The Sun.
London, England, 1823-11-29 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

• COURT OP CHANCERY, Noy. VI,
LAST DAY OF TERM.
The LOllll CITAiiCXLLOR WM engaged this day in hearing
several short cases, some of which had already been partially
before the Court. No ease was mentioned during the day, of
any public interest.

TICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT, Nov. 20.
sticit v. TUE GAI-LICIIIT AND COLN ectsmseeir.
Mr. Sumner moved for an injunction to restrain the de-
fendants from selling or otherwise dimposing of four shares In the
stock of the company. The substance of the case, as stated
by the Learned Counsel, was as follows :—The plaintiff, Sir
George Rich, of Dublin, was originally the proprietor of
twenty-six shares in the Company. On the 7th of March,
10111, the Company determined to raise a second capital, And
the subscribers Were (Ailed upon to pay 101. upon each of their
respective shares. Notice of this proceeding was sent to Sir
George Rich; in Ireland, and that gentleman immediately
remitted 200/., the amount of the subscription upon his 20
shares, to Mr. Cockerel', the treasurer of the Company.—
The letter in which this money was enclosed never reach-
ed Mr. Cockerel!, a person named Pedder, who was the se-
cretary and solicitor of the Company, having possessed himself
of it. Pedder wrote to the plaintiff, and informed him that
Mr. Cockerel' was out of the way when the letter arrived, in
consequence of which he had Opened it, and applied the
money in the way which the plaintiff desired. Sir George
Rich being in the habit of communicating confidentially with
Pedder, was satisfied with this statement. It appeared, how-
ever, on inquiry being subsequently made, that Pedder had
pate aaar owe. ;..tea bonus of the company...tr....rot, in
consequence of which two of the plaintiff's shares became for-
feited, the subscription upon them not having been paid within
the time prescribed. The Company at length discovered thet
the confidence which they had placed in Pedder had been alms-
ed. This circumstance having come to the knowledge of Sir
George Rich, he naturally felt some alarm, and wrote to the
Company to know the state of his accounts. Sir t leerge re-
ceived a letter from the secretary, which, to his great surprise,
informed him that his 2t shares were forfeited,: because is new
subscription which had been called for upon them had not been
paid within the limited time. Sir George Rich represented to
the Company. that he had never received any notice of the In-
tention to raise a third subscription, and that therefore his
shares were not liable to forfeiture. 'file Company, however,
persisted in the determination which they had expressed, and
actually sold 20 of the shares which the plaintiff claimed. It
was to prevent them from selling the remaining four shares that
the present application was made. The Learned Counsel, in
the course of his address, attongly censured the conduct of the
Company towards the plaintiff.
Mr. 11 o RYE, who appeared for the defendants, expressed
his regret that his Learned Friend should have indulged in any
unmerited abuse of the Hon. Company, for whom he (Mr.
Horne) appeared. He could assure his !gamed Friend, that
the Company had no wish to press any thing harsh agnint his
client. The Company had certainly acted as if the shares of
the plaintiff were forfeited, anti how, he would wish to know,
could they act otherwise P They hail been deceived by Pedder,
and it was not attempted to be said that there had been any
direct communication between them and the plaintiff: They
entertained no doubt that the plaintiff had been served with
the proper notice, but they were not at present provided with
proof of that fact. He would only repeat, that the Company
would cheerfully submit to any order which the Court might
think proper to make.
Mr. WRAY followed on the same side.
The VICE-CliaarcEt.r.oit said, that the Gentlemen who
had appeared for the Company in that Court had fitted
with the utmost temperance and prudence. He regretted
that on the other side there had been any thing like per-
sonal reflection thrown on the Members of the Corporation.
Personal reflection should at all times be avoided in a Court, but
particularly in that. In another Court. it might be employed
for the purpose of working on the feelings of a Jury ; ut to
think of exciting the feelings of a Judge, whose duty it was to
decide upon a mere abstract question of property, was absurd.
—lt did not appear to him diet there had been sufficient negli-
gence proved against the Company to justify any hostile ani.
madversions on their conduct. With respect to the point to be
decided, he felt bound to say, that lie must grant the injunc-
tion, because there was not evidence that the plaintaliad re.
ceived the notice which would have enabled him to prevent the
forfeiture of his shares. It was evident, however, that the
Company supported that the plaintiff hed received the necessary
notice. Roth patties had been deceived by Pedder.
Mr. StIODEN remarked, that the observations which he had
used in opening the case would not have fallen from him had
the Company met the case out of Court as they had within it.
But he was resolved to exercise his discretion, subject to the
direction of the Court, as to making such observations as he
thought proper. An advocate was often compelled to make
remarks which were painful to his own feelings. He had felt
the less regret in pursuing the course which he had adopted
that day, because his observations were directed against a body,
and not a particular individual.
that the Court could not
The VICE•CHANCELLOK said,
prevent Counsel from making what observations they thought
fit ; but it was dttsimus that they would avoid such as were not
necessary to the cause.—The injunction was issued.

