The Sun.
London, England, 1821-12-03 00:00:00

ABBOTT V. CLEARY.

This was an action upon a bill of• exchange for 181.
Nlr. DEN3tArr said, that Mr. Cleary had accepted the bill,
intending to pay it (Mr. Cleary was a native of Ireland) out of
the damages which he was to recover in an action against Dr.
Stodart for libel.' What had become of the defendant's action
r. Denman did not know; but, the bill not being taken up,
the plaintiff was driven to his.
Mr. CIIITT Y (for the defendant) objected that the bill was
invalid. It was drawn upon an Irish stamp, and it purported
to be drawn in Ireland : he (Mr. Chitty) would prove that it
had, in fact, been drawn in England.
Witnesses swore that both the drawer (Mr. Taafe) and the
acceptor of the' bill had been in England about the time at

which the bill was . dated ; but they were unable to fix them
there on the precise day.
Mr. DEN MAN submitted that, without the most absolute
proof, the Jury would not give effect to so dishonest a defence.
The evidence adduced was too weak to need reply.
The Lo RD CHIEF JUSTICE said that a bill drawn in Eng-
land upon an Irish stamp was, in point of law, not worth s
farthing. The short question for the Jury upon the evidence
was, whether the bill had been made in Ireland or in this
country.
The Jury, without hesitation, found a verdict forthe plaintiff.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, DEC. I.
Sittings at Nisi Prits,-in Westminster.
The Lord Chief Justice DALLAS sat at Nisi Prius to-day till
four o'clock, but no case of any importance came on to be heartl
•The Court will continue its sittings at Westminster during the
whole of next week. It will sit again at Guildhall on Monday,
the 10th instant.

ARCHES' COURT, DEC. I.

THE HON. A. CMICHESTER, M.P. AGAINST THE MARCIVIS

AND MAI:CHIONESS OF DONEGAL.
This question, which arises out of a well-known cause pend-
ing in the Court below (the Marquess of Donegal against map
falsely calling herself Marchioness of Donegal), came on to-dol
on admission of the libel brought in.
Ds. SWABEY stated, that this was in fact an appeal from $
sentence passed by the Right Hon. Wm. Lord Stowell in the
Consistorial Court of London ; and the libel, (which was in the
common forme) praying that the same might be revised and re-
versed, so far as regarded the oven tiling of a certain protest as-
serted by Mr. Chichester, in that Court, he prayed might noes'
be admitted.
Doctor PiirwstonE appeared, as the Counsel for the
Marchioness of Donegal, in opposition to that prayer.---,
His Learned Friend -had said that the libel was quite in.
the common form, and had intimated that lie could net
anticipate any objections to its admission. If, in fact, it ha",
been drawn in the common form, he (Dr. Phillimore) shook'
have been cautious of submitting those objections which he
should now take the liberty:of doing. The Court might be awe''e.
that the matter out of which the present ais
ication arose "1
originally a suit against the Marchioness of Donegal, (pleaded.
to be falsely so styled,) brought by the Marquis of Donegal,
for nullity of marriage. In that case, the Hon. Mr. Chiches-
`ter, for whom his Learned Friend appeared, was cited to see
proceedings ; he asserted an appeal against the jurisdiction of
the Court, which was overruled. Now his objection to thig,
libel would he, that neither in the opening. nor in the " rreser-
tim," was any grievance whatever set forth. The 2tl article
stated, that in the Court below " the said Win. Lord Stowell,.
too much favouring the said Marchioness of Donegal, and more
• than he ought, and not in the least regarding the forms
of law and judicial proceeding, did, in fact, though undulf.
on .the first day of August last, overrule the protest so entered;
into, on behalf of the said Arthur Chichester, so far as respecte"
the said jurisdiction." Theretbre, upon the other side's own
skewing, the Court must see that Lord Stowell did not over'
rule this protest, but only a particular part of it. This grievance
then, if grievance it were, was only an inchoate act. But a°
specific grievance was pleaded ; " non constat" but that the,
Court below might have gone on a different sentence as regarded
the protest generally.
Sir Jolts NicHor.r. said, how was it possible for this Court
to know any thing about that suit, when the process was flat
brought in here ?
Dr. PHILLIALORE would beg to inform the Court, that Cl
the original suit the lion. Arthur ChicheSter was cited by tit'
Marchioness of Donegal to see proceedings.
The COURT asked if it was the defendant who lied so cited $
party to see proceedings ?
Dr. PHILLIAJORE replied in the .affirmative. He did Pe
see how the Cotwt could form a judgment, under the preserve
' circumstances of this case, so as to-admit the libel. indeed, th
principle of that libel was altogether a new sort of thing.
The Couttr-r-Was it new to appeal from a protest so over'
ruled ?
Dr. PHILLIMORE contended that that was not the case-of his
Learned Friends. He meant to argue, that in point of fact the
protest in question had not been overruled : their own state'
mutt was, that it had been overruled " so far as."
The COURT held, that if a party became liable, from the
nature of a case, to be cited to see proceedings, he had a ne't
to object against being so cited. If a party had an objection
Of such a kind as that which was .now offered to the libel, he
might apply it to the inhibition, to the citation, and the mon"
tion. The Court, however, without the process, could not Uri'
derstand the thing at all.
Dr. PRILLIZIORE was afraid that lie had not clearly e
.pressed himself'. lie certainly must contend, that in this libel,,
there was no grievance, no gravan- upon which the Ca"iti
would admit it. The overruling complained of was only ti
inchoate act. The Court below had not gone on to decide thti
the party himself was subject to its jurisdiction. This a/TT.
seas made upon a mater that was still in progress ; it was ms
before the Court in question had affirmed that he, the anvil
(Mr. Chichester), was.liable to its jurisdiction ; all that it h
done was to overrule his protest as to the liability of Lady I.)`'fr
negal, for which alone it had yet found. 4
The CounT.—How am Ito know all this ? The Court hs„
nothing whatever from winch it can derive such infoxunta°'
before it. -
Dr. Put er.l MORE was unwilling to persist in an objectl
which the Court seemed disinclined to entertain. But he /0
another—the libel went on to recite, that, " notwithstarnlif
the said Arthur Chichester had, with all reverence, proter,,
against" so and so, yet that the said Judge proceeded to 14
further like acts—to wit, to admit an allegation. Now
amounted to an accusation against the Judge sti the Court be,.*
for making what was technically termed an " 4sTTENTArI'oi
It was not as if the appeal was from the entire -proceredir
that Court. 110
The COURT thought that Dr. Phillimore was wrong.
was an appeal from the whole of the icts done on that daY:wr
The libel of appeal recited all that was then done. Not
was more common, clearly, than for a party to assert an aPPI4;
in the midst of pending proceedings ; and for the money to be P-7e.
on the several stamps with a view of tying.up the hands of ";,,,
Judge. The Court, on the other hand, was accustomed to
on, notwithstanding that appeal, and transact the whoP oft ~ar
same business that remained before it. It remained, then, '"e
such party to take what other steps he pleased. This was a Gait
which had happened very often in the time of the Court itself,'
not in the tine of the Learned Counsel.
Mr. itnursTitan confirmed this statement of the legal V

