The Sun.
London, England, 1822-11-28 00:00:00

TITHES.-BUTT V. 'WISEMAN.

The LORD CHIEF .TtrsTrcE said in this case the Court had
considered their judgment, upon due examination of the evi-
dence, and their opinion was, that a new trial ought to be had,
in order that the Jury might consider distinctly the question of
endowment.

It will be recollected that this was a question, whether the
defendant, a Copyholder upon land belonging to the Dean and
Chapter of Eiy, was liable to pay tithes.

CRIMINAL INFORMATION.
Mr. C. CRESSWELL moved for a rule to chew cause why a
Criminal Information should not be filed against two' Justices
of the Borough of New Radnor, for refusing to grant an Ale-
house License to one George Griffiths, the tenant of the Crown,
public-house, at 'Walton, after having been regularly licensed
for a period of Ili years previous to the last licensing day, and
although he had had a certificate signed by all his neighbours
and friends, as to the respectability of his house, &c.
The Ciitrivi called upon the Learned Counsel to spew whe-
ther any corrupt motive could be attributed to the Magistrates
in question.
Mr. CRE SIVELL said, thc,affidavit on which he founded his
motion merely declared the belief of the deponent, that the
refusal of this licence was to be attributed to the circumstance
of his having voted at the last General Election for Radnor
on behalf of a candidate to whom the Justices were opposed in
interest.

The COURT said this was insufficient. It was merely the
suggestion of .the deponent's own mind, and no Grand Jury
would be justified in finding a bill of indictment on such tcsti-
mony.—Rule refused.

COURT OF 'COMMON PLEAS, Nov. 27.
IN RE ISAACSON, THOMAS CLARKE, AND BROOKES.
Mr. Serjeant VAU G HAN in the course-of last term had obtained
a rule to show cause why Isaacson and Clarke, both beingAttor-
nies of this Court, should not be struck off the roll, for having
permitted Brookes to act as an attorney in-their names; and why
Bzookes should not be imprisoned in the Fleet,
.for having so
acted; and further, why all the parties should not answer the
matters contained in theaffidavits on which this rule was moved,
and why they should not pay the costs of the application. This
rule arose out of the following circumstances:—ln the month
of June last a person named William Clarke brought an action.
against Brookes, to recover a sum of money which Clarke
alleged Brookes had received from, one Seager, a debtor of
Clarke's, .on his account. The plaintiff in that action had
proVed that he -called on Brookes, at his office, in Broad-court,
-Druri-lane, and employed him as an attorney to prosecute an
action for him, against Stager, and that Brookes had subse-
quently received the money from Seager. Brookes defended

' himself, as to so much as Was claimed froth him, in respect of
the money received from Seager, by alleging that he had
received that money as the clerk of Mr..lsaacson, to whom
he had paid over the money, 'and in whose name the cause
had proceeded up to the compromise. The Jury, however;
thought on the evidence, that he had acted as the attorney of
Clarke, and had actually assumed that character, although he
had not the slightest pretensions to it. They, therefore, gave a
verdict for the plaintiff, adding these words, " With all costs."
This trial having raised a strong presumption that Brookes had
illegally, practised as an attorney, without having been regu-
larly admitted ; the present motion was made to punish him
for such conduct, and affidavits of several persons were pro-
duced, which stated, that Brookes had practised as an attorney
for them in different cases, having formerly used the name of
Thomas Clarke, and subsequently that of Isaacson.
M. Serjeant PELL, on Monday, shewed cause against this
rule, and produced affidavits, of Isaacson and Thomas Clarke,
both of whom stated that they had employed Brookes as their
clerk at a regular salary, and had never given him permission
to use their names in his own behalf, nor had ever divided the
profits of their business with him. An affidavit of Brookes
was also read, in which he confirmed the account given by
Isaacson and Thomas Clarke, and declared that he had al-
ways acted as the clerk of Isaacson and Thomas Clare and in no
other capacity or sitution whatever.
Mr. Serjeant VAUGHAN and Mr. Serjeant ONsr.ow yester-
day observed on the loose manner in which the affidavits of these
parties were sworn.
The COURT then adjourned the further consideration of the
case until this morning ; when
Lord Chief Justice DaLLLas, after consulting with the other
Judges, said at present he should not give any judgment on
the rule before the Court., for he considered that further in-
' formation on this subject might be gained ; and for himself, he
must say, he observed, that further information appeared neces-
sary. After going through the principal allegations in the affi-
davits on both sides, he observed on the different degrees of
credibility to be attached to the statements, and inquired whether
in this case the allegations in the affidavits of these parties ranged
within credibility, improbability, or absolute incredibility? His
Lordship then mentioned a case in the Court of King's Bench,
in which in a similar application, that Court, where ord Ken-
' yon then presided, decided that the rule must be made absolute,
though the persons complained of had directly answered the
charge brought against them, as their affidavits represented an
incredible story. In this case, though his Lordship would not
say the statements of these parties were incredible, he should at
least declare that they appeared to him improbable. Ile there-
fore wished for further information, for it was clear that Brookes
had acted as an attorney, and he required that it should be
shewn by Brookes that he had so acted, not for his own benefit
or emolument, but merely for the advantage of Clarke and
Isaacson respectively. An attachment must therefore issue
against these parties, on which they must give bail to answer
interrogatories which should be forthwith filed, and a day in
next Term should be appointed for hearing the answer to these
interrogatories, and the report of the Prothonotary thereon.
Mr. Justice PARK and Mr. Justice BURROU Gil shortly
expressed their concurrence with his Lordship, and an attach-
ment was therefore ordered to be issued, the bail on which was
required to be 1001. for each of the parties themselves, and two
sureties of 501. each. In the mean time the rule was ordered
to be enlarged, and the sixth day of next term was appointed
for the hearing.
The COURT then said, the parties must stand committed,
unless the clients of Mr. Serjeant Vaughan would take their
undertaking to appear and give bail.
Mr. Serjeant VAUGHAN said, he should not press for their
commitment, but he should expect due notice of bail.
Mr. Brookes said he would give responsible sureties, and he
promised to give immediate notice of bail ; which promise being
accepted he left the Court with Isaacson and Clarke, who had
also undertaken to appear and give sureties.
The following notice appeared yesterday in this Court :
" To Solicitors, practising in the Court of Common Pleas,

and to all others.
" Take Notice—That aft.r the present Michaelmas Term,
the evening attendance of a Judge in Chambers in Term time
will be discontinued ; and that, in all future terms, the attend.
ance will be every day, from half an hour after three till five
o'clock."

PREROGATIVE COURT, Nov. 27.
No business of any public interest Was transacted in this Court
to-day. Several causes were expedited one stage ; and two or
three allegations were admitted ; but no causes came on for final
adjudication.