The Sun.
London, England, 1823-06-19 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT. OF CHANCERY, JUNE 18.
COVENT-GARDEN THEATRE.
EONST v. lanais, KEMBLE AND OTHERS.
Messrs. JAMES and Twiss followed in this case for the de.
fence ; . after which Mr. HART replied at considerable length -
The Lon]) CHANCELLOR was firmly of opinion, that as
the deed of 1812. provided for the liquidation of schedule and
debts, that Mr. Coast could not complain that the defendants
had applied the profits of the discharge of the other debts in
preference to those mentioned in the schedule. He appre-
hended that, like all other partnership concerns, a majority of
the parties here could deckle on any general question of po-
licy ; and therefore, if all the other proprietors judged it expe-
dient to put an end the circulation of the daily accounts as
prejudicial to the interests of the theatre, they were perfectly
justified in so doing, although Mr. Const opposed the measure.
In ordinary partnership trades, however, a new partner could
not be introduced without the consent of the whole of the firm ;
but in the case of a theatre no such consent was necessary, each
shareholder being at perfect liberty to dispose of the shares he
might be entitled to, even in opposition to the wishes of the
rest of the proprietors ; still he conceived that the investing of
seven-eighths of the property which was previously in the hands
of several persons, in one individual, could not constitute in
such person any greater right; with reference to those entitled
to the eighth share, than was possessed by the parties who
made suet! assignment. His Lordship stated thaf the extreme
liability of Mr. Const, admitting that he did not possess any
pecuniary interest, perfectly intitled him to come into Court.—
He desired to be furnished with the bill, the deeds, and the
affidavits, in order that he might be prepared with his final
judgment on Tuesday.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, JUNE 13.
This being the, ast day of Term, the Cousrt sat until a late
hour.

• IN. THE MATTER OF DEAKELOCK.
This was'a miation, calling upon Mr. Blakelock, a respect-
able solicitors to shew cause why he should not answer the
matters of affidavits, which imputed to him, that he being
agent on behalf of certain petititioners in Parliament against
the return of Members to serve in Parliament for Lancaster,
had abandoned their interests, and accepted a bribe of 150/.
from the opposite party to neglect his duty ? The applicant
was Mr. Cawthorne, one of the unsuccessful candidates.
Mr. CAMPBELE and
.Mr. BROUGHAM now shelved cause
against, and Mr. SCARLETT and Mr. PARKE were heard in
support of the rule.
Mr. Blakelock, in his affidavit, positively denied the corrup-
tion imputed to him. A subscription of 900/. had been entered
into by the Freemen of Lancaster to carry on the petition, and
the money was placed in the hands of Mr. Johnson, the Country
Solicitor, for that purpose, and Mr. Blakelock was employed
by the latter as town agent. Mr. Blakeloek gave the usual
securities required by the Committee of the House of Corn-
' mons, for paying the expences of the petition, and had
actually advanced out of his own pocket about 151111/. In the
result finding that, Mr. Cawthorne, whO was the substantial
Petitioner was without funds to pay the expellee of the peti-
.tlon, which would cost 1500!. at least per week, an overture was
inadAioniAlie other side, and an agreement entered into, by
which it was arranged that the petition should be dismissed
as frivolous and vexatious, the successful party undertaking
not to demand cost's. The opposite party agreed to give ISM
to demythir.expence
s of :certain witnesses attending in Lan-
don, in support of the petition. Under these circumstances,
the qttektion Was,'whetlier any blarne,teat attributable to Mr.
Blakelock, who positively denied the corruption imputed to
him ? •

The COURT, after hearing the Counsel on both sides, dis-
charged the rule with costs.

THE NINO V. MEAD AND ANDTHER.
This was a hale obtained a few days 'since by Mr. J. Wtr..
31 bk fpra
afiiiiust di dilefendant for the wilful: murder of Mr. James Law,
certiorari to remove into this Court an indictment
who had been prosecutor in this Court in December last,, of
an indictment against Mead, for wilful and corrupt perjury,in
order that the defendants miht be tried either at the bar of
this Court or iti'sbme'other County, on the groOnd that they
were not likely to have a fair and impartial trial in the county
of York, where the alleged murder was committed, in conse-
quence itr ei.rn,in inflammatory statements, which appeared in
the Yerkshire•Newspapitis;and libellous papers distributed in
the City,of 'York at the last Assizes, tending to prejudice the
prisoners on their
Al% IF; JUN t:s, in en -able and learned' aignMent, now
chewed cause, and pointed out to the Court the insuperable dif.. &nicks which prevented a compliance with the desire of the
prisoners„ who had already pleaded to the indictment, and eon.
segnetitlyetnilit• net bti tried either at the bar of this Court or
in airy other County than that in which the alleged felonr Was
committc:d, without infringing established rules, and malting a
preeedent likely to produce great mischief in the administra-
tion ofjustio. On the part of the prosecutori he produced affidavits which purged. them from any share in those proceed-
ings which had led to this application.
Mr. J. WY/A:TAMS and 31r. A RCHBOLD. in ingenious ad-
dresses to the, ,Court, urged the impossibility of obtaining an
impartial trial. for. the prisoners in Yorkshire, in consequence of
the inflammaCnry publicationa which had been circulated in
that county. • .

