The Sun.
London, England, 1825-01-27 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, JAN. 26.
RIOT AT CHESTER.
THE KING v. FAULKNER AND OTHERS.
Mr. JOHN Wiwasts shewed cause against a rule obtained
in Michaelmas Term, by Mr. Taunton, calling on Mr. Faulk-
ner, jun., and certain others, inhabitants of Chester, to strew
cause why a criminal information should not be filed against
them for alleged misdemeanours committed on the girth Octo-
ber, at the close of the election of Sheriff of Chester, which
took place at the town-hall that day. The Learned Counsel
said, their Lordships must have seen that the facts and state-
ments in the affidavits had arisen out of great animosity be-
tween the independent party, as they were called, on the one
part, and the Grosrenors, or Corporation party, on the other.
—The rule had been tained on affidavits, a considerable
portion of which conveyed hearsay information. His Worship
the .Ilayor of Chester, and two others, appeared, swearing
to matter of hearsay. The charge against the defendants
was, rioutous behaviour in the streets of Chester, breaking
windows, and obstructing the election in the town hall by leap-
ing on the tables, putting themselves in a menacing posture,
throwing missiles, and compelling the Mayor and Recorder to
leave the hall at the hazard of their lives. The persons making
affidavits in support of those charges had stated that Mr. John
Faulkner, jun. of Chester, was one who assembled In the Town
Hall to oppose the election, and that not being a freeman, he
had no right to interfere. The fact was, Mr. Faulkner was pre-
sent, and being told he ought to withdraw, he retired quietly
from the Hall when ordered. It did not appear that he came
in again. It was five or six hours after that the disturbance
occurred in Chester, so that there was in that respect a contra-
diction in the affidavits.

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE said, a jury would be compe-
tent to decide on those contradictions.

Mr. WILLIAMS expressea a hope that the Court would not
send this young man, Mr. Faulkner, before a jury. Ile should
prove by the affidavits that Mr. Faulkner, after he had left
the Town Hall, went to dine with a friend, and that he did
not return towards the Exchange before two o'clock.--
He met a person who had seen the commencement of the af-
fray, and it would appear that when it began Mr. Faulkner
was decently dining with his friend. The Independent party
were going to the Green Market, and the Corporation party
threw potatoes, turnips, and other missiles at them. This led
to the affray. The Independents overcame their adversaries,
and ran to the public-house, kept by Mrs. Leet, where finding
the doors shut, and some of the Corporation in the house, they
broke the windows. The Corporation party committed the first
breach of the peace. Mr. Faulkner, who came up at the time
the outrage was going on, instead of promoting it, exerted him-
self to the utmost to make them desist from throwing stones.
Mr. Williams, having minutely detailed all the facts,' contend•
ed that the Court had no case before them on which they could
grant an information.
Mr. CHITTY was also heard for Mr. Faulkner.
Mr. PARK addressed the Court on behalf of the other De-
fendants.

Mr. SCARLETT, in reply, said, all parties had agreed that a
dangerous riot ensued, and he called upon the Court to protect
the future peace of Chester and its elections, by making the rule
absolute.

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE said the Court would look into
the affidavits before they gave judgment.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, JAN. 26.
CHOUMERT v. HASWELL.

This was an actiOnfWil;-liseaiidoeitii;lion of two houses
at Peckham, tried before Mr. Justice Park, at the sittings after
last at Guildhall, in which a verdict was returned for the de-
fendant.

Mr. serjeant WILDE now moved for a rule to show cause
why a new trial should not be granted, on the ground of mis-
direction by the Learned Judge, and that the verdict was con-
trasy to the evidence. Ile contended that the defendant was
liable for the rent, inasmuch as he had caused various repairs
to be made, and had actually paid for these repairs. There was
nothing to show that he had not underlet the houses to his
brother, in which case he was clearly answerable for the rent.—
Rule granted.
At one o'clock Mr. Justice Palm went to Guildhall to sit at
Nisi Prius for the Lord Chief Justice, who still continues in.
disposed.
CONSISTORY COURT, JAN. S.
An application was made by Dr. SWASEY, on the part of
the parish of St. Martin's-le-Grand, for a faculty to enable
them to pull down a church in St. Martin's-lane, Cannon-street,
situate in the said parish, and used since the Fire of London
for the service of the French Protestants. The surveyer's re-
port of the ruinous state of the building being read, the Court
granted the motion ; adding, that as the parish had parted
with their right to the French Protestants, which cession was
subsequently confirmed by Parliament, the decree must be
made special.
OFFICE OF THE JUDGE PROMOTED BY THE CHURCH
WARDENS OF GREAT WALDEN, ESSEX, v. REV. c 3. s.

CLARKE, D.D.
Sir C. Ron INSON said this was a proceeding instituted against
Dr. Clarke, containing no less than 18 articles, charging him
with obstructing the church-service, and creating a disturbance
in the church, and with other offences, of such a nature as to
suggest a doubt of the sanity of the person perpetrating them.
When the proceedings were first brought before the Court, it
acted in such a manner as sheaved its compasssion for the unfor-
tunate individual so situated, and with the hope that the com-
passion so ehewn would have induced Dr. Clarke to refrain
from such conduct, as left it imperative on the churchwardens
to exhibit the articles praying his suspension ; those hopes hat.
Mg been frustrated, there was no ground why this Court should
longer delay pronouncing suspension against the offending
party. The Learned Judge here recited the different articlet
as proved by the Rev. 3lr. Bird, the clergyman appointed br
the Bishop of London to officiate in the parish, and others,
which have been sonic time before the public. To these charges
no denial had been given, no appearance in Court made. The,
Court must, therefore, consider the article proved, and would
proceed to exercise the painful duty that devolved upon it. It
had no other course to pursue than the strict line of duty pre,
scribed by ancient practice, as stated in the decretals. rho
Court therefore decreed, that Dr. Clarke be suspended from his,
clerical office, and all benefits arising therefrom, for two years,
with full costs of suit ; that at the expiration of that period, Dr.
Clarke should exhibit to the Court a certificate, signed by three
resident Clergymen of his neighbourhood, of the propriety of
his behaviour during that period ; the suspension not to relax
until such certificate is produced, and approved of ley this Court s
that a decree for sequestration of the profits of the living shall
pass; and that Mr. C. 0. Parker, of Chelmsford, be appointed
sequestrator, to act and account, as in the case Dix v. Hudders.,
ford ; this suspension to be publicly read at the parish church
on the next and succeeding Sunday.

FIFE CAUSE.—We understand it is probable
this important cause will come on for trial before the Jury
Court at Edinburgh, on the 20th of February next.--(Abordren
Chronic*. )

There is no salvation for the drunkard in a
warm climate. Of 5,000 Europeans who went to Columbia
within a few years, not more than :100 survive ; and three parts
in five of this mortality may be attributed to drinking.--(Hull's
Columbia.)

Printed and Published for the vnopßlEToas, at the Sera.
Orrici:, Nu. 112; :trend, by J B. GALlTArttii.