The Sun.
London, England, 1825-06-23 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, JUNE 22.
JUDGE v. COLONEL BERKELEY.
Mr. TAUNTON shewed cause against a Rule, which had
been obtained by Mr. C. Phillips, for the purpose of obliging ,
the defendant to shew cause why the venue should not be re-
moved from Gloucestershire to Middlesex, or some other
county. It had been moved, on the affidavit of the plain-
tiff, which stated, that the defendant was a Magistrate of the
county, a Colonel of a regiment of Militia, the Founder and
President of a political club, the head of a hunting club,
and a person possessed of a very extensive estate in the
same -place. These circumstances, it was submitted, gave
the defendant great power and influence in the neighbour-
hood, and more particularly among those persons most likely
to be summoned as special Jurymen at the trial.—ln answer to
this, the affidavit of Colonel Berkeley stated, that he was not
the founder of the political club above alluded to. He cer-
tainly did hold the different offices mentioned by the plaintiff,
but was not conscious of possessing any more influence than
other gentlemen in a like situation. The Learned Counsel
contended, that if any fact were in dispute at all affecting the
defendant in any one of the offices held by him, then the state-
ment of the plaintiff might have some weight. But the action
in dispute was an action for the recovery of compensation in
damages for an assault. That was totally independent of his
offices, and therefore the suggestions thus thrown out could
have no effect.
Mr. CAMPBELL followed on the same side.
Mr. SCARLETT, in support of the rule, submitted that in
the case of transitory actions, the plaintiff always had the discre-
tion of laying his venue where he chose. It had been laid ori-
ginally in the County of Middlesex. There. by the suggestion
of the defendant, the venue was changed to Gloucester. as it
was said the cause of action arose there. When, therefore, it
was found that from the peculiar rank, office, and fortune,
that the cause could not be fairly tried, the original right of the
plaintiff reverted, and thus the venue ought to be changed.—
The terms of the defendant's affidavit did not deny his influence
in the county, but merely stated, that he had no more influence
than other persons of the same rank. He denied that he was
the founder of the political club, but he did not deny that he
was President of it. Taking ail the facts into their considera-
tions, he hoped the Court would think the rule ought to be
made absolute. •
Mr. C. PHILLIPS followed. He would only remark, that
since it appeared the defendant was a Al agistrate in the County,
it would not be proper the case should be tried in a place where,
from that and other causes, he must have great influence.
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE—I think the plaintiff is not en-
titled, in point of law, to demand the change of venue ; but if
he will accept the proposition we should offer, the venue should
be changed to Herefordshire.
• Mr. C. PHILLIPS said he was very willing to accept the offer
! of the Court.

BUCICINGHAM v. BANKES.
This, it will be recollected, is an action for a libel by Mr
Buckingham, whose expulsion from India has excited so much
attention, against Mr. J. I3ankes, for a libel. The alleged libel
was contained in a letter, delivered open to the plaintiff at Cal-
cutta, in the yearlB2o, by a gentleman now in India. The defend.
ant having pleaded the general issue,aud also justifications alleg-
ing the the truth of the matters of charge,inEasterTerm,lB24,ap.
plied for, and obtained a postponement of trial until the arrival of
two witnesses from Syria, who were expected to support the spe-
cial pleas. At this time, the plaintiff was advised that, as the let-
ter was in the hand-writing of the defendant, some pencil
marks in the margin would sufficiently prove that he had pub-
lished it ; and therefore he did not avail himself of a com-
mission to examine witnesses in India. In October last, the
defendant's witnesses arrived, and the cause was set down for
trial; but in February, Mr. Buckingham discovered that his
proofs of publication were deficient, and that he should be
defeated without an opportunity of meeting the justification
on its merits. Under these circumstances he withdrew his
record; and the defendant has now carried down the cause
by proviso, and it stands for trial at the adjourned sittings in
London. On Friday last Mr. Brougham, on behalf the plaintiff,
obtained a rule to show cause why the trial should not be post-
poned till the return of the Commission from India.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL and Mr. OurterEv now showed
cause, and contended thatthere was nopretence for supporting the
rule. The plaintiffhad always been informed that the publication
would not be admitted, and heknew as early as February last, that
he was not in a condition to prove it ; and could he now ask for a
postponement of the trial when the defendant's witnesses had
been kept eight months in town at a great expence, and when
he did not even suggest any expectation of obtaining the at-
tendance of his own witnesses from Calcutta ?
Mr. BROUGHAM and Mr. HILL, in supaort of the rule,
urged that this was a mere attempt on the part of the defendant
to obtain costs, which the Court would not sancion. The
plaintiff had always considered the truth or falsehood of the
libel as the main question in the cause ; and for a long time
thought his evidence of publication complete. Even now, Mr.
Bankes did not deny it; but he expected by this measure to
nonsuit the plaintiff, and so to obtain all the costs of the
proceeding.
COURT said the rule for postponing the trial must be
discharged,
The
unless the plaintiff would consent to pay the costs
incurred by the detention of the defendant's witnesses in Lon-
don. It now appeared that he never was in a situation to try
tile cause ; and he ought to have made his application earlier.
Mr. Brougham might therefore make his election either to
allow the rule to be discharged or to consent to pay such costs
of the Syrian witnesses as the Master should allow.
Mr. BROUGHAM took time to consult with his client on the
alternative proposed by the Court,