The Sun.
London, England, 1816-11-12 00:00:00

L.k.W I NTEI.LIGENCB.

COURT OF CHANCERY, Nov. it.
LORI) MONTFORD V. SEE THOMAS CItARLES THOMAS
BANBURY AND THE EXECUTORS OF THE EARL OF
CADOOAN.
The Loan dLIANCELLOR gave judgment in this
Appeal, which we reported on Saturday. The.
Master of the Rolls matlE a Decree, by which the
defendants are liable to defray certain expences
incurred by their neglect as Trustees of the late
Lord Moutford's Marriage Settlement, to renew
the lease of premises held by the Noble Plaintiff's
family of the Dean and Chapter of Westminster.
His Lordship,. in a- most elaborate judgment, af-
firmed the Decree ‘vi:ll respect to the liability of
the Trustees, and determined the ratio in which
Lady Moutford, who, had a vested interest in the
house, is to contribute towards the expellee in-
curred by the 'Trustees. His Lordship is to take
further notice of the cause to-morrow.

cot,TliT OF KING'S BENcII, Nov. it.
DF;VIS V. NEKLE.
This was an action against the defendant, to
recover damages for a malicious charge of felony
exhibited against the plaintiff, without any rea-
sonable or probable cause. At the trial before
Lord Ellenhorough, in the Londoa Sittings after
last Trinity Tern), the Jury found a verdict for
the plaintiff, with 701. damages.
The AT'rt,HNLY •Grlittr, AL now moved, on behalf
of the defendant, (Or a rule to slim cause why the
verdict
.should not be set aside, and a new trial
granted. He grounded his motion upon a variance
between the averment in the 'declaration and the
evidence in the cause.. It will lie recollected that
the plaintiff had been in the service of the de-
fendant, as steward, at' his scat in the - enemy
of Essex ; and the defendant having conceived.
some' erroneous impression of the honesty of
his servant, he exhibited' a charge •against him
before Mr. Gitford, • the 3laeistrate, of steal-
ing a diamond pin, souse- silver spoons, end
other valuable articles, which he alleged to
have been taken out of a writing-desk by the
The declaration averred " that the tie=
readmit had falsely, maliciously, anti without any
reasonable or probable cause whatever, charged
the plaintiff with having feloniously stolen a large
diamond pin, a silver fork, and a variety of other-
property of him, .the defendant, in his dwelling,
house, and that he had falsely, maliciously, and,
without any probable cause, induced anal caused.
him, the plaintiff, 'to be apprehended, to he
dealt with according to law for the said sup-
posed offence.." Now the ." said supposed of-
fence," the Learned Attorney-General observed
-was a capital. felony, its having stolen property to
the value of 40s. in the -dwelling house ; and in
order to,make out theaverinent in the.deelaration
so laid it was necessary to produce the.examina-
tion and disposition of, defendant before
the - Magistrate. rSat ~When that • document
was produced •it did, not: appear therefrom
that say such charge, had been made by the
defendant before 'the justice, fur all that the,
deposition purportedAo --contain Was the story
told by the .defendant.of his having been robbed of
certain articles. mentioned, which he had reason
to suspect were taken awsy..b.y the plaintiff. The
Learned Attorney therefore :submitted, that. al-
though this was a mere technical objection, yet it
was one by which the -edurt would be .bound,, in
adhering :to that rule, which, required:the averment
condescended upon in the declaration, ,should be
made out by exidence...„ln illustration of this doe,
trine he telerred to a-case of .Malkin v. TWigg,
tried before Mr. Baron Wood -at the Stelford As-
sizes, where time Learned. Judge had. ruled -this
very point.
.LOPLELLDNBrIROUGH said it OW not strike him
that theobjection was so sound as contended for.
It watrclear that the defendant had applied for a
warrant to apprehend the plaintiff,- and that be.
made such a statement as ceased the Magistrate to
sitspbcc him •to he-guilty of felonious offence.
Now, unless the -defendant bad heard the evidence
against-the party accused, he could not take upon
bitnsclf ttuswcar. that a felony was in fact commit-
fed. -All:that-be -could swear was that he hadrea-
,son to suspect and believe „that the person accused
had robbed him, therefore it was not very mate-
rial,with a view to.thapeeseut question, whether
it was one char or another, it, it appeared that
he caused.the plaintiff . to. be apprehended (which
was the graeamedof the case) upon suspicion of
felony. Even thotigh the-charge had not been
made in the terms mentioned in the declaration,
still the charge was such .as the Magistrate, upon
application, would have granted a warrant to ap,
prebend the plaintiff. There was, however, no
objection to allow the Attorney-General a rule.to
strew cause.

fie ATTORNST•GENERAL Sala, that the time
when this action was commenced, and at this ma»
molt, his client was-confined as. a lunatic. in .a
mad-house, and therefore there was very little
reason to suppose that tile defendant had any
malice against the plaintiff.
Lord Kt.t.eNuottation.---.lt is. merely a question
of strict form and variance, and therefore does not
deserve much encouragement in such a case.
Mr. Torrvio, who appeared as Counsel for the
plaint di, at the trial, said, that the Jury had given
very consitterable damages.
. .
Lord Et.t.aNBOUOOGII-7.1 sitinnled up to the
Jury for very small
_thmittges tinder time circum-
stances of the case,, ,
The, ATTonNav-faatggnat., in the situation in
which my client, was, 1 wAs y tied neelcnnd heels,"
and had nothing to do hot to ask tor mercy,---Itule
to thew cause:granted.