The Sun.
London, England, 1823-11-08 00:00:00

LAW INTELOGENCE.

COURT OF CHANCERY, Nov. 7.
TN RE GOURLAY AND DUNE OF SONF.RSET.
The LORD CHANCELLOR, on miming into Court this morn.
ing, said, that the papers which he wanted in this case were
the original bill and answer.
'Mr. HART offered to his Lordship the original bill.
The LORD CHANCELLOR.-4` lie. Gourley, have you got
an office copy of the answer ? if you have, be so good as to
hand it in." ' •
- Mr. Gourley, holding up a packet of papers, replied, " All
the. papers.that I have are here.
.As I am no speater, I have
expressed in a letter addressed, to your Lordship every thing
winch I think necessary to the right consideration of my case."
The LORD CHANCELLOR.-1 !NM already heard this case,
Mr. Gourlay, and I will not listen to another observation upon
it until I have got all the papers in the cause which have
asked for. This cause has been carried on hitherto in a man.
ner that could not fail to produce much inconvenience, and I
&In therefore determined that .in future it shall be conducted
With the strictest regularity. All the papers for which I have
asked should have been put in long ago, when the cause was
originally heard.
Mr. hlAitT then offered to his
_Lordship theoriginel reconl,
•

The LAUD CriANCEr.t.on—Then I ►rant the first

Hen' —Here it ls, rny
,Lord.
The Loan CIIARCE Lott.-Then I .want the notes of the
Judge who tried the issue originally directed, signed by the
Judge himself.
The Attorney for the Dtike'of Somerset offered to his Lord-
ship certain papers, as the notes In question.
The Lour) CitAxcra.con.-,-Are these notes signed by the
Judge himself ?
The Attorney.—No, they are not; but they arc signed, my
Lord, by his clerk.
The LORD CIIANCELLOR.-By his clerk ! and what do
•

know of his clerk ? I must have the notes from the Judge him
self in an official manner. , . •
Mr. Gourley here interrupted his Lordship, to inform him
that the papers for which be had asked was in a bundle which
he exhibited. - -
The Loan CIEANCXLLOIL--1 can't take parrs in a bundle
I would also ask you, Mr. tiourlay, whether the paper you ten-
der is an original paper in the cause. Is it the original an.
swer, or only.a copy ? For 'if it be only a copy, I will not
look at it.
A short pause here ensued, .during which. a barrister looked
at Mr. Gourley's paper, read part of it to the Lord Chancellor,
and then returned it to Mr: tiourlai:
• The Loan CHANCELLOII—The next paper I want is the
order of the Master:of the Rolls for the second trial.
Ills Lordship then asked fair several other papers—the tit
cretal orderof Sir W. Grant, &c. • -

Mr. lIAnT said, that the attorney In this ease had not tin-
derstml, neither did he himself understand,. that these papers
would be wanted. If his. Lordship would allow this case to
stand over till Monday next, and- the solicitor in the suit *mad
send all the papers to his. chambers, he would himself select
such of them as his Lordship wanted.
The LORD CHANCELT,OII.-1 want all the original papers',
from the emtimencement of the suit down to.the Judge's notes,
and those notes officially, signed by himself. I want these
papers, and these papers only ; and as to argument or obser-
vation of the parties', I again say that "I will hovel nothing to
do with them.
Mr. HART again repeated his request, that the case should
'rile LORD CIIANCRI.I.OR.—" If there he any copy of
be put off till Monday next.
Sir
W.: Grant's jud, gment, which' both parties can agree, I will
receive it. It is not usual for the Judge below to report to me;
and as I cannot therefore. expect to obtain u report of his
I Will talte that of' the shorthand-selfagleo to it. The case was then allowed
turidtgner: enftbottiholn h

to stand over. . ~
The next case was called on, and had proceeded to some
time, when Mr. flourlay rose .up in Court and accused the
Duke of Somerset's attorney of having carried his papers out

of Court. ••
The LOnto tiANCET.I.Of immediately ordered him to sit
down,' and pot disturb the proeeedinga of the Court, as. at that
stage of the
,businesi he cot; Id by no possibility hear him.
KARItIE- v. CASIAC:
Air. HART having yosterdmr been fully fp:44.-(1 on behalf of
the plaintiff; And having stated the leading facts of the case,
Mr. !lousy now followed ori, the same 'Side, . and argued in
suPport.of the wilinfAhe late .4 Wenyeie. There
was one point in proof of the validity of this will which had not ,