COURT 0?' KING'S BENCH, Noy. 18.
THE BOROUGH OF MONMOUTH.
Mr. SOLICITOR-0101E11AL on a former day obtained
Rule, calling upon certain burgesses of the borough of Mon.
mouth to shew by what authority they exercised the office of
burgesses for that borough. The questions to be sledded were,
first, could the burgesses elect any person not nominated by
the Common Council; and secondly, if they could, was there
sufficient notice given to all the burgesses previous to the elec.
Lion of the persons against whom the gnu warrant° was prayed
for.

11.1eASHI.SCART.tTT,DICHMAN,CAMPIIELL,and BROUGHAM
this day chewed cause against the Rule'
Mr. So taczTOU-GENERAL was about to address the Court
in support of the Rule, when he was interrupted by the
LOUD CHIEF JurncE, who observed, the Court enter-
tained so much doubt upon both questions! as to think them
fit for the consideration of a Jury.—Rule matte absolute.
THE LATE MURDER.
lIWv. EDGERLEYI AND SUIRWOOD AND JOlrrai
On..a former day Mr. CHITTY obtained a rule calling upon
the defendants, who are publishers and booksellers, to ahoy
cause why a criminal information should not be filed against
ale Magistrates at Hertford, upon a
them for publishing A pamphlet, Purporting to be a detall.of
the evidence taken by

charge of murder preferred against John Thurtell and others,
and also purporting to be a detail of the circumstances con-
nected with the murder of Mr. lireare.
Mr. SCARLETT applied on behalf of Sherwood and Jones,
that this rule be enlarged as to them. The application was
grounded upon the affidavits of the defendants, who swore that
the rule was not served until Wednesday evening, ;that they
resided at.liolloway, and did not receive the rule until yester-
day, and consequently there was not sufficient time for:Prepar-
ing affidavits and for submitting them to the consideration of
Counsel. The affidavits went on further to state, that as soon
as the deponents knew from the newspapers that a rule'for a
criminal information was obtained against some other persons
for publishing the evidence before the Magistrates, a stop was
put to the sale of this pamphlet.
Mr. GuItNEY, on the part of the prosecution, did not object
ttYthis application, and the rule was enlarged to next term AS to
Sherwood and Jones, upon their undertaking that no copy of
the pamphlet should go out of their possession.
Mr. COMMON SERJEANT, for the defendant Edgerley,
made a application, but which was not acceded to. The
Learned Counsel then proceeded to chew cause against the rule.
lie first contended that the person who made the offidiudt (10
not, .%),94, the face 444 afte l ,hatt 'be-led:Any conneetion with
the cause, or that he was a person able to pay costs. The do-
ponent was merely stated to be the clerk of .1. Penton, of Airs-
tin-friars, Gentleman.
Mr. Justice BAYLEY—Yes, but we know Mr. Fenton is the
Attorney of the accused.
Mr. Comstox SECTE.LY'r submitted, that that fact should
appear upon the face of the affidavits. He also put in the affi.
davit of the defendant, stating that he was very poor, and was
willing to give all the copies in his possession.
Mr. GultriET was about to address the Court in support of
the rule, when he was interrupted by the
Lotus CHIEF JUSTICE, who observed that this rule must
be made absolute. If it were a case of an ordinary description
it would fall within the Common Serjeant's objection ; but this
was a mote affecting the due administration of public j ith ustice, and the deponent was thetefore sufficiently connected wit to make
this application.—llule made absolute.
TIIE KING RICHARDSON%
This was an indietment ugiiinst the defendant for unlawfully
and irreverently breaking and entering the Parish Church of
Knebworth, in Hertfordithire. The defendant was convicted
at the last Assizes for that County before Mr. Baron Graham.
Mr ADOLPHUS and Mr. PLATT prayed judgment.
Mr. BOLLARD appeared for the defendant, but the Court,
under all the circumstances, directed the defendant to go before
the Master of the Crown. Office.
1111 i STAFFORD PEERAGE.
TEE KING OY THE PROSECUTION or stn GEO. JERNING.
HAM v. syarro RD COOKE, AND OTHERS.
Mr. TAL n Foun moved that the plea of Richard Stafford
Cooke, one of the defendants in this case, might be quashed.
It was an indictment against the defendants for a conspiracy.
All the defendants except R. S. Cooke had pleaded the general
issue 'hut the latter had pleaded in abatement, that at the time
of finding the inquisition his style was that of Lord Stafford,
Baron StaffOrd, and that he was entitled to take such title as
owner of the Barony of Stafibrd, tke. The Learned Comm), submitted that this plea was bad for not stating that the de.
fendant had any privilege or patent, for which he cited- several
authorities.—The Couto. granted a rule to shew cause.
TIIE KING V. JAMES (MARSTON.
Mr. Ariotratis prayed for the judgment of the Court upon
the defendant, who was convict:3l in May last. for an assault
upon B. Stanley, beadle of the Court of Requests for the
Tower Hamlets, whilst in the execution of hit duty.
There were no affidavits on either side.
The defendant said he understood last term that he was to be
discharged on his own recognizance. He did not consider that
the prosecutor was in the execution of Ins duty when he came
to Ills premises, where he used very gross and disgraceful kn.
guage. lie had put him (defendant to a great and unneces.
sary expence by removing the case by certiorari into this Court,
which be had done in pursuance of a threat he had uttered to
run him (defendant) to a ruinous expence.
Mr. ADOLPHUS spoke in aggravation, and said, he was not
aware of any inconvenience incurred by the Defendant, which
he had not brought upon himself by his own misconduct. He
was the proprietor or a stove and grate manufactory, and it
appeared that there was a combination amongst all the persons
engaged in it, to resist the execution of the law.
Mr. C. PHILLIPS said, he was but just come into Court,
and was much surprised at this application, as it was understood
both by his client and himself last term, that the defendant war
to he discharged both upon entering into his own recognizance.
The COURT sentenced the defendant to pay a fine of 401.,
and give security to keep the peace for three years, himself in
1001., and two sureties in 50/. each.
The defendant said he was not able to pay a fine of 401,, or
40s.