lice. •
Dr. PHILLIMORE further objected, that the libel meant 0
charge a certain act .of the Judge in the Court below,
was defunctus officio as to the matter immediately ',dor; VI
Court. The Learned Counsel was proceeding to coat .nd
the authority of Houghton, Gale, Ayliffe, and other boolts
practice, and of a case called t‘ Luke and Fisher," argued in t_lo.
Arches of 17t16, was in faviiur of his principle,. that where
gravamen was laid, no libel of this sort ought to be admitteo
when
The COURT interposed—lts own difficulty here was
that Counsel was anticipating the conclusion of the question, it
which (the process not being before it) it was impossible that
could know any thing. • die
Dr. SWAaEY said, with respect to a grievance occurring 10 ,t
course of a cause, it was clearly competent for a party to assi`li,
in appeal de prcesenti, and .to prosecute it statim.
client appealed from the whole of this sentence as a gricon'ij
be that what it might, and his Counsel were entitled.to be 110,i,
upon it. The Judge might assign them to be heard on Pe ',ll
don ; but suppose he should not, and that the proceedings shoo'
be cx. mero motu ? ,
Dr. PHIL:AMORE—How can the Judge of the Court bett' -
be a Judge of the appeal ?
),
The COURT—And how can this Court judge of vlAt •
dons, if the process be not before it ? ,
Dr. J. ADDAMS took one or two other te.c,iilaiesl olojeetton6
.
the libel ; but they were overruled by
The JUDGE, who admitted the yoa,
LEE A.NR CHALORAFT.
rterll6..
This was a can apikaled from the Consistorial Colrt
Winchester, • . •
Dr. Pit molt* •stAted, that Mr. Clialcraft was describ
as a roman and-an inhabitant of the parish of Chedleigh,,,l
the county-of Southampton. The proceedings in the presAr
ease commenced in August, 1818, by Messrs. Lee ant, 1:;01
ker, churchwardens of the said parish, taking out a cite
against Clialcrtift, for reftising to pay certain rates, leeie"l
the repairs of the parish church. In October 1813, a
14 articles was brought into the Courts below, which Pleimiga
among other things, that two rates, the one of .41. ss, Ba 7
the other of 81. fts. 4d., were respectively levied upon two 'tit]
of the defendant's, but that defendant had refused to cornFlYA;a4
the same. To this libel a responsive allegation was assert"' te,
admitted, It pleaded that Mr. Chalcraft had been undulyrio
with respect to the first of these rates. Soma adjoining lan" sit
rated at Bs. ad. per acre only, while Mr. Chaleraft's rate iv:
the proportion of 13s. per acre. Several witnesses were,:.e,
mined upon this allegation, and, finally, the Judge in
below found that the church wardens had wholly faded in ,0
port of their libel ; and it would now be his (Dr, Phillip p
duty to submit that this Court would confirm, that venten%it
Dr. Dottsurr was associated in this case with Dr. rgi
MORE. 31
Dr. LUSHINGTON and Dr. JESSE ArgiAms were he .
behalf a the churchwardens. r.,atit
Sir Jourr NICHOLL thought that thp evidence Wen-ice-ice
to show that this was an honest and fair me. He ,s 1031"
fore pronpunc.! for the appeal, reverse the septenoz;,4,KtNel
below, and =dem time defendant pgim die L.
slip