The Sun.
London, England, 1819-06-21 00:00:00

8
MOURIS V. HUNT.

The defendant in this c,;..se applied to their
Lordships, at the rising of the Court, for a rule
to spew cause why the Matter should not review,
his taxation of the plaintiff's bill'of costs. The
defendant said he made this application on
an affidavit, stating, that the plaintiff's At-
torney had put the defendant to most unneces-
sary and encalled for expellee; for, although it
was well known that when in London his resi-
dence was at No. 8, Nortolk-street, in the.
Strand, and that, when out of town. he was to be
found living at NiddletoirCottage,.Hants, yet the
plaintiff hall sued our-proceis in both counties,
and tit?. Master had -allowed the charge.. The
Ma-,ter had also allowed a charge of forty-folios
for the declaration, .although it contain-ed only
35 folios. The charges for .a Special
.Jury also
amounted to '221. of which sum 12 guineas was
charged
.for the Jury, although only tour Special
Juries attended. There was also a charge for
four Conesel, although there were only three wit-
nesses: The affidavit proceeded to entunrate other
items, Which the defendant c,insitlered Ought not
to have been allowed, and concluded by stating,
that the Master had wade his former taxation in a
hasty and cart less manner.
Mr. Justice BaYeev, in the absence of the
Chief Jertice, ob,erved, the affidavit of the defen-
dant could not he received,' inasmuch as it con-
tained much irrelevant matter. His Lordship
particularly recommended that the last paragraph
should be omitted.
Mr. I-41NT said, he meant no reflection on the.
Master, whO had/ treated hint with the greatest
attention ; but he could nor help thinking there
was a personal feeling towards him in some of
the minds of the subordinates in the office. One
item in the bill he must allude to, and that was
the charge fur four Counsel, when there were
only three witnesses ; the junior CO-nrisel had no-
thing more to do than to stand as a bottle holder.
Mr. Haut also objected particularly to the tNvelve
guineas given to the Special Jury, when only tour
special Jurymen attended.
Master Le BLAZSC said, it was the custom to
pay the tales a guinea as well as the special. Jur-
ymen, it a tales was prayed.
Mr. IIuNT said he wished to have this practice
inquired
Mr. Justice BAYLEY..--•" The Court cannot,
Mr. Hunt, attend to what you think proper to
suggest, but be bound by what it right and fit-
ting. At present your affidavit contains irrelevant
.matter. You may alter it, rind come again ; but I
cannot promise you will then succeed. I tope I
make myself understood."
. Mr: 11uNT.—" I thank your Lord,hip s, I per-
fectly understand you. I will alter my affidavit,
. and trouble you again."

WRIGLIT V. HAY.
In this case, which is a pi osecution against
the Printe: of Cobbett's Political Register, tor a
libel inserted iii that publication, reflecting on
the plaintiff, an application was made for time to
plead; on grounds similar to those stated .11 Nit,
Chitty, on Frillay, on his•application to the Court
in ~the case of Wright. v. Dolby. The -Learned
Counsel who made the present application stared,
that be had the affidavit of Mr. Cobbett, junior,
stating his belief that the Matter contained in the
alleged libel was true;. and further,, that if the
time now prayed w.as
,given, the original doen-H
ments would be obtained from Mr. W. Cobbett,
in Atnerica.
Mi. Justice BlYtev wished the application to
stand over till the Court was full, tire Chief
Jus-
tice and Mr. Justice Rest being absent. He could
not but ade'ert to an evil arising out of the course
now adopted by the defendant, namely, that a
libel was thus sent out into the world, casting a
stigma on the character of an individual, who, if
the application of the defendant was granted,
wo►ild be obliged to suffer for months under the
evil, not being able to refute the libel, because
the defendant was not prepared to justify or to
prove the truth of the,slander he had thus propa-
gated.—The question stands ever.