The Sun.
London, England, 1828-11-12 00:00:00

gestion.

NEW SHERIFFS.

His LORDSHIP stated, that it might be conve-
nient for the bar to know that he was obliged to go
away to the Exchequer to-day, to attend the elec-
tion of new Sheriffs.

The Court then proceeded with the List of Mo
tions.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH.
SITTINGS IN BANCO.
CRIMINAL INFORMATION.

Mr. Common-Sergeant DENMAN moved the
Court for a rule to show cause why a criminal in-
formation should not be filed against the Editor and
Publisher of the Times newspaper, for, a libel on
Mr. Brookes, an attorney of this Court, on behalf of
whoni he applied. The libel arose from the follow-
ing facts :--At the last election for the cit.), of
Wells Mr. Brookes had been engaged as agent for
Sir C. Taylot) one of the successful candidates. A
Mr. Lovel, one of the voters, applied to Sir C.
Taylor, and informed him that he had been offered
a bribe by a Magistrate of that County, to induce
him to vote for one of the unsuccessful candidates,
and Sir C. Taylor accordingly instructed Mr.
Brookes to prefer an indictment against the person
who had offered the bribe. Lovel, however, would
not appear before the Grand Jury, and being the
only witness who could prove`the offer, the indictment
was consequently abandoned. Aparagraph appeared
shortly after in a country paper, which, after re-
flecting, in some measure, on Mr. Brookes, said
that a strict inquiry Was to be instituted into the
conduct of Mr. Brookes. This comment he took
no notice of, as he wished for nothing more than
that his conduct should be inquired into on every
occasion, as he well knew it would bear it. A
short time afterwards, however, the libel which he
now complained of was published. The Times
copied a paragraph from a west country paper, and
added a comment, in which it was insinuated that
Mr. Brookes himself had spirited away the witness
Lovel, and that the man who had so defeated the
ends of justice, deserved to be himself sent much
farther.

Mr. Brookes now swore that he did not spirit
away Mr. Lovel, but that he tried every thing he
could to impress on him the necessity of appearing
before the Grand Jury, but that he had absented
himself on the day of the Assizes.
Rule nisi granted.
THE DUKE OF SAXE GOTIIA.

LINDENHAUGH V. THE ATLAS INSURANCE COMPANY.

In this case, which was tried before Lord TEN-
TERDEN at the last Sittings in Guildhall, and the
plaintiff nonsuited, Mr. BROUGHAM now moved for
a new trial. The action was to recover a large suns
of money, payable at the death of the Duke of
Saxe Gotha, on an insurance effected by the Atlas
Insurance Company. It was defended on account
of a paralysis‘by which the speech of the Duke was
affected, at the time the insurance was effected not
being mentioned in the certificate of the medical men.
Mr. Brougham now moved, on the ground that no
fraud being,imputed to the Duke on account of the
above omission, it ought not, therefore, to have in-
fluenced the verdict of the Jury.
The Court ultimately refused the rule.
SMITH AND PERRIN V. JONES.

This action was to recover upwards of 2,000/.
from the Marshal of the King's Bench prison, for
allowing the escape of a prisoner in the r►►les,
.named
Abraham Simmonds.

The question was, whether it was Abraham
Simmends who had spent the evening at the house
of Angel Hart, out of the rules on the 3d October,
1826; or whether it was his brother Elias Sing-
mends, who was sworn to resemble him consider-
ably. The case has been twice tried, the last time
a very short time since in this Court. The Jury on
that occasion remained locked up all night, and a
great part of the following day, and at length re-
turned a verdict for the defendant.
Mr. BROUGHAM now moved for another trial, on
the ground that his client had procured since the
last trial some very important evidence, which he
couldbefor note iit,
ba yn
and by l‘iyt y have
r eado procuredover
rsev or known
era
l
affidavits
to
the Court in support of his application, but Lord
Tenterden at length refused to grant a rule.
Mr. BROUGHAM-,—l have some other affidavits,
my Lord, which I am afraid I can hardly bring be-
fore your Lordship. They are affidavits of four of
the Jury, stating the opinion of two others.

.
-
. _ _ ..._ _...—.
Lord TEN TERDEN—But they were distinctly
asked if they were all agreed.
Mr. BROUGHAM—But they say that ill health,
my Lord—

Lord TENTERDEN—I can't help it, I cannot en-
tertain affidavits of that description.—Rule refused.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.
TITHES.
FANSHAWIE V. BRITTON.

