The Sun.
London, England, 1833-11-07 00:00:00

DREW V. NEWTON.

In this case, which was an action on a promissory note,
in which the plaintiff was nonsuited on the Statute of Limi-
tations, an application was madeto get the nonsuit
and to have a new trial, upon several circumstances which
took (according to the argument of Mr. Pollock) the case
out of that statute.
The COURT thought the subject was deserving of fur-
ther consideration and granted the rule.
His LORDSHIP said there were several other case:
which had stood over from last term, in which he hoped
to be able to give judgment to-morrow.
The COURT then proceeded with the peremptory papers.
THE CASE OF MR. BA NK ES, M. P.
Sir J. ScanLErx called the attention of the Court to
the indictment against this gentleman, for an offence of a
certain description, which had been removed by certiorari
into this Court. He had an application to make to the
Court which was of considerable importance to his
client. Ever since the charge had been made, Mr.
Bankes had been unable, from his own feelings,
and a deference to the feelings of others, to resume
that place in Parliament and in society to which he was
entitled, and, therefore, lie was naturally extremely anxious
that his trial might take place at the earliest possible op-
portunity. The application, therefore, was, that from the
peculiar and pressing circumstances of the case, their
Lordships would fix an early day for the trial. It ap-
peared that some statement had gone the round of the
public papers, and there was no want of some good-na-
tured friend or other to do a similar thing when a person
laid under any imputation, that a witness, who had
given evidence before the Magistrate, had quitted the
kingdom a few days after the examina'ion. That person's
name was William Parker, and there had been an insi-
nuation that he was sent out of the kingdom at the
instigation of Mr. Bankes, or some of his friends. Mr.
B. had made an affidavit denying all knowledge of Parker
or of his family, and swearing that neither directly nor
indirectly did he sanction by himself, his friends, or
agents, that person's going away ; on the contrary, the
moment he heard of it he despatched persons to search for
the witness at the different ports, but it was found
that he had left England in the Amity for Ame-
rica, and that the vessel had been too long gone to
be overtaken. He had even applied to the magistrates and
to the Secretary of State upon the subject, but without
avail. He (Sir James Scarlett) on the part of Mr. Bankes,
was willing, if the prosecutor assented to it, that the
information given by that witness before the magistrate
should be admitted as evidence at the trial.

Mr. F. KELLY said he appeared for the other defendant
(Tower, we believe), and he was willing to accede to any
arrangement that might be made by the Court.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL, on behalf of the parish
officers of St. Margaret's, Westminster, on whom he said
the painful duty of prosecuting devolved, was quite willing
to have any day fixed that was most convenient.
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE thought that a day might
be fixed fur the trial, but with regard to admitting the
deposition of tile absent witness as evidence he did not
know how that could be done, unless Mr. Kelly's client
consented to it also.

Mr. KELLY said he was quite willing to admit it.
Their LORDSHIPS, after a short consultation, fixed the
trial for Monday, Dec. 2.

THE LEICESTER CORPORATION.-THE KING V. ALBERT

COCKCHAW.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL appeared on the part of the
defendant, to show cause against a rule which had been
obtained by Sir James Scarlett on the part of the Corpo-
ration of Leicester, for a criminal information against the
defendant, who was a printer at Leicester, for printing
and publishing a libel. The alleged libel was contained
in a petition, which Lad been presented to the House of
Commons, having been previously agreed to by the inha-
bitants of Leicester, and by the House of Commons re-
ferred to the Committee on Municipal Corporations.
Their Lordships were aware that a Committee on
Corporations ha I been appointed in the last session
of Parliament by the House of Commons. Soon
afterwards a meeting was held by advertisement in
Leicester, to petition the House of Commons upon
the subject of the corporation of that borough, and
a petition was agreed to and signed by more than hall of
the adult population of the borough. While in the course
of signature, and that it might be the more easily and
more extensively known, it was given to the defendant to
be printed, and he printed it merely in the way of his
trade. A counter petition was afterwards signed by other
parties in the borough, and was referred by the House of
Commons to the same Committee as the one which was
alleged to be libellous. The Learned Counsel said be
would first take a preliminary objection previous to going
into the general question. On reference to the affidavit
on which the rule was granted, their Lordships would
perceive an omission in the Jurat that he conceived
would prevent the Court from acting on it. The jurat
stated the date, and before a certain Commissioner the
affidavit was sworn, but it did not state the locality, or in
what jurisdiction it was sworn. That omission, o❑ many
grounds, was of great importance, (such as in the case of
an indictment for perjury,) and it had been held in several
cases, but particularly in that of the King v. the Justices
of Yorkshire, that it was fatal to the validity of the
affidavit.

