The Sun.
London, England, 1824-11-30 00:00:00

were to he shijsped for Dantsic. The motion was made upon
an affidavit of the plantiff, which stated that he was the inyen- •
tor of an improved gun-barrel, and that the King's patent had
been granted to him for that intention, by which the sole ma-
nufitcture of all such barrels was secured to him. The affida-
vit further charged, that the defendant had imitated the barrels,
and had manufactured several, and had fratylulently placed
Upon them a forged copy of the marl; by which 'Mr. Manton dis-
tinguished his own guns. Among others, the plaintiff had dis-
covered that there was at this time a case lying at the Custom.
house, containing three of such imitated barrels, each of them
bearing a forged copy of his own mark, and purporting to be
of his manufacture, which csso was consigned by the defendant
to certain persons at Dantsfe. The injunction of the Court was
therefore prayed to restrain the exportation of those barrels, and
to prevent the defendant from making any others in imitation
of Mr: Manton 's patent.
The VreE.CtlascEt.f.ou said, the injunction might be.
taken. The practice of the defendant was evidently a gross
fraud on Mr. Manton, and an infringement of his patent.
Mr. TRESLOVE said, the injunctiut prayed also that the de-
fendant might be restrained front obtaining possession of the
barrels at the Custom-house. - •

The l'icE-CuAlv'err.r.on thought this should be the object
of a separate motion, and that notice should be given of it ; all
the other parts of the injunction tk Court would grant ex.
parts.

COURT OF KINO'S BEnn, Nov. Qa.
IN TILE MATTEH OF HtIINETT.
fir. SCAHLETT was desirous of Addressing the Court rela-
tive to a report which had obtained eiretdation through all the
newspapmt,..that Airs {Chitty had obtained a Habeas Corpus to
bring tee the body of Sarah Barnett. Tl is lady was confined
in the'orril.of Su Wolk, by a sentence of the Ecclesiastical Court,
for contumacy.,.' She was alleged to be a :mimic, and there was
now an application for a writ of lunacy against her, which was
not yet disposed of by. the laird Chin :Mar. The report had
got into the papers in a manner calculated to asperse unjustly
the character of the husband of this lady.
Mr. Justice BAYLEY said, that the nution lead been made
before him. He certainly understood it to be a rule to show
cause why a writ of habeas Corpus shoultl not be granted; he
did not understand if to leave been appliel for upon
volumi-
nous affidavits. It wax granted upon tiled:feet of the specifi-
cation. - It should therefitre be confined to tie specification.
Mr. Scattuu-rr said, it!, was drawn up is if it were doubt.
ful whether the husband could be found, yet it was well known
that where he resided the rule was served on him last Friday.
The Lofty Cum' JUSTICE said, he did not know how the
Court could interfere. The ease was before the Ecclesiastical
Court, anti this Court had no jurisdiction in it.
Mr. CHITTY hoped that the justice anti generosity of the
Court would perm it. him to state the reasons which, induced him
to adopt the course he pursued. The lady had been three years
gaol • she had 'them undergone great privations and suffer-
hie's; :he was said to be a lunatic, but her own affidavit, on
which he moved, WWI in her own hand-writing. And at the
same time that he pointed out the defect in the specification, he
'also accompanied it with those affidavits, which, in the exercise
otthe discretion. that belongs to a gentleman of the bar, he
'thought he had a right to do, as the case was not an ordinary
one; :The voluminousness of the affidavits w. 5.4, occasioned by
supposing it necessary to support the affidavits of this Coot by
affidavits from-the Court of Chancery. In proceeding in 'this
case, he was fortified by the precedent of the case of the King
v. Maybee. 'lie had there obtained a similar rule under simi-
lar circumstances, anti succeeded in getting it 'referred to one
tirthe Judges in chambers. He trusted that this cast: might, in
.like manner, be referred to one of their Lordships.
The Lour) CHIEF JUSTICE said, that as he understood the
rule,its effect would be to reverse the sentence of the Ecclesias-
tical Court.

• Alt. (:tarry isinred the Court that it wintld not.
The Lott 4 GKtkt
oVSTICE said that at all events the
rule must be enlargrd ;Act the rule be enlarged for a week,
and let the miter be argued before any of the Learned Judges
at chambers ; if a reason for farther eularging should appear
neeessary. to the' Leannal *fudge, he can enlae3a it for *podia
week. . _

11r.Scantryr.said.titit if the Court enlarged it, he would
prefer it to be enlarged for a fortnight.
Mr; CHITTY suggested that a week was sufficient: The lady,
it should berecellected, had already been for three years and is
half in prison.
The Loup CHIEF JUSTICE desired that.the rule should
stand as he proposed it in the first instance; he would leave it
to the discretion of the Learned Judge to give further delay or
not, as he should find it expedient.
Rule enlarged for a week, and cause to be shewnin Cham-
bers.

