The Sun.
London, England, 1836-01-27 00:00:00

KING'S BENCH.-TUESDAY.

THE KING V. THE MARQUIS OF DOWNSHIRE.
This was an indictment against the defendant for stop-
ping up certain roads and footpaths in the parish of East-
hampstead in the county of Berks. The cause was last
tried before Mr. Justice Park, at the Assizes at Reading,
in 1834, when, under the Learned Judge's direction, a ver-
dict was found for the defendant. A rule had since been
obtained, and the case was argued in last Trinity Term.
Lord DENMAN now delivered judgment. The roads
and footway s being public roads, and not being legally
stopped up, the verdict must be for the Crown.
Judgment accordingly.
THE KING V. MAHON.

Mr. Mahon, in person, applied to Court for further
time to give the recognizances re sighed in this case. He
was comparatively a stranger in
. this country, and knew but
few persons to whom to are,ply to enter into security for
him. One of those .o whom he had applied had just
written to him to sp,y, th►►t being bound by the articles of
his partnership r.ot to become security in any case, he (the
writer) was unable to enter into the required recognizances.
The defer,cia„es own personal recognizances were then
taken, and, time was given him to put in his two sureties.

BAIL COURT.
THE KING V. EDWIN NICHOLETO, TOWN-CLERK OF THE

BOROUGH OF BRIDPORT.
Mr. ERLE obtained a rule to show cause why a criminal
intl:rmation should not issue against Edward Nicholeto,
town-clerk of the borough of Bridport.

THE KING V. BUTLER.
Mr. RICHARDS moved for a rule to show cause why a
criminal information shuulti. not issue against Mr. Butler, a
gc.ntlernan or
Pr°PerLii Yesicling near Cheltenham, at the sm..; of Mr. Child
understood the name), an attorney of
that town, JO: ar. attempt to provoke him to a breach of the
peace.
His Lo',:pstilp doubted whether a criminal information
could Iv zranted
l for mere Irords spoken, unless
_they con-
otail(l72-0. A

,
,tt willot a r,ll, t,r a ..litninal
althoaglt tiof words of provoca-
r7T,t :---- Yon are a rascally coward, and

t

)".,;f

t!'• to be granted.

• 0,11 J..
;31110N i'LE.A.S.-TUESDAY.

bllEvr V. CUBITT.

This was an :It of slander for words spoken. The
plaintiff is an appraiser and upholsterer, residing in York-
street, Bryanston-square. The defendant was a lodger in
the house, and one of the workmen employed in the shop.
On the sth of December last the defendant came to the
street door to get some milk, and from some, reason or an-
oth:2r her draper:. iinwed about her in loose and graceful
t1(1 not think her appearance on this
occasion r:onsiqetit Hair strict propriety and decorum, and
instead ot admiring, as, if he bad a particle of taste in his
composition he was bound to do, the sylphlike elegance of
her form: and the classical adjustment of her thin and flow-

ing robes, immediately began to rebuke her for what he
was pleased to consider the looseness and indecency of her
attire. Provoked at this gross and evident want of taste
she retorted, calling plaintiff " a swindler" and " a shuf-
fling rascal." It was for these•words the action was brought.
A Juror was drawn by consent, each party paying their
own costs.

PREROGATIVE COURT-TUESDAY.

TORRE AND OTHERS V. CASTLE AND OTHERS. •
This was a question of propounding in solemn .form of
law a codicil to the will of the late Lord Scarborough, who
died very suddenly on the 24th of February, 183.5, in con-
sequence of a fall from his horse whilst hunting His per-
sonal property amounted to 300,0001., and he left a widow,
with one son and three daughters. The allegation pro-
pounding the paper was now offered for admission, and it
pleaded, amongst other things, that the deceased was of a
suspicious, reserved, and uncommunicative character, and
that he was in the habit of concealing important documents
under the mattress of his bed, and similar places.
Dr- LUSH!SGTON opposed the admissibility of the alle•
.;ation.

The KING'S ADVOCATE, on behalf of the czteeutc,--,%.,
argued that the paper propounded was an officiotr, instru-
ment, because it provided for those for whom it wv:s the
first duty of the testator to proviil.e, and tha.t, as such, it
was at least entitled to the fay.
bumble f:tr..a.ideration of the
Court,

The further he_arir,4 of the was postponed.

COURT P.;F PECULIARS.-TUESDAY

P°G°.:ON, FALSELY CALLED WINNINGTON, V. WINNINGTON.•
No appearance being given on the part of the husband
in this case, which was a suit for divorce on the grounds of
impotency, the Court pronounced him in contempt, and, at
the request of Mrs. Winnington, rescinded the order which
it had made for the assignation of a Proctor and Counsel.
The Court also observed, that as Mrs. Winnington declined
any advice, she must proceed according to the regular forms
of the Court. Her libel was ordered to stand for admission
on the next Court day.