unable to
make any impression on the Court, which was rising to go to the
Exchequer, he was ordered to address them ..g do on Friday.
FRLDAY, MAY 21.
This day Mr. M-arten moved to make the Rule, which
he lately ()humeri, to shew cause why an Into, niation,
in the natured Quo Warrant°, should not lie exhibited
against Mr. John Nleeres, the Mayor of Peterstield, ab-
sclute.
Mr. Scarlett and Mr. Marryat shewed cause against
the Mile ; but the Court made the Itide absolute.
1%1 ERCA TIC li CONSPIRACY.
THE ICING V. K I NEA R, woo LIE, AND LEVY.
Mr. Gurney obtained a rule to chew cause why an
Attorney, who hail prepared the false affidavits of Jones
and Edwards, introduced in behalf of the defeoslants,
when brought up for judgment, should not produce the
said persons, or answer the matter contained in an affi-
davit charging him with making the affidavits of pur-
suits not iii existence.
The Attorney will shew cause against the rule on
BANK OP ENGL•N D.— SATI7RDA Y MAY 22.
Mr. Daasis re renewed a motion which he bad made in
the last year, on behalf of a proprietor of Batik Stock, for
a mandonwe calling on the Ban:c Directors to lay before
the proprietors at their next general meeting, an accoura of
the clutrAeb and expences tor the manegemeid of the Com-
pany's unfair., and a staterarat of their present finances.—
i he learned counsel stated, that the affidavits mi which he
grounded his present mutton neer free from the exceptions
urged against him on the former occasion,—nainels , that
the applicant had not called on the Bank Directors to ren-
der the account required ; fur that previous to the present
application such a requisition had been made, and compli-
ance unused.
The Court, after having heard Mr. Denman in siippoit of
his motion, tt ere of opiniuu ihi y had no authority to inter-
fere un the present Occasion by granting the manr!anniv, the
Bank of Engl.•:el heing • trading company; and if they
were to entetteke in this husineu, the ( ourt of King's Bench
would be called on to become aaditon to all trading corn pa-

I 67

ides in England, when any of the partners iamb companiet
happened to he dist-stalled with the proceedings or the ma•
lingers of their concerns. The only course lobe punned in
this rase was to take the sense of the general hotly of pro-
prietors, who were alone competent to settle the dispute. --
As matter of partnetship, the Colin of Chancery was the
only tribunal to which a damnified partner could resort fu►
redrew—Rule 'eroded.