been stated. By accident the will omitted toappoint executors,
and in consequence
_administretion was 'taken out not only by
Mrs. Metric, but by Mrs. Canute also, and that administration
had never been attemptest to be disturbed.
The Loki) CHANTc El. 1,(All conceived, that unless the estates
were wholly given,up, it, was initiossible to answer die applies.
tion for a receiver.
Mr. HonarE observed that that was the manner in which he
wished to argue the questiem. tillitit regard to the injunction
he apprehended that that part or dome wholly rested upon
the tormer portion of it. The pl4tintiti, lie conceived, had a
clear equity veins; the 'defendants for taking the conveyance,
and becoming as it were puttees of the property.
The 14011D'O7tANTE1.LOit wits Of opinion that the question
with respect to the injtsriction turnedupon the saute point.
Mr. Itoheas followed on the same side, and referred to the
testimony ofthe witnesses, and the defendant's answer, to prove'
the validity of the will. The moat gross imputations were
thrown upon thoplaintas who bore the highest character, and
it was even insinuated biotite yeesesof the answer, that Mrs.
Marrie had forged the Will, rauch an insinuation was not
worthy of a reply. The Learned Counsel had no doubt that
the Learned Gentleman to whom he was opposed in this cause
could state to the Court every insinuation which had been thrown
oat; but his Lordship would bear in mind, that all these im-
putations conveyed to one tingle point, viz t to prove, that the
plaintiffs had so worked upon llitss Wenycyc, that she was,
merely a tool in their hands, and not a free agent. Now, he
was prepared to contend, that it was utterly unimportant whe-
ther .Hass Wenyeve executed the will as a tree agent or not; he
would, for the sake of argument, admit, that she was a tool in
the plaintiff's hands • yet supposing she was such a tool, still,
by these means she had got peasession of the estate, she had
been induced to file a bill in equity against the plaintiffs, and
had cited in complete hostility against them.
Mr. HEALD, as Counsel on behalf of the defendants, com-
menced by alluding to the steps which had been taken by his
clients with respect to the distress levied upon the plaintirs
goods for 1,30 a The defendants had no desire whatever to
take the money from the pockets of the plaintiffs, if they would
consent to abide by the order of the Vice-Chancellor, itiipoint.
ing the trustees as receivers. The minutes of that order had
in effect been rendered a demi letter, by the disobedience of the
plaiiithfs, and the consequence was the step which had been
taken by the defendants. The Learned Counsel felt satisfied
that he should be able to shew that the course taken by the
defendants had been perfectly justifiable-_a course which he
I must say the misconduct of the plaintiffs had brought upon
themselves. With respect to the question for the appoint-
ment of a receiver, he thought the case of the Hope Insurance
Company was precisely in point. The doctrine there laid
down was, that unless the party would ultimately be en-
titled to relief, no receiver ought to be appointed. With
regard to the main conaideration in this case, viz, the validi-
ty of the will, the Court had been informed that the de.
fendants had alleged that the instrument was a forgery, but
with the grounds upon winch the defendants founded that
allegation, the Court was wholly in the .dark. This opinion
so formed rested upon the following facts as they appeared
in the.answer. Mr. Wenyeve, the father of the testator G.
Wenyeve, died in 1801, leaving the present Mrs. Marie, his
natural daughter, a natural sun Cllr. Higgins), and two le ti.
mate children, Mr. George Wenycve and Miss Henrietta IVO-
yeve (now Mrs. Gamut)., Mrs. Manic had seen her present
husband previous to her father's death, and he had strongly
objected to the match. Notwithstanding this objection the
parties were married, and quitted Bretnam Hall, the
residence. The two legitimate children, George and Henrietta
Wenyeve. and Mrs. Wenyeve, the widow of the deceased, re-
sided at Bretnain Halls The father by his will had left
legacy to Mrs. Marrie of three thousand pounds, and left all
his real estates to his son George Weayeve. The father by
his will also appointed his nephew the Reverend W. J. Kets
rick, guardian over his two legitimate children, who were
at that time minors. The mother, Mrs. Wenyeve, died in
July, 1802, and Mr. anti Mrs. Marrie returned to Bretrani
Hall, and took poescsion of the house and property. They then,
wrote a letter to the Rev. Mr. Kerriek, putting an end to the
guardianship by that 'Gentl:trtan. This produced an answer front
the father of Mr. Kcrrick. concluded in strong terms, and emu-
plaining of the treatment his son had received. This was a re-
ply which seemed to have been expected, anti answered the
purposes which were intended,- for Mr. Marie immediately
assumed the guardianship of the children ; Miss Wenyeve was,
from that time down to the day of her marriage, completely