The COURT expressed much difficulty in complying with
the object of the motion. in tile absence of all precedent. Ad-
milling the'force of the 'reasons which had been urged in sup-
port of the Motion, they thought the safest course was to re-
fuse the Application, trusting that in the county of York a jury
could, after the lapse of .live months, since which there had
been no repetition of the publications, be foUnd, by whom the
prisoners might have a fair and impartial trial. Better to
adopt this course than establish a precedent which might in
future times produce considerable mischief.—Rule discharged.

TUE ICING V. DOLBY.
The COURT gave judgment in this case against both
grounds which had been urged in support of the motion for a
new trial. The first objection was as to the mode in which the
jury-process had been issued; and the second was as to the
manner in which the tales be circupistantibus had been previ.
calmly summoned. Neither of these objections was tenanable in
the opinion of the Court, regard being had to the summon-
ingurors by the cammon law, and by the Statute 35 Henry
VIII. c. ii, and therefore they discharged the rule.

THE KING v. RILEY AND CLUTTERBUCKE, ESQRS.
This was a rule nisi for a criminal- information against these
'entlemen, Justices of Hertfordshire, for alleged corruption in
he discharge of their office, in convicting a person under the
Jame Laws. - _

Mr. SCARLETT now prayed to enlarge the rule until the
next Term, notwithstanding the anxiety of the defendants to
give a full answer to the Charge alleged against them.—The
rule was accordingly enlarged.

COURT OP COMMON PLEAS.
LAMBERT 1110D80if. •

This was an action of trespass and false imprisonment. The
plaintiff, with another person, had been a surety for an indivi-
dual, in a bail-bond to the Sheriff of Durham, and had been
arrested on account of a breach of the security by the principal.
The plaintiff settled the cause, the: defendant afterwards de-
lained hitii for the fees of the arrest, and he was obliged to
Pgive a note for the payment of those fees; after which the de•
endant permitted him to go at liberty. The case was
tried at the last Spring Assizes for Durham, before 111 r.
Justice Bayley, and. the Jury gave a verdict for the plain-
tiff, • and aasessed the damages at 395. The Learned Judge
reported that he thought the action was very ill adVised, but he
was of opinion that the Special Pleas did, not cover the whole
imprisonment. However' as the Jury had given a verdict for
less than 405., his Lordship had certified to deprive the plaintiff
of costs. • If the imprisonment for the fees was a new impri-
sonment the plaintiff might maintain the action, but If it was
merely a continuation of the first imprisonment, a verdict was
to be entered for the defendant.

Their Lordships were of opinion that the imprisonment was
only in continuation of the original arrest, as the parties had
never for one moment been separated, and the verdict was
therefore entered for the defendant.

SHERIFFS' OFFICE, RED LIOI.t-SQT,TARE.
LIBEL.—BAYLEY V. AMPIILETT.
This was a writ of inquiry to assess damages arising out
of an action for Libel in the Court of Exchequer, and is which
the defendant had suffered judgment to go against him by
default.

Mr. BROUGHAM stated the case. The plaintiff had been a re.
spectable tradesman of Staflbrd, but becoming embarrassed had
been obliged to relinquish his business, and had since acted as
Sheriffs' Officer. The defendant was the printer and publisher
of The Stnibrdahke PoLteryGazetle,in which the Libel had ap.
reared, and which arose out of the following circumstances the town town of Staflbrd had been thrown inn; a ferment by the
active but irregular proceedings by which a Mr. Cooke had en.
deavoured to obtain possession of the Stafford Barony; to which
he laid claim, and which is at present in the possession of Sir
George Jerningham. In these
.proceedings the plaintiff had
been employed, and hence had given offence to the partisans of
the Jerningham family. The defendant had thought fit to pub.,
lish in the newspaper edited by him a song and note, forming
the libel now complained of.

The Newspaper was here put in, and Mr. Brougham read
from it the following extracts :

Worthie; who compose the family of this lordly
- Cooke, Sir,
First on the list is Humphrey Bayley*, soon to be a Duke, Sir;

Duke Humphrey ! so renowned of old, again In. fame shall
-- shine, Sir •
A likely Peer to ask the Baron and his friends to dine, Sir."
" • Humphrey Bairlg, a noted common informer, who has
been so long employed in the bouncing trade as to be incredible
on his oath."
Mr: BROUGHAM resumed—The Jury would perceive this
to be-a
-case of libel in which the grossest attack had been made
on his client's character—that after having been held up to de.
rision in the song, he had been vilely calumniated in the note,
and he now called upon them to give such damages as in their
opinion the case required.
Mr.PEARSONi on the behalf of the defendant, urged that the
plaintiff had, by associating himself with the Cookes in their
lawless proceedings, exposed himself to animadversion ; and
that the defendant could have had no intention beyond that of
preventing Cooke and his associates' from continuing their e*-
tortions upon the tenants of the Stafford Barony; he therefore
trusted the Jury would give no more than nominal damages.
After the UNDER SIIERIFF had summed up, the Jury re-
tired, and in about: half an hour returned into Court and gave
their verdict—Damages, Ten Pounds.
RAYI.EY V. SMITH.
This was an action brought by the same plaintiff against the
defendant, who is a newsman residing in Stafford, for selling
copies of the Newspaper containing the above libel.
the defendant bad
.suffered judgment by default.
The Jury returned a verdict—Damages, One Shilling.