The Sun.
London, England, 1827-11-28 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Nov. 27.
DOE ON VEIN DEMISE OT JAMES SUTTON COOKE V. Tril

MAYOR AND BURGESSES OF STAFFORD.

Mr. Sergeant TADDY moved for a rule to show
cause why judgment should not be entered for the
plaintiff in this case as for want of a plea. The ac-
tion was one of ejectment, and was instituted by the
lessor of the plaintitt, to recover possession of cer-
tain lands, which he claimed to hold by the tenure
of borough-English, in the borough of Stafford. The
affidavit upon which he was instructed to make this
application stated that the defendants undertook to
represent the tenant of the lands claimed, and, in
Trinity term last, filed a plea, in which they de-
scribed themselves as " the Mayor and Burgesses of
Stafford," a title which the plaintiff alleged they
had no right to adopt, as, in the Easter term pre-
ceding, a motion, in the shape of a quo warranto,
was made in the Court of King's Bench against a
Nlr. Francis Hughes, for acting as Mayor ; and
upon that motion judgment was issued against him
asat othfeEtmaisteer term, and the Corporation was 'in a
measure dissolved. It would therefore appear that.
of the fil
•
to be the facts contained in the affidavit, and the
nj es of
exte tePtil. ea,
These such
appearedbody
.d
as a