under the controul of Mrs. ;Marrie, and refused to do any thing
but with the advice and approbation of Mrs. 'Marrie. The.
P,l„,a,in, k possession of the whole property. and the two
cnitaren, ueorge and Henrietta, combined to live with theta.
At the commencement of the year 1111.1, Mr. Geo., Wenyeve
broke up his establishment at Bretnam Hall, and retired with
his sister to Harwich. in the October of that year he died,
and the fact was immediately communicated to the plaintiff by
his sister, Miss IVenyeve. Mr. anti Mrs. .Marrie hastened im.
mediately to Harwich, and Wenyeve, after her brother's
death, having at that time perfect confidence in Mr. Marrie,
delivered to him the keys of her brother's private drawers,
desk, and bureau. The plaintifn then left Harwich, and re-
turned with Miss Wenyeve to fireman Hall. On their way thi-
ther, they accidentally met an attorney of the name of .Lealte,
who accompanied them to Bretnam Hall. In the evening, et
about nine o'clock, Mr. heakerecornmeuded that asearch should
be made for the will of Mr. George Wenyeve. Mr. arrie Itn-
rnetliately conducted hint into an adjoining room, and unlock.
ing a bureau, which he had used for a long time for the cus-
tody of his own mass: took .front it a sealed parcel, which
was entitled " The last will of Mr. George Wenyeve." This
packet Mr. Lemke carried into the front room, and in the 'pre-
sence of the Flaintiffs and a governess in the family, opened
it, and found the will written on one sheet of post paper. By
this wilLtheaestator geve t a whole of his property, real anti
personal, to his sisters Henrietta Wenyeye, anti Mrs. Frances
Marrie, to be equally divided between them, anti upon their
death to be given to The aurvivor or survivors of them. Tile
will further provided, that in case neither of his sisters should
survive him, then that the whole- property should be given. to
Mr. Alarrie, who was to pay the Num of 20,0001. to Mr; Iligs
tins, the teetatoe's. natural brother. The instrument was
togned by three witnessea, blinritons, J. Linn, and Sarah
Buchan,' without the other formalities requisite to such a will.
The day after the reading of' the will, 31r. Leake auggested
that it might be.invalid, as there was no seal attached to it.
airs. alarm hearing that such a difficulty had arisen, said that
it roight.he obviattar in an instant, for site had a seal belonging
to George lirerlyeve.—The Loup GIIANCELLOII asked whether
it was stated in „the answer that a seal had been attached to the
will ?--saar. Hoerr replied, that it was stated neither one way
or the other.—Mr. alt Ax.o continuestiao state the principal
facts contained in the answer. These 'circumstances, connected
with the will:Of the testator, .were -sufficient to excite suspi.
cionin the mind of Mr. Iseake, and he advised Miss Wenyeve
to accompany him to London. ,This offer was, however, de.
clined, Mrs. Marrie hiving' advised her not to accept it. On
the Bth November following, the plaintiffs brought Miss Wen.
yeve to London, and took out tulnunistration of. the will. . 31r.
Leake hearing that OW thirties, were in London, arid fearing
that MIS. Marrie fhight exercise an undue influenee over .Miss
WenYtros went to a Mr. Bridges, a gentleman residing in ifed
bion-sqUare, and indttecd biro to salt on Alias lire/Vette to ac-
quaint bar of her real situationb.ut 11.1inrs.,41dridalisseaceicnogrdiliniilsyli
went ,to the plaintiff's house.,
Witlyeve Whe desired, he saw Mrs. Marie (Whom he took for
Miss
.Wenyeve). To Iklrs. s'a ferric he tanfortunetely told his
sentiments with' respect, to 'llllaa ,Wenfre'.4, and. the etinae-
quencet4 were what might have been etpected. Mrs. Mande
repmented him as a ficlul
The-LORD ClTAxettr:ouLNlThat, poor Bridget'?
Mr. II EALII repeated, that Mr. Bridgea had been represented
to Miss-Weityeve,-by-AlrA. Marie', as a fiend of 11-11,
The Lottl) CfitAXCELLOII,-i btlieVC poor Midges is much
tltili)."letEt .at I.tm n4;laitd°,4li'litft' sc'irtchcathr?'Bllll4l:::!!heto;trniPctit':!:•.*l:triiititgiesie
as fast
ahtetlctoeulidon, se that he wan vett' glad gielit2e;:nwhifiefit
imars again; miss 14'41, ydeevtee.fcMontiziltlietnliipt:le:nittZisnoi:::::ulsitiiiolen:
entirely under the controul of ;11?4. 3lartic,
she was merrier! to ,MT. CanitC,
thateen period the facts he had now detaileAt I.: 3M the answer had
b
stronediracea7zed, and the defendants allristat, from the declara...
Lions of the witnesses who had bean strained; that there wali
far believing the ihstrittvitiene: ak
‘wit.
tliliennea.tst:
be the true and genuine will of 3.1 r; WenYcve, but
.they believed that that p-oce viritiog was In .KOlllO material
wPaaTrstht:er'ill.P.s,...„aront.;n:i!celdillt:aettiss.%EtieLi:LeWtacblt:alrael:at..tql:Lierigt:3;; inthe
tillibruc'
es,
not
unieo thoy could be set Oside by proof
eTtittible ineutnbtanctqc
must be' appoint-
or their validity, ' he'aPtirehendo r"e.i'l'er obiervitioni had
taboo half the surplus, but upon the wh°l4 and being such
a
ed ; with rctitnect to the wa4 t 1131.7 s.tr6rtg.

