The Sun.
London, England, 1812-11-27 00:00:00

' WILE KING V. EIGNOLD.

This was an application to the Barons of the
Exchequer in,behalf of two Societies established
at .Norwich, under the name of the Union Life
and Fire,Assurance Societies.
Is appeared that the Cominissioners of Assessed
Taxes had made their assessment on,the property
of these Societies on a scab, which they contend-
ed was by no Means proportioned -to the real state
of their concern. A representation having been
malls' by the Secretary' of the Societies, first to
the. Board of Taxes, and finally_to the Commis-
-siopers, a revisioic of' the assessment was Made,
hut the. Commissioners affirmed their.-former de-
termination. .

HoLuoyn endeavoured Shis day to shew,
by a statement of the affairs of the Society, that
I hey had been unfairly assessed, and he contended
that the Court had a power to coutroul the Com-
missioners, and reverse their decision.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL opposed the applica-
tion to quash the assessment; on the ground that
the Commissioners bad a power given them by
Act of Parliament; which did not admit of the in-
Orference of any Court in their decisions.
The CUIEF BARON, in giving judgment, ob-
. served, that the Legislature had made the deter-.
thimitions of • the Connnissitiners final. If the
Court was to consider all the decisions of those
Cominissionars, they could never get through one
tenth part of their business.
if.arons Gaan.vm, and WOOO, were
of the same opinion.'--Application retuSed.

COURT OF BENCH, Nov. £G.

THE RING V. BELL AND HARVEY.

Mr. SCAnLETT, Mr. BROUGHAM, iind Mr. WRAY,
sheaved cause agaiirt a rule nisi, which, had been
obtained by the SOLICITOR-GENERAL on a former
clay, calling upon the defendants 'to shcw cause
why a criminal information should not be filed
against. them for challenging and posting .Alr. Ed-

ward Parsons, merchant, of Lon-don. The pro-,
secutor's exHparte statement of this case will he
racollectgd, as reported when the motion was.
Made; and the defendant's Counsel now produced
affidavits of Mr. Bell, who is' also a mercantile
• man, and of his p.artner,' Mr. John Clarkson, in
answer to the prosecutor's affidavits. They stated,'
that the prosecutor, who is a Gentleman in years,
and of consideration 'in 'Batson's Coffee-house,'
loudly said to the defendant, Bell, in that place,
after the discussion of the mercantile dispute which
gave ris e to this. quarrel, '' I shall have nothing
further to say to you : your conduct is unlike that
. of a gentleman or a merchant,, in not answering
ily letters*; and I will have nothing further to do
-with you. ,If Mr. Clarkson. wishes to, speak -to
me, lam at his service." Upon this the de-
fendant asked for an explanation ; but the prose-
cutor replied With equal violence, • I have no-
thing to say to you : you have behaved like-any
thing but a gen,tleman." Upon the defendant's,
quitting the coffee-rooin, -the prosecutor called
out, '' You ought to be ashamed to shew your
face here ;-"-' upota which ,the defendant asked,
What is that you say, Sir 1." in a manner which.
might import a threat. The prosecutor then
called, " I'Vaiter,•turn this man out of the room :
be is going to make a riot." The defendant then
replied; " Now, Sir,- you've settled it."
The Learned Counsel attempted to reconcile
this statement with what had been deposed by
the prosecutor and his witness, who; it will be
recollected, Swore to the words "rogue, scoun
drel, and coward," as proceeding front the defen-
dant. The prosecutOr's affidavit, said Mr.
BROUGHAM, admitted that he complained of the
defendant's conduct„-and that be meant •to admi-
niSter to him a moderate rebn&e -for his unmet-,
'Candle. conduct ;' and neither his affidavit, nor
- that of hi-s. friend, negTtired the coUversation
Which was now sworn to have passed. The latter
•expreslly:said, that he -was- not near enough to
'hear the„wholea
The-SOLICITOR-GENERAL, in support. of "the
'rule, was ttopped by the Court.
Lord ELLE-siaokiouGn.Really it is, high time
• ,tfi put a stop to this spurious chivalry of. the
- compting-hbuse and the counter. The Court has
ken for these two days occupied with cases of thni
• yesterday it was an angry linen-draper of
kristol, who had been a little*time in the Local
Militia; long enough to imbibe all the worst preju7
dices of the army, that thought :proper to „post a
practising surgeon for not accepting a challenge ;
and to-day we have a, mercantile man in the
same predicament. Instead of posting their books.,
these tradesmen are posting one another: The
Court desires it to he understood, tbk it is not

