The Sun.
London, England, 1828-06-26 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH.
THE KING V. HENRY BROOKES AND OTHERS.

This is the Wells corporation case, in which a rule
nisi had been granted for an attachment against two
masters and three capital burgesSes of the borough
and city of Wells, for their contempt in not proceed-
ing to the election of a Mayor of Wells:, pursuant to
a writ of mandamus. When the Case came before
the Court on Saturday, week, it was ordered to stand
over until it should be ascertained whether or not
the defendants had, in obedience to a peremptory
mandamus, proceeded to the election of Mayor at a
meeting of the corporation held for that purpose on
the 16th inst.

. Sir J. SCARLETT now stated, that the defendants
had, in pursuance of the peremptory mandamus, at-
tended at the meeting on the 16th inst., and had
concurred in the election of a mayor. lie had
therefore now to apply to the Court to discharge
the rule for the attachment ; and he hopod they
would do so without making the defendants,pay the
costs.

Mr. TAUNTON• said tint the defendants, by giving
their attendance at the last meeting, had redeemed
themselves from the. attachment,' but not front the
costs attendant upon the proceedings.
Lord TENTERDEN did not think that the de-
fendants ought to be relieved fro►n the costs.
The rule was then discharged, the defendants pay-
ing the costs.
`THE KING V. MOORE.

This was an application for a writ of Habeas to
bring into Court a lady named Buxton, who had
Been carried away from her husband, and detained
by her uncle.
Mr. FOLLETT appeared on a former day, and
moved to quash the writ of Habeas Corpus, on the
ground that the young lady was not married. It
was stated that she had been persuaded into an in-
vslid marriage by the person who claimed her as
his wife.

The Court having heard Mr. Follett, allowed
him a rule to enlarge the time for the return of the
Maher. s.

Sir JAMES SCARLETT this day showed cause
against the enlargement of the time for the return,
but the Court ordered it to be further enlarged until
this day se'onight, when the lady is to be brought
to the chambers of one of the Judges, and the ques-
tion will be argued. Mr. Moore, the defendant, is
to bring forth the lady; or be liable to an attachment
for contempt.

MURRAY V. REE%£S.

This was an action on an agreement of this de-
scription :—A person of the name of Shearer claitned '
the benefit of the Insolvent Debtors' Act, and was
opposed by M... Murray, the plaintiff. The defen-
dant, who acted as attorney for the insolvent, m
order to induce Murray to withdraw his opposition,
entered into an agreement to make the plaintiff sole
assignee of Shearer, to make various disclosures, and
to guarantee to Murray, as assignee, some small sums
of money, amounting to about 100/. On these con-
ditions the plaintiff consented to the discharge, but
the defendant refused to perform his part of the
agreement, and the plaintiff brought his action for
the money, and'had a verdict for 1051., with leave
to the defendant to move the Court to enter a non-
suit. The Solicitor-General obtained a rule for this
purpose, against which Mr. Campbell showed cause.
Lord TENTERDEN now pronounced the judgment
of the Court. It was contended for the defendant,
that this agreement was void in law, and could not
be made the foundation of en action, and the Court
are of that opinion. The Insolvent Debtors' Court
have the power of imprisoning debtors who have
misconducted themselves, for a certain period, and
such bargains would deprive it of that power. They
might likewise give occasion to much fraudulent
concealment. It was said that creditors might con-
' sent to the discharge, and that then it would be
valid. It may be so; but it is questionable whether
this would bind other creditors who were no parties
to the consent. But at any rate, such agreements
are contrary to the policy of the law, because they
interfere with that full and complete disclosure
which the Act requires in the first instance ; and the
Court is of opinion that the rule for entering the
nonsuit should be made absolute.

A curious circumstance occurred about a
forvtight ago, at the Assizes for the Lower P)rennees, in
France, on the trial of two persons upon a charge of mur-
der:—At the end of the first day's proceedings, when the
judges, bar, &c. quitted the court, an altercation arose be-
tween the huissiers (a kind of constables or door-keepers)
and the gensdarmes, as to which of them should manacle
the prisoners, and conduct them back to pci,n. The
geusdarmes insisted that it was the duty of the huissiers,
and, to prove their conviction, they marched away. The
huisxiers, equally positive of the contrry, followed their
example, quitted the court, and left the prisoners alone and
unguarded. The prisoners, though their lives were still in
jeopardy, and that the crowds in the streets (it being
market-day) offered them every facility for escape, very
calmly -ttalked back to prison, and presented themselves to
the gaoler. Here another difficulty ;nose 5 the gaoler
refused to receive them without being legally authorized by
a huissier, and tOr a considerable time these two men, under
a charge affecting their lives, remained soliciting, as a
favour, a re-admission to their dungeons. This circum-
stance was of course made good use of by their counsel, and
the prisoners, against whom the evidence was indeed
slight, were unanimously acquitted. —Hun:burgh Reporter-

MEXICO.

(From El Sol of April !.:).)

Decree of banishment passed by the Senate end Chamber
of Deputies, and published by the Government, on the
subject of the parties implicated in the late conspiracy,
called the plan of Montano. r
The President of the United Mexican States to the in-
habitants of the Republic.—
Be it known that the General Congress has decreed is
folltrws:—

Art. l. The Government shall immediately banish from
the territory of the Republic, to such places as it shall deeni
expedient, for a period of time not exceeding six years, all
the parties implicated in the conspiracy of Montano up to
the date of this decree, including those already sentenced to
certain punishments by the respective taibuids.
Art. 2. All further proceedings in this affair shall be
put an end to.
Art. 3. The Government shall allow to all the parties
included in the present decree, during the time of their re-
spective punishments, as far as one-half the pay which
they enjoyed in their military capacity, previous to their
arrest, so long as they continue to reside in the place or
places designated.
Att. 4. To those who are not of the military profession,
such monthly allowance shall be made as the Government
shall consider necessary for their subsistence.
Art. 3. On the expiration of the period of banishment
those only shall be Permitted to resume their former rank
and employment whom the Government shall judge worthy
of this favour.

Art. 6. Those who shall return from baniblinient before
the prescribed period shall experience the full rigour of the
laws.

(Signed) GUADALUPE VICTORIA.
Mexico, Palace of the Federal Republic,
April 15, 1828.