- -
Mr. BOLLAND moved for a rule to 'set aside the verdict In
this case .which was tried at the late Assizes. The Learned
Gentlethan stated It was an action for disturbing a rookery
—(a laugh)—The declaeatien alleged that the plaintiff was
lawfully. possessed of a certain cline of land, on- which cer-
tain trees grew, to which a great:number of rooks were ac-
customed to resort and,come for the purpose of building nests
and rearing their young; that he was used and accustomed
to kill divers numbera of the said rooks, to the great antis-
faction and delight of the said plaintiff and his friends; that the
said defendant had with the noise of a gun, and the smell of
gunpowder, disturbed and 'driven away the said rooks, and
prevAted a thousand others from coming--(laughter)-_.w here-
by the plaintiff was deprived •of getting rooks in such plenty
and abundance as he otherwise might and would have done,
and of consequenceS was deprived of the profit and advantage
which would have accrued therefrom (a laugh); of course in-
cluding the pleasure he derived from hearing the said rooks
caw. (Laughter). Mr. flolland objected to these allegations,.
which set forth rho sufficient ground of action. The fact was,
the breed of rooks %yeti no public benefit, for the town was in-
undated with rooks' eggs, which were sold ax plovers, and with
young rooks, which were sold to the unsuspecting as young
pigeons (Laughter).
Mr. II IntatE Y, who wet for the plaintiffon the trial, said, it
had appeared in evidence that the eggs and young birds were
regularly sold as what they were. No fraud or deception was
practised.
'Loan JUSTICZ.--,The 'poulterers may know
them, but do their customers ?
Mr. •1101.1.aieli contended that the plaintiff had no interest
in the rooks,on which he could maintain an action for disturb-
ing them.
Mr. Jostle v.—lfas lie not an interest in the young
ones bethre th y are fledged P
! Mr. Bot.i.awp, said,. that there was no allegation that the
plaintiff was in the habit of taking the eggs or the young
oneit,.nor was it even alleged that at the tune of firing the
gun there were any young ones in existence. If this verdict
were allowed to stand, it would go the length of preventing.
any man in future from killing rooks or even sparrows, thr it
might with truth be alleged that sparrow pudding was a great
source of " satisfaction and delight" to anyether plaintiff and
his friends--(A laugh.)
The Loan Cuter Jus.ricz.—liiit here the declaration
avers, that the gun was fired for the purpose, maliciously
causing detriment to the plaina The animus was the quo*.
fion for the Jury. • •
Mr. 'not LAN n said, there could be no doubt that if any
person had got up a tree for the purpose of tekingthe eggs, an
action would have lain for the trespass in passing over the laud,
but not for taking tba' eggs. '
The COURT, .after consulting together, granted a rule to'
slim cause, but directed it to be put on the special paper for
argument, in Order that the Coitrt might have an opportunity
of discussing the question.

