The Sun.
London, England, 1826-02-06 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF KIVIS BENCH, FEn. 4
IN TILE AIATTER OE RICHARD CARLILE.
Mr. EVANS moved for a rule to show cause why the Under
Sheriff of London should not return to this person the property
levied under a writ of :coati facia: for the fine Imposed on him
by this Court, as the floe hail been remitted by his Majesty.
Mr. Justice BAYLEY asked if the case had not been already
before the Court.
Mr. EVANS rerlied, that It had been before the Court in
various shapes, and that an action had been brought against the
Sheriff; but the Under-Sheriff himself was now desirous that
the matter should be finally settled.
Mr. Justice BAYLEY inquired whether the property did not
ccn'ist of books of an objectionahle.cheracter ?
Mr. EVANS replied, that the books were Of various charac.
tors, among them was IVotton't Apology for the Bible, and
other works of a perfectly innocent description. If the Court
granted a. rola.. to show causo,.thw might, on the motion to
make it absolute, so mould it as to limit its operation to books
of an inoife.nsive kind. • .
The Conn.!' granted the rule prayed, on an understanding
that it might be modelled to suit the facts disclosed by the affi-
davits when cause should be shewn.
The Court were occupied till 1 o'clock in hearing the report
and arguments on the rule for a new trial in " Roe v. Brenton,"
the great Cornish mining cause. At one the Lord Chief-Justice
retired to sit at Nisi Prim" in London ; and the remaining
Judges heard motions which, with the exception of the above,
were entirely destitute of public interest.
'rite three Judges will sit in the Bail-court, under his Ma-
jesty's warrant to dispatch arrears of term business from the
14th to the 18th February inclusive.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Fan. 4.
WRIT OF IIIGHT—ANGEL V. ANGEL.
This was a proceeding in a writ of right, brought to recover
some lands in Yorkshire. The Sheriff had been commanded
to summon " four lawful Knights of his County, girt with
swords," to. come into Court, and make election of the Grand
Assize, in pursuance -of which, four gentlemen (who were in
realily Esquires), girt with swords, entered the Jury box.
Mr. Serjeant VAUcitasr said, it was his duty to take what
might appear a chivalrous course, for notwithstanding the gen-
tlemen summoned were armed with swords, he should chal.
lenge all of them.—(A loud laugh.)—The Learned Gentleman
then read his plea, which stated that the defendant challenged
the said Edward Place (the find of the .four gentlemen) because
he was not a lawful Knight; and proceeded to argue that the
gentlemen returned were not eligible, not possessing the title of
Knight ; and cited a case in the reign of Edward 111. where
the Court refused to allow the return because they were not
Knights.
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE said, there the Sheriff had
called the persons returned Gentlemen, here he Ins called them
Knights. The word, Sir, was merely a term of respect, and
not confined in ancient usage to Knights, but employed in ad.
dressing all persons of high rank, except Bishops. " Sir
Duke," was then a common expression ; "sly Lord" is com-
paratively reeent.
Mr. Serjeant BOSANQUET argued that in this case the She.
riff's return was conclusive, and could not be traversed.
The Loan CHIEF JUSTICE said, it lied been decided
that Esquires " were Knights in law for the present purpose.--»
Almost all the County Members in the present Parliament,
though called Knights in the writ, were, in fact, Esquires. In
the -present day no one would presume to-say that the untitled
gentry of England were less respectable than those who had
received the order. of Kniglithool—The rest Of the Court con-
curred with his Lordship.
The Knights were then sworn, and retired for half an hour,
when they returned with a list of the Jury they had elected.
Mr. S'erjeant VAUGHAN afterwards moved, cx.parte, that
this rause should- be tried at the bar of this Court. lie stated
that this.action was.brought in respect of three-fourths parts of
certain light-houses,- situated at the mouth of the Humber, the
tolls of which amounted tot-0001. per annum. The stake was,
therefore large, and the question would invole the construction
of two Acts of' Parliament, and- might determine matters re-
lating to the interest of the Crown, or the grantee of the Crown,
besides which, the terms of a will, drawn in a very ambiguous
manner, must come under discussion. On these grounds, lie
submitted the Court would be induced to grant a trial at bar.
The ask Js he had not given notice of this motion,
he could- onlyfor a rule to ahew c ►iuse why the trial should
not take place at bar, and the rule was accordingly granted in
those terms.

CONSISTORY COURT, FEn. 4.
WESTMEATH AND WESTAIEATH..
Dr. JzsarEtt, was heard this day on- behalf of the Marquis
of Westmeath, in support of his Lordship's suit for the restitu.
tion of conjugal rights, and against that of the 31archioness for
divorce.:. The Learned Advocatels Speeeh lasted exactly five
hours, until. the rising of the Court. This subject. lice been so
often before the public, that it is unnecessary to detail minutely
the topics of the speech. The Learned Gentleman concluded
by denying that any evidence of legal cruelty had been fur,
malted against his client, and: that there was not a shadow of
proof as to the adultery. There was abundant testimony that
Lord Westmeath was kind and affectionate. 'He therefore
contended that the,Alarchioness could' ,not have the -sentence
she prayed for, but that his Lordship was.entitled to elaim,the
restitution of his marital right's.