The Sun.
London, England, 1824-05-10 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF RINGS BENCH, MAT B.
THE RING v. _COOKE.
Mr. CAMPBELL moved for arule to show cause whythe de-
fendant, Richard Stafford Cooke, should not be permitted to
amend his plea of peerage, which he had put in by way of plea
in abatement to the indictment for conspiracy preferred against
him and others at the instance of Sir George Jerningham. To
this plea the prosecutor had demurred, because it did not set
out any writ or patent of creation, or any summons to Parlia-
ment, but merely stated that the defendant was Lord Stafford,
Baron of Stafford, and did of right enjoy that dignity and
title. He trusted that he should be able to support the plea in
its present form, because there was a statute, of which he
should contend the Court would take judicial notice, and which
recognized the existence of the dignity which was the subject
of claim. To obviate all doubt, however, and to avoid a dis-
cussion which must of necessity be long and laborious, he now
craved leave to amend, by setting out that pedigree from the
Duke of Buckingham, attainted in the reign of Henry VIII.,
which he was able conclusively to establish. In the reign of
Edward VI., this attainder was reversed, and Henry the son
of the former Duke was restored ; not, indeed, to all the ho-
nours which were borne by his father, but to the estate of
Baron of Stafford. From this nobleman Mr. Cooke was li-
n .ally descended, anti to his titles would he succeed, but for
.11! attainted line of whom Sir George Jerningham was the re-
r.!sentative, and who, as he contended, could not inherit.
'They derived their claim through the Lord Stafford, who was
beheaded in the reign of Charles 11.
Mr. Justice BAYLEY----And you contend that, but for the
priority of that line, you would succeed ?
Mr. CAMPBELL..--.Yes; and we farther contend, that the
blood of that line being corrupted, they are civilly dead, and
our claim stands as though they had no actual existence.
The LORD CitrEr JUSTICE.—This is a plea of misnomer
merely, which could produce nothing but delay; because, if it
succeeded, the defendant would still be tried by a Jury. Do
you know of any instance in which the Court have allowed an
amendment of such a plea ?
Mr. CAMPBELL.—I do not, my Lord, and the cases are
certainly, as far as they apply, against the amendment ; but
those are all cases of civil actions : and here is this reason for
the amendment--that the prosecutor has caused a delay by ob-
taining a rule to quash the plea, which the Court refused to
make absolute.
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE.—Here has been a co-defen-
dant tried in the mean time ; so that by pleading this plea you
have put the prosecutor to the expence of two trials. This is
a plea merely for delay, and as there is no precedent for the
amendment of such a plea, I think we ought not to make one
on the present occasion.
Mr. Justice BAYLEY.—I think especially we ought not to
allow the amendment of a plea, the effect of which has been to
occasion the expenc'e of two trials.
Mr. Justice HOLROYD concurred ; and accordingly the mo-
tion was refused.

BYRNE V. PARKINS.
Mr. Parkins, after the bar had moved, and when only the
Lord Chief Justice and Mr. Justice Bayley remained on the
bench, rose at the back of the Court, and adverting to an ima-
tion previously given by his Lordship that they would not
hear any more motions for new trials, expressed his readiness
to postpone his motion, if such should be the pleasure of the
Court.

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE said, that unless the case were
very urgent, they would prefer its postponement to a future
day.
Mr. Parkins stated that he must probably occupy a cons!.
derable time, and therefore he would postpone his motion.—
He wrote the name of the case down in the paper, and said he
would attend on 31onday.
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE said, that as there were nearly
30 motions for new trials, he would be in time on Tuesday or ,
Wednesday.

CONSISTORY COURT, DOCTORS' Commoms, MAT 8,

BARNARD V. BARNARD.

Dr. LUSHINOTON prayed the Court, that a citation might
issue; it was a suit promoted by the husband for a divorce, by
reason of adultery. The parties were resident in Van Diernan'e
land since the year 1822, and proceedings were pending in the
Court of. that Colony against the person who had committed
adultery with the wife. The Learned Doctor cited a case in
which he was concerned in 1820, where one William Bland, a
surgeon in the navy, had been convicted of murder, and his
sentence was commuted to transportation, and while abroad he
married the daughter of a settler, who having committed adul-
tery there, the husband obtained a divorce by the sentence of
this Court.

Sir CHRISTRPHER RODE...NON considered the case cited a
sufficient precedent, and decreed citatioii.

BALL V. BALL.

This was a suit proinOted.by Sarah Ball against her husband,
George Ball, for a separation, .by reason of adultery committed
by him with Ann PenoYo4.4. niece.—The principal witness in
proofof the addultery was a Servant named Mary Bristow, who
deposed that she hml -itcen"ilie parties in the act of adulters
through the key-hole. On this evidence the case stood over for
hearing on the 16th.of Febritary last : since then Mary Bristow
made an affidavit on the.ath of May instant, stating, that the
deposition she had made in the cause was false ; that she had
not seen any act of adultery committed by the said George Ball
and Ann Penny, and that she had been induced to make her
former depositions by the solicitations and procurement of the.
said Sarah Ball.
Doctor JENNER and Doctor LUSIIINGTON, on the part of
the prorneler of the suit, contended, that the affidavit of i%iary
Bristow, contradicting her depositions in the cause, shouhinot
be received, as there was great probability that she had been
tampered with on the part of the husband.
Doctor BARNABY and Doctor PHILLIMORE contended, that
the affidavits should be received, as there were many precedents
for receiving affidavits of witnesses contradicting the depositions
in the cause.

NSON said, it was an extraordinary
Sir CHRISTOPHER ROlll
proceeding on her part. All the facts of solicitation and in-
ducement must be specified in the affidavit before the Court
could receive the allegation.