IV TUE IUATTIgn of ilEartlY MARV:Y.
CM T'TY moved for a rule to chew CAUSE why this per.
son should not be discharged out or the custody of Sheriff
of Middlesex, from a commitment de contuniare eapienek, by
.inif;cclesiastical Judge, under the authority of SX'Cleo.
c. 127, for refusing to obey a sentencettgaiust him for slander of
a married woman, in calling • bir`by—a certain opprobrious
name. The Learned Ctninsatook twoobjections to the xigni.
jitylvit, and commitment, first, that they did not spew, that the
slander alleged wits matter of Eccicsiastical cognizance; and
second, that the sentence was uncertain, inasmuch as it did not
state in what p*t of the Church, or for what length of time, the
offender was to stand in a white sheet. The, alleged offender
Wail an unfortunate colder, and had already enduieti a consider.
able length of imprisonnient'for his contumacy, in disobeying
the sentence of the Church. In.suppoit of his objections, he
cited the King v. Dogger, Barn. and Aid. Reports, S. C,
Dew], and Ityl.'s Reports, 461: •
The CovnT, after some hesitation, granted a rule Nisi.
Teti, XING V. TIM, I4Yotr, &C. OF FoWEV.
Mr. IV-VT.OE moved for a iiiandiwaus to the Mayor and Al.
dermen of. the borough of. Pony, in Cornwall, to proceed to
the 'election of a competent number of capital. Burgesses, in
order to fill up the number of nine Aldermen, directed by the
charter of incorporation. It WAS alleged that there were now
only four efitetive capital burgosscs, from. amongst whom,, by
the charter, the Aldermen were to be elected, and it was sup.
gested that it was the object of certain persons in the borough
to dissolve the Corporation by omitting.to fill up the vacancies
occasioned by death or otherwise.
The Co unT,..under the circumstances stated, granted a rule
to spew e:iusesvihY a 'mandamus should not issue to the Atayor,
L. commanding them to elect competent number of capital
burgesses, or to convene a meeting of,the electors, in order thlit
they might consider whether they .would or would not elect the
burgesses.