necessary for the party applying for a remedy
against such an outrage as this, to come perfectly
unblemished before them.; and that if it shalt
be shewn. to bc necessary for public quiet and
justice, they will interpose the remedy sought
11 the challenge in bilis case had. been sent
co instunti upon the defendant's quitting the
>coTee-house, the Court would have contemplated
it as emanating from the venial irritation of the
'ruonmlt ; but-it appears that he at first applied
to, the pro,ecutor for an apology, upon the re-
fusal of ,which, his friend the other defendant,

LONDON: Peintod by TrIONIAS
At the -Sus OLFI

was sent upon this mischievotr and ' malignant
mission to the prosecutor, in the country ; and
then, because a man refuses to be hunted down
when dining out at a friend's house, and, chal-
lenged at six o'clock in the evening, he is to be
posted for 'a coward at Lloyd's Coffee-house the
next morning.----Rule abSolute.

PICCADILLY PAVING.

THE INHABITANTS OF WESTMINSTER V. THE COM-

MISSIONERS OF LIGHTING AND PAVING.

Mr. PARK shewed cause against the4i.tile ob-
tained
:in this very interesting case. A Rule has
been obtained, to 'slim cause why a Mandamus
should not issue, to be directed to the Commis-
sioners of Lighting and Paving, calling ou them
to enforce the parish, in whose district it might
happen, to repair the paving and roadway Of Pic-
cadilly. He had appeared on the , part of the
parish on a former Occasion ; and the Lord
Chief Justice (Ellenborough), was pleased to
allow time to- his clients, to ascertain whether
there were any' disposable funds in the posses-
sion of the parish,
:which could be appropri-
ated to repair ,the paving in Piccadilly. It was
now ascertained by all parties, that Cow. parish had
no " disposable funds" for such a purpose; but
as application was about to be made to another
'place (Parliament) for an extension of their means
of raising money, to (iable them -to make -such
repairs, he now, applied for the Rule Nisi to be
dismissed,, as that was understood to be necessary
revionsly to any. application being made to. Pa-
rliament.

Sir GAR ROW co 61,1 not but-consent to the
dismiSsat, as there were no funds-, and. as Picca-
dilly must remain in-its present" condition 'till le-
gislative authority was obtained for raisingg-1110re
money.

Liord ELLENBOUROUGH observed, that as such
was the case, the Rule must of course be dis-
missed.—Rule dischaiged.
The Court did not rise till after four o'clock.

NOVEMBRE 25.

THE KING V. JOHN HORNBROOK.

The defendant had beci found guilty, at the
last Devon Assizes, of libelling Mr. Carpenter, a
Magistrate, residing pt Tavistock, by sending him
a.privltte letter, charging him with bribery and
corruption, in the; exercise of his 'magisterial
functions. _

It appeared flint both parties resided at the
same place, the defendant being,a surgeon.
charge had been exhilAted by 4 young girl against
defendant, but on being put to her, oath she.
-swore that 'he had never taken any improper li-
berty with her. Some time aftetwards, however,
the Sallie;
.0-1, when in a state of pregnancy,
.again appeared before the same Magistrate, and
swore the child of which she was then pregnant
to defendant. Ilercupolfderendant seat the letter
to- Mr., Carpenter, which stated, that he must
have suborned the girl to proceed in this manner
for the sake of injuring his former friend:
Mr. Seijeaut PELL and Mr. BURROUGHS spoke
inl mitigation of punishment ; and Mr. JEKYLL,
and r. ADAm,, caked upon their Lordships for
an exemplary punishMent, on. the ground that the
Magistracy of the'County ought to be protected.
The defendant was sentenced to be confined in
the King's Bench Prison for''Si. Weeks. -