, Mr. ADor.PHUs said he understood that the defendant had
parted with his business, but he was not aware that-there was
any appearance of poverty about him.
The COURT intimated to the defendant that they would al.
low him to retire and make an affidavit, under Mr. Phillip'a
direction as to his ability to pay a fine.
The defendant accordingly retired with his Counsel, and
upon his return gave in an affidavit, in which he swore that he
was without the means of subsistence for himself, his wife, and
his children ; and was extremely sorry for the offence of which
he had been guilty.
The Co onT, taking the circumstances stated in that affidavit
into consideration, .said they would forbear parsing any other
sentence upon him than that he should enter into his own re.
cognisance of lOW. to keep the peace for three years.
TIIE Ellin V. THOHsObr.
In this case, which was an indictment against the defendant
for perjury, a rule was obtained by Mr. C. F. Williams, call.
ing upon the prosecutor to show cause why the indictment
should not be quashed, for not having set forth the defendant's
addition after his name.
Mr. WII.DE was proceeding to show cause, when
The CounT Observed, that the indictment might be quash.
ed upon the defendant excepting by his proper name and ad.
dition I for then the Court would know what his addition was;
but he not having done so, they ordered the rule to be discharges!.
THE XING v. TIIO3IAS THURTELL.
411*. CHITTY said that in the case of the prosecution at the
instance of the County Fire-office against Thomas Thurtell, for
a conspiracy, he was instructed, on behalf of the defendant, to
move the Court for a writ of certiorari, to remove the indict.
ment from the Middlesex Sessions into this Court. This in.
dictment was preferred in consequence of an action brought by
Thurtell against Mr. Barber Beaumont, -as managing director
of the County Fire-office, to recover the amount of an insurance
upon goods alleged to have been destroyed by fire on his
(Thurtell's) premises in Watling-street. The trial took place
in the Court of Common Pleas, and the Jury returned a verdict
for the plaintiff. In the present term, a motion had been made
for a new trial, which was granted
The LORD Come...lnartia:.—On what ground do you
move for the writ?
Mr. CUITTY.—On the ground that Mr. Barber Beattmont,
the managing director of the office, is a Magistrate ter The
County of Afiddlesex. Another of the ,Magistrates for the
same county, whom it is unnecessary to mention, is also a ma.
!tithing director. Now I have an affidavit, which states that
.%Ir. Beaumont caused to be inserted in Th. Times newspaper
of the 224 instant, a paragraph, in which it was asserted that
Thomas Thurtell had declared he never had any property at
all on the premises in question. This assertion is denied by
five persons, in which denial the assignees of the bankrupt have
joined.
The Loup Cuter JUSTICE.—Does the affidavit allege
that this statement appeared in The Times by Mr. Beaumont s
authority ?
Mx. CHITTY.—It does, my Lord.
Court.—Take your writ.
The COURT having gone through the *hole bar, and dis-
posed of all the motions which were not of length, rose at half.
past six o'clock; when the usual proclamation upon the close
of term was made.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Nov. 28.
SHAM PL tB.
In the case of Sham Pleas, which came beforet he Court
yesterday, Mr. Justice PARE referred to vivo cases for the in.
formation of the liar. The first was that of Maley v. Prutne,
where the Court allowed the judgment for the defendant, plead-
ed accordant satisfaction, by the transfer of Rigo hemp and
Russia tallow. That case was determined when the Chief
Justice was absent. The second case was that of Alerrington
v. Becket, which was decided in the last Trinity Term. In
that case the defendant's attorney pleaded accordant satifac.
tion, and the Chief Justice said that to call upon the attorney
to chow cause why he had put such a plea upon the record,