STORY V. LORD ATIIEHLM

Mr. eItOWTHVR moved fora rule to eheW cense why the
bad bond given by the defendant should not be delivered up
to be cancelled, on the groUnd that be was an Irish Peer, nod
protected from arrest by tiro Act lof Irish Union.—The Court,
however, wore of opinion that the defendant ought to plead his
privilege, and refused to cancel the -ball bound on motion.
SIR 11VDSON.1401VE anri BARRY (01EARA., ESQ.

I lIE KING v. G'ItIt.AIIA.
This case being called on, which was a motion for a criminal,
.nformation against o'.3lcara, for au alleged libel in a

work, coiled " A Voice Tram hit. Helena," end which mood
over front last er in , • -
Mr.i C.-Pim/mit (with. 14,110 M were Mr. PATTESOK And
ll~r.. WE NI w04,-pi) uPPeored for Mr. O'Meara, and that
his client had yielded to .the seggestions of his Counsel as to gist inexpediency of entering into the matters contained in the fill.
merous sifidaviieeliehich* had • been Ted in answer to thereat; Nisi obtained., hyl thy, proseetunr. ;Mr. 01,Meara'ettkntrisel had taken oponehernselves the, responsibility of dna advice, ingse hutch'as Sir HodsonLowe's Cotensethad withdrawn tiorn proceeding, anti proposed 'that dm ruleithould he dischargede
It being agreed thereterae,pnrall,liends,, that ,tll4 TU111,44104
be discharged, the qtteation now Was, whether it should't
dischargid with or without 'emits ? The Learned'Counielie.s.
lousiv contended that it :should be discharged -rouse to: e taxer .by the, Master "of ehe Crownotfice, considering tne.eree
cumstancee under,which the case had been presented 'to the notice of the Court. It woald 'be recolleteed that two.Terini
had eleiriede .aisti ten Grand Juriee had sat, herons Sir fludions, '"
Lowe ventured to make any coinplaint of injury to his clue.
ratter. The Court, when the rule was moved for, yerY
ally inquired whether there was any precedent for venting art' '
information where the pry secwor bade() long slititiliered4oier
his supposed injuries ? The Solicitnr.General rf‘pliO, that
he' knew of none, but took the rule. on condittati- that lie
should produce some authority for such, an apptictition:-;...'
It was understood that the Learned Solicitor WAS to 4ekSreh.fCPP •
precedents, and, if lie found mine, that the Rule was net to tee,
drawn up. But, notwithstanding thin condition,
vehiclflud not been performed, the Rule WAS served upon Mr. O'Maiiri;
i
therebyimposing upon him the necessity of that erica-moue
expence which be had incurred in procuring affidavits, in •
answer to the charge of libel. Confident; as Mr. O'itleera't Counsel were in the veliditvof the objection au to the "menet* of the application to the Court, still they owed a duty to the
Court, in requiring their client to prepare affidavits to Meet
the rule upon the merits.' Under these circumstAnces, fore:l
rn waed, as the Prosecutor's Ceensel heti beery of the necessity, of producing some precedent, and considering the enormoug expence which Mr. O'Meara had been obliged to incur, he
trusted that the Court would' consider his client us entitled ai
least to some portion of aloe costs, to which lie had been ea
unnecessarily put.
Mr. PATTESON and Mr. ‘VXMTWORTLI follOWed on 04
seine aide .
The Saractron.fle:re Lit AL said, the understanding
term decidedly eat, that Learned Friends should make
their elertion between entering upon the merits and allow.'
ing the rule to • he• discharged without costs, according
to the usual practice of the. Court. He begged to call then; Lordships' attention to the nature of the case. It wae true 'the original publication containing thelibel had taken place long' before his application to the Court ; but their Lordships would ,
take into consideration the repetition orthe line). That libet wsa
published in November, and his application to the t'oun was made in the following Term, so that even In the case of
gistrates he wee fully in time. lie admitted that nothing, had
been selected for prosecution in the last, which had not 4)),.
peered in the Original publication ; but a person situated as Sir'
H. Lowe was, might not at first have been aware of, the
extent to which the libel was likely, to circulate; he tatinhe
not have thought it worth taking notice of; but when lie. found:
it repeated over And over again—when he saw ft copied into tar
the Newapaperseand Made the subject of general conversation,.
he felt it his dutrto apply to that Court ,for redress. ,
Mr. Justice BEST asked if the Complainant's affidavit'cOn.
tamed statements to that erect ?
Mr. Pni [advs.—Not one word, my Lord. The work in
question had gone through four editions before Mr. Solicitor.
General made his applicatibn to your Lordships.
The Sonrciron.liEstg,RAte—SO, then, my client is to he'
libelled in four successive publications, and the repetition oldie
offence is to be pleaded as an excuse.
Mr. PHILLIPS.—DIy LOOS, Sir, Hndson Lowe does not
in his affidavit pretend to assert that the fourth edition con.
tamed one word, which was not to be fOund in the first. They
complain of a work published on the ilth of November, ac
which period they. must have been aware of its existence, and
yet they made no application to your Lonlehipe until the
Hilary Term following.
The SOLICITOR.GVNIIIIAL repeated, that his application
wet; made in the Term following trial in which the publication,
. took' place, so that even in the case of a Magtstrute he wo
' eterfectly in • time. Bits Learned Friend stated that the Courv.
had made a certain stipulation when he made his motion. lie
was not aware of any stipulation having been made. Their.
Lordships asked hitu if he could direct their attention to
any case as a precedent ? To which he replied that he want
not then aware of any such case. lle had been asked if ho
knew of any similar application made at a period, so distada'
from the commission of" the oill,nce ? To wit lel he answered, .
that he knew of no line drawn (sieve in the came of magistrates),
but understood it to be entirely at the discretion of the Court. •
Ile believed that in the case of the libel against, the lata,Cre,.,
press Catherine, the application was made more than two term,
after the publication.
Air. Justice Ilaxey observed that that might have been a
very different case, an Andeissuclor might have to await in,
structiotis from his Court. Here the complaint was of injury
to character; In such a ease 'the-Court *mild expect the corti
plainant to be so ler alive to his own cherarter as to apply'
promptly.
The SOLICITOII-OtNilItAL said, the' rule hail been
larged at the-request of his Learned Friend.
Mr. Pariguis said, the rule was enlarged by consent
I,laliter Term, and at that time the fiolicitor.Genecal knelt that
he had no precedents, and ought not to have, pot them to the, etrence of :sending to France .tierwitnesses. ' •
him. Sortie r r fallOWCd oil the same side with the Solicitor
General.
Mr. Priti.t.irs said, he was ready to give up the come if S!r
Hudson Lowe, would swear he had not Lead every Word of the
first edition oldie work in question.—(A laugh.)
The Cruets JUSTICE said, it was the practice of the Cotire
where a rude was discharged upon a preliminary objection, rim,
to allow costs, and hesaw nothing in the Present case to iniluec them to depart from that Tule...4lWe dischargea without costs!
The Court rose at balf..pest three o'clock. .