•
THE KING P. JOSIAH TAYLOR. •
This, it will be recollected, was an indictment against the
defendant for keeping a common gaming-house to which there
watt a plea of antrsfais acquit. The prosecutor demurred to
the plea as insufficient in law ; and, upon argument. it was
holden bad. The question then arose whether the judgment
ought to be final, that the defendant be convicted of the offence,
or merely that he answer over to the matter of the charge. This
question was argued on a former day, and the Court took time
to consider of their judgment.
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE now delivered the judgment of
the Court. In this case, the prayer of the demurrer was merely
that the party should answer; but still it was the &trot' the
Court, notwithstanding the prayer, to give judgment accord-
ing to law. This was decided in "Le Bret and Le Britton,"
4 East, 403, and " The King v. Shakespeare," 10 East, 110,
and could not be doubted. In civil cases, there was a well-
recognized distinction between ideas in abatement and pleas in
bar. On demurrer to the first, the judgment was that the party
should answer over; but on the latter it was final. In civil
cases, also, when issue was joined even on a plea in abate.
hunt, and that plea was found against the defendant, judg.
ment also was final, anti the Jury who tried the issue must
assess the damages in the cause. On indictments for felony,
the rule was unquestionably otherwise. On these, it, was
holden that not only after demurrer, but after verdict on a plea
in bar, the judgment was merely that the defendant should
answer to the charge; and the reason given by Lord Hale and
all others fin this distinction was, that it was made in favour
of life. A plea of autrefbis acquit was not a plea in abatement,
but a plea in bar; and therefore the question was, whether, it
was to
.he assimilated to cases of felony, or to . civil actions:—
Now, in felonies, there was no distinction between pleas which
confessed, and those which denied the matter of the charge;
in both cases, the prisoner might answer over; and in both,
the reason given was in favour of life." At common law,
there was perhaps no felony, except petty larceny, for which judg-
ment of death might not be given there was no "Se of I°We'
meanor in which such jadmnemit could be given ; and therefore
.the reason of the nile, alwaysgiven as applicable to the former,
would not apply to the latter. As, therefore, the reason of the
rule did hot extend to misdemeanours ; as the opinion of Lord
Raymond was, that the rule did not extend to than; and as.
the case of the Duke of Devonshire, which alone could be
cited for the defendant, -was. not properly the case of a, plea
in bar, the Court thought that time rule applicable to felonies
did not include misdemeanor's; and consequently that the rule
must be final.
Judgment that the defendant be convicted of the premises In
the indictment was theTefore given.

THE EINE} v. GEOHGE HMllllllOl4', Ent,
Esq., to show cause why an information, in
This was a. yule obtained- by 31r. Wita.t.sms, calling on
George Harrison,
the nature of a quo warrant.° should not be tiled against him
us illegally exercising the functions of 314y0r of Chester. The
'objkction to Alt. fhnison was, that he was elected when the
majority of the aldermen . were :not present ; And the goegtion
was, whether, under the terms of the charter, the election
should be by &majority Atf existing• aldermon..or aunajority uP
such aldermen as happened to be present on the occasion.
Mr. scintiTT.
now
showed cause, . and contended that the.
hater construction was right. •
The Couto', however, thought the point too nice to be de-
termined on motion, anti made the rule absolute, that it might
be aitbjectrxl to limber inquiry.

LEGALITY 'OF POIJICE REPORTS.
, DUNCAN. V. THWAITZS.
The I,oIinCIIIEF./ITSTICk. liPltti the judgtnent of the Court
on this ease.- lie prefaced the judgment b..
observing that the
y
mit! had .been'argiled before the Judges at the sittings to oeto-
and that. the judgme.nt! must be Consideredas
proceating
from himself and his brothers Bayley and tfolroyd, as his bro.
tiler Little&lulled • eltstainetl'from taking a pm in the delibe-
ration, because he ball been culicerned when at the bar for one
of• the partici In the cause. De then .proteeded to state the
pleadings which were brought under the, consideration of the
Caurt on denturier.• The declaration contained a great num-
ber of COl/1114; settiog utit two alleged. libtir a, appearing in
the-McVay Herald of the 12th and lt3th of July, but divi-