The Sun.
London, England, 1835-01-31 00:00:00

COURT OF KING'S BENCH.

REX V. THE BISHOP OF WINCHESTER AND OTHERS.
Mr. THESSIGER showed cause against a rule calling upon
the defendants to show cause why the trial of this cause
should not,be removed into the county of Middlesex from
the county of Surrey. He understood that Sir J. Camp-
bell, in moving this rule, had stated that it was an indict-
ment against the defendants for having forcibly ejected the
prosecutor, the Rev. Mr. Griffin, from a chapel of which
he was the pastor. Such was not the fact. A meeting of
the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in Foreign
Parts was held at Epsom, at which the Bishop of Win-
chester presided. The prosecutor was requested to with-
draw ; and, not doing so, he was quietly put out. The
affidavit of the prosecutor stated that there was a feeling
against him, in consequence of his having petitioned both
Houses of Parliament not to give 16,0001., to the Society,
Sir J. CAMPBELL was heard in support of the rule.
Lord DENMAN thought that no ground was 'made out
for changing the venue.
The other Judges concurred, and tbo 'rule was discharged,
but with costs.

14 RE THE LONDON ANU tREENWICH RAILWAY COM-

PANY.

In this case a vile had been obtained for a mandamus
to be directed, to the Sheriff of Kent, directing him to sum-
mon a second Jury to assess compensation to a person.named
Keating for his interest in some premises which the Coin-
pan_y required for the purpose of the railway, and also for
thoodwill of his business. The objection to the former
verdict was, that it had given a gross sum of 15,0001. for
the daniages, without distinguishing between the sum ap-
portioned for the premises, themselves and that which was
awarded for the goodwill. In conseqnence of this circum-
stance it was alleged to be impossible to ascertain the pro-
per stamp to be put on the deed of conveyance, which the
owner of the premises was to execute to the Company.
Mr. THESSIGER showed cause against the rule, and the
SOLICITOR-GENERAL was heard in support of it.
The rule was ultimately discharged, upon Mr. Keating
undertaking to pay the ad valorem duty on the conveyance.
The duty was estimated to amount to the sum of 1701.

THE KING V. WEBBER.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL stated that this was a prose-
cution instituted by Mr. Edward Carter, a Magistrate of
Portsmouth, against the defendant for an assault upon him
while be was in the performance of his magisterial duties.
There was a disturbance in the town in the course of last
summer ; Mr. Carter had gone out to suppress it, when he
was assaulted by the defendant. The other Magistrates
had thought it necessary that a prosecution should be in-
stituted, and the defendant had allowed judgment to go by
default, and now was ready to declare that when he com-
mitted the assault he had not any idea that Mr. Carter was
at that time acting in his Magisterial capacity. Under
these circumstances the Court would not be surprised that
the prosecutors did not press for any judgment against him.
The COURT ordered the defendant to be discharged on
entering into his own recognizances,
IN RE PALMER.

This 'Was a motion to strike Mr. Palmer off the rolls of
attorneys of this Court. The Master having read his report,
Mr. HILL showed cause against the rule.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL, with whom was Mr.
WISATELY, argued in support of the rule.
Lord DENMAN said that when the case was before this
Court on the former occasion, the affidavits showed a great
intimacy, and something like a partnership between these
parties. The question then referred to the Master was,
whether the business which Palmer had permitted Ed-
monds to carry on, was business of this Court, and some
difficulty was then felt as to the jurisdiction of the Court
under the 22d of Geo. 11. The case was sent to the Mas-
ter, who had now made his report. The object of sending
the case to him, was to know whether this Act could be
put in force, and the ease had not been sent on the general
power of the Court. After having confined the Master to
this single question, the Court would not put the case on
another ground. Two particular cases of business tone in
this Court had been stated by the Niaster, and. on them he
was afraid that the Court could have n' doubt as to the
course that ought to be pursued. T did seem impossible
not to Milo to the conclusio7. that Edmonds was employed
in business issuin7 tut of the Court, and in the course of
that businos' 'used the name of Palmer, and did so with
PAlinfi7s concurrence. The case was, therefore, distinctly
sorought within the 11th section of the Statute ; and, con-
sequently, with respect to Palmer, against whom the appli-
cation was made, the Court had no option as to the exer-
ch,e of the authority it possessed, namely, to strike him off
the rolls of the attorneys of the Court.—Rule absolute.
Tile Court rose at eight o'clock.