COLIItT OF COMMON PLEAS,' Nov. 7.
The Court was oc.cupied this day in /tearing motions of rid'
public importance. .-
The new Court was opened for the first time, and i,ll rritifit,
mmm ore coodious than the old one. The ri ikcciol, front tat
stained glass at the roof has a pleasing elect.
We iro,snrry to ~mite that Mc, -*Notice llicitardsott- Is Ada/ ,
prove/tied fromattentling, on aec.ountof severe indispos.itio:),,
The Lora Chief J ristice also appears to suffer much fitnn illziel.s.•
ttnEt.-EDVIARDS V. DELL.
Serjeant PELL moved the Court furl rule to chew cause viny
the verdict had in thil case for the defendant should not be ses
&tide and a verdict entered for the plaintiff.' . ' '
The original action had been fora libel 'published by the de,_ fentlant in The riPICS Newspotper, of which ho !tithe printerand_ ,' '
publisher, imputing to the platptitleertain words reachkingu
tbe.reputation of a young.ludy of irreproachable character. he. ~..
plaintiff is the minister of a eangregatien of Independent
..
scoters at Great Marlow, and the words. tilluded.,to vase...stated ' '-''
by the defendant to hay, been uttered by tbe,plikir4frwhilp.y
dressing-his congregation ; they were as fellow:—.' Its;4e,stirqe. ,
thing to say-whiAl have' of sayink fittliornbiltiusilt
rit,
relates to one of the teachers in the 40401; her tianwhij Ali ' •
Plink. I consider her conduct is a bail exavniiie;and 4 did
is
grace to thelehool, tir.c.. The defendant Meade& 'jtiatiff eatht
which juatiticatityt was, .that ,the words-iroputsd totht.' • Aiwa!" were delivered, not from " the puipit,"442glitek,ill.lh." . - to,/
eon, but from a " residing pew" m the'cliajitl: Tfte • 'jiitie'd Serje.ant' then. proceedell'io argue that, thcjastifieation;r, lien if,
true, was nqsuffieiciv.,-111ouon grarnttil,,•,,,, ...:. -• 't; .
41,0 j

IC '
vt• t ,
MELANCHOLY r ,LIDENT nY V illtOWO,(11(S.--titA
.
Wednesday last a iirphiiable accident happened to Illat.ter
' Kennersly, the son of a 'Yorkshire Ocattetuani who: is tit
, the Westminster Siehool, ,Whe,saholarat on. ()ay ti'aute's elsyt,
purchaied g quaiHitY oFlite-Wtiks, which they,wera_yrohir
toted from letting bit except' ori their own (ireen; Ut Liearti,..
Yard. A-tailor Wennersly, when they . weir using 'them *
held a TOMATA-Cantlic in his hand. wheet orlfurttinstel ,
y, u* :yo flew' front' it into his pocket, which wan tilled with crockers
rind other comhustAdesioll of -them instaratlytxploded;lo
clothes were liter4lol)llrned, oil; and his iiiitoind-ehllt, bur
,or#
in so dreadtuto manner tt his life hi consitered in clinger,
An express woo Wtotritly4nt olrto Ma father.' . The aline dory
Master Breslow itad AjnOi4,ll, idwin, two otto.choitirsi,in a
similar nianner 1n44.04#00, .glifteti luot firogitolyi, ad it
is teased thei williqc tustr'vap'l., , . :„.. .. .