The LORD CHIEF BARON gave judgment in this
cause this morning. It was a question of tithes
brought by the Vicar of Dagenham, in Essex,
against one of the parishioners, and included the
tithes upon peas and other garden stuff, milk, and
lambs. The truth of the case was, that the tithes
were not objected to, but the mode of taking thent
had given rise to this suit, and both parties seemed-1
to have acted in a spirit quite the reverse of wine
it ought to have been, for if they had agreed betieVit
themselves they would have been saved muiiv:
pence. Respecting the principle of tithinriWen:
stuff for the consumption of families, it was _a Very
easy matter to lay it down, but it was not so easy to
apply that principle to every particular case. His
Lordship should therefore refer the Aithief,rof vege-
tables to the Master, leaving the questiolt of-costs,
as to that part of the cause, to be decided when the
Master shall have delivered his report, statinglbe
value of those tithes; his Lordship-aeultriu* -iici-
sto
cuse either party, for there was no cause in which
less coxciliation had been shown than in this. iilo- w
as to. the tithing of milk, the defendant Mu\ '.
cows to milk on the 10th February, 1821, and oni
more ou the Bth of March following, and he adopted
an opinion (a mistaken one) that the incumbent's
right consisted of every tenth milking, whereas the
rule required the tithe of the niilk of the day. This
rnle was settled in 1780, in the case of Hutchins
V. ---, first in this Court, and afterwards in the
House of Lords. The incumbent, however, re-
fused to take his proportion in that manner. This
part of the case his Lordship should also refer to ,
the Master to report an account of the tithe of milk,
and decreed that the defendant should pay the costs
of this part of the case. The plaintiff's right to
peas was not at all questioned, but only the mode of
tithing:it. They were gathered in baskets, and then put
into three-bushel sacks, every tenth of which was put
aside for the incumbent. This was objected to by
the incumbent, who now claimed the right to have
the peas left until the evening before they were put
into sacks, when he could see them measured. In
answer to that, the defendant offered to open the
sack, and prove to him that it contained three
bushels, which the plaintiff refused to accede to.

y

The defendant added, that if he agreed to the p
tiff's claim, it would greatly injure the sale and
of the peas, by exposure to the air and stni
dU
the day. His LordshiP perfectly agreed with
part of the defendant's case, and. said it not onl
peared the plaintiff's agents refused to accepc:
peas in sacks, but they never condescended torn.
the defendant liow they would have.theol.,_.„
Lordship could see no objection to the three-o'
sack; but the plaintiff might, if he please fore,
wards open it, and measure the peas; therefor
to this part of the case, his Lordship would 04
to decree for the plaintiff, and advised him to P.t9t.'
costs. Then; as to the lambs, it appeared tlb
IJanuary, 1822, the defendant had twat,' ft
lambs, of which he tendered the plaintiff two
days after their birth, but they were refusedid
then offered two shillings and sixpence each, 00
was admitted to be their full value; but that
was refused ,to be taken. The plaintiff 01—we6
was not bound to accept the lambs until theiocto
fit to be taken from their ewes, nor was he h°,l/0,
receive the money unless he chose. The detrO
pleaded, that he had no food on his own.farny"
lambs, and they were remo%ed to an adjoiaiogd,
rich, but it did not appear whether he had 01/
for the twenty-three lambs; or for the two or11,1!)11
the law was, that a farmer was bound to heeleitt!
lambs for the incumbent until they were fit
the ewes. His Lordship therefore decreed ''lo
plaintiff, with coats as to this part of the case',
conclusion his Lordship hoped these decisions °.
settle all differences between the parties. di
Mr. CLARKE—I was unwilling to interrupt 1001
Lordship, but they are 'all settled, and is t#
agreed as to what shall be paid in, lieu of tir"!.-
die future.

LORD CHIEF BARON—I aril glad of it.

THE MARKETS.—(THIS DAY-) '
CORN EXCHANGE.
The foggy state of the weather has prevented Wile
from getting up our river, the supplies of Grain areLl dr
fore unusually small. The factors are holding ere"tre
scription of Corn firm at Monday's prices, but the lot
ance of buyers being thin, .there is little business d°
ARRIVALS.
Barley.

English •
Irish
Foreign

550 qrs,

.1 Wheat.

Oats.

760 irs.

....._,„,„1 1

1,450

fl°.

i~

FISH-MARKET, ItiLLINGSGATE of
The arrivals of fish this morning were toleralk°4lll,
roux, and the market exhibited a moderately.good r'pit
but owing to the excellent weather for keeping, priO 1
higner than last quoted. The following were the priros.o
Prime Turbot, each Ss. 0,:. to • °
„
Ditto small, per do. ...... .........
Fine Dories, each 5 0 4 0
Soles, per three pairs
9 0.0
Codfish, each :3 0 'I
Fine Whitings, per 15 . 3 6 ' 5.1
Scate, each - 44 I
Haddocks, per dozen JO 0 6
.
0
Brill, each - . 2 6 5 4
Ournetts, each
Live Flounders, per quartern
Live Eels, per 51b.
l
Fresh Herrings, per hundred 6 0 ti 0
Dut clt Plaice, per basket 3 0
50 5
Fine Lobsters, per score 4O 0 0 9
Inferior ditto lO 0 4
'
Fine Prawns, per lb.
0*
Shrimps, per gallon
0 6. v
Scotch ditto 4 0 0
Pickled Herrings, per 100 7B 0 ii, a
Best Common Oysters, per bushel 8 0
:0 ;
Natives 3O 0 0
Sprats, per bushel lO 0