Sir JAMES SCARLETT said he was certainly taken by
surprise at this objection. He admitted the fact, but he
apprehended it di ,1 not destroy the validity of the affidavit
itself. In the case of an indictment for perjury no incon-
venience could arise, because proof must be give❑ of the
date and the jurisdiction of the Commissioner.

Their LORDSHIPS were of opinion that the objection
was fatal ; and that, therefore, the rule must be dis-
charged.

The SOLICITOR- GENERAL applied for costs but was
refnsed.

Sir JAMES SCARLETT said that it struck him at first
that the objection was a valid one. He felt bound to say
:bus much.

In another case, as we understand, of a similar nature,
:he rule was agreed to be discharged for the same cause

!OURT OF EXCHEQUER.-(THIS DAY,

MULLETT V. ANCELL.

This was an action for use and occupation, tried before
Mr. Justice J. Parke, at the late Assizes at Croydon,
when a verdict was found for the plaintiff, damages
281. 17s. 6d.

Mr. PLATT now moved for a rule to show cause why
that verdict should not be set aside, and a new trial had ;
or, if the Court was against him on that point, why the
verdict should not be reduced to the sum of 21. 12s. 6d.
The defendant made an agreement to rent a house from
the plaintiff, from Lady-day, 1832, to Lady-day, 1833, at
the rent of 521. lOs , payable quarterly. The defendant
took possession of the premises, and paid the rent due at
Midsummer. The quarter due at Michaelmas was not
paid, for the superior landlord seized, on the 14th No.
vember, for 21/., due as ground rent. The eefendant's
goods were sold, and paid off the debt only 19/. ss. lOid.,
the expenses swallowing up the remainder of the produce,
upwards of 351. Some negotiation took place between
the parties, for the purpose of getting the plaintiff to
satisfy the ground landlord; but the defendant, finding
that nothing definite was done, and that the plaintiff was
getting the time passed in order to get the quarter-day
again on, when the defendant would be again liable for
the superior's claim, and as he could have no beneficial
occupation of the premises, went sometime before Christ-
mas and gave up the key. The plaintiff claimed rent up
to Lady-day, 1833, and obtained it at the trial. The
Learned Gentleman now contended that that verdict could
not stand, and praye.l for his rule.

The COURT said the only doubt on the subject was,
whether the defendant had used due diligence—had he
tendered the key immediately on being distrained upon for
more than what was due to him ?

Mr. PLATT said it was admitted on the trial that the
goods were not sold in the regular course, but were held
over by consent of all parties.
The Court granted the rule.

Lieutenant Burnes, of the Bombay army,
the Persian traveller, arrived at the India-House yesterday
morning, with despatches from Calcutta, having landed
from th llooghley, arrived off Dartmouth. We believe
his mission to England is in relation to the opening of the
navigation of the Indus, which river he minutely examined
in the course of his late travels through Persia and Cabool,
to the shores of the Caspian Sea.

MELANCHOLY WRECK.—During the tre-
mendous gale which blew on Saturday night, a large
schooner, name unknown, struck upon the Carnarvon
bar, and speedily went to pieces, when all hands perished
before the lifeboat, which was promptly launched, could
go to their assistance.—North Wales Chronicle.

It was stated before the Municipal Corporation
Commissioners on Saturday, that the average price of
labour of children and adults employed in the manufacture
of cotton in Stockport, was 4s. Bd. per head.