The Sun.
London, England, 1824-11-25 00:00:00

ULAKEMORE L. i3LAMOROANSUIRE CANAL.

A 4 order had been. obtained by the plaintiff to restrain' the
Company from widening and deepening the canal, which they
had proceeded to do, notwithstanding, by elevating the banks ;
alleging, in their affidavits, that they had not added to the depth
or breadth of the water.

Mr. HEALD now moved for the commitment, for contempt
in breaking the orders
The cue was opened at some length, but the LORD
CUANCELLOR was obliged to postpone the hearing, because
of hiving to attetyi the adjourned consideration of the Recdrder's
Report elileyttlit*,,

VICE-CHANCELLORS COURT. N0v.24,
The VICE-Cu ANCELLOR beard arguments on pleas And de-
murers, none of which. were of public interest.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, Nor. 24.
An internal of twenty minutes elapsed after the conclusion Of
Mr. Broderick's argument, before either of the Learned Judges
entered the Court. At the expiration of this period, Mr. Jug..
Lice BAYLEY took his Seat on the Bench, to hear short motions,
intimating that the other Judges were only waiting until such
motions were over.

1111% CHITTY moved for a writ of habeas corpus', on behalf
of a lady, who had been confined for three years and a half in
'lpswich gaol, under a sentence of the Ecclesiastical Court.—
She had been sued by her husband for # restitution of conjugal
rites, on Which judgment was giVen that she should "go home
to her husband." The significavildid not specify any .place of
residence to . which she could resort ; and as, the husband had
no known or settled domicile, she was unable to comply with
its terms and was consequently committed to prison. Her case
was one of peculiar hardship. She was married in choicer
1814, and brought her husband a fortune of 20,0001., a very
small portion of which only was settled on herself. In a very
short time, that fortune was swept away by executions,' and she
was reduced to poverty, and during her imprisonment had been
dependant on the gaol allowance for subsistence.
. Mr. Justice BAYLNY—fs not all this rather 'flitter for the
consideration. of the Ecclesiastical Court than foreUrs? •
Mr. CHITTY admitted that it was; ard grounded his motion•
on the defect atilt! signiticavit in omitting to particularize the
home to which die Lady was to repair. • • •
Mr. Justice 13AYLaY, upon.thts ground, granted a rule.to
show cattle why the writ should not issue.
In a few minutes, the Loxes entices juSTICE and Mr. Jut.
tic: LIT TLEDALE took their seats on the Bench, and. the
Court proceeded to the consideration of rules for new trials.
At two o'clock the LOUD CksEr JIISTICY withdrew to it-
tend the. Council. . •
••

TILE EMU. OF ESSEX V. HARVEY COSIUE, ESQ.
This was an action of trespass, by Lord Essex, against Mr.
.Combe; the proprietor of the Berkeley fox-hounds,for hunting
on his estate, which was. tried at Hertford. The. defendant
Pleaded licence; and supported that plea by producing certain
letters.. to raise an implied permission to sport. The Lord
Chief Baron, who tried the' cattle, handed the letters to the
Jury, Ivlto found upon them a verdict for thedefendant; which,
in the opinion of the Learned Judge,' the documents would not.
justify. A rule was obtained in a previous term, on the behalf
of the Noble Earl,,to chew cause why the verdict.shpuld mot be
set aside, and a nevitrial granted.
Against this rule Mr. HOLLAND and Mr. LaWnow sheaved
cause. They urged that Ole letters were properly submitted to
the Jury ; that the conclusion drawn by thetn•was not unwar.
ranted by theovideuee t. and that, as no question of right was
at issue, and the damages mild only be nominal, tba...Court
would nut encourage further fftigation and expence by sending
the case to another trial.

111r.A.saoLPft :i;n4:slr.BstotiEnicit,in support of the rule,
urged, that there really, was nothing in the ease to go to the
Jury except theadiount of damages; that the verdict was un-
supported by saw, and contrary to the opinion. of the Learned
Judge who,tried. the cause ; and that it was impossible for the
Court to say that the damages would be merely nominal in a
ease so nearly affecting the repose and comfort of it Nobleman
in his own domain.
The Collin' said is was perfectly clear, that any proprieter
had a right to exclude all strangers from his lands; but he
might give a qualified licence, accompanied by a qualified pro-
hibition ; and this seemed to be the effect of Lord: Essex's
letters. It appeared that the noble Earl intended to forbid the
htint from drawing a - fox in his preserve, but not front follow_
in the fax through them when found--a distinction perfectly
well known to sportsmen, The Court, therefore, could not
say the jury bad done wrong, and must discharge the rule.L—
The rule for a new trial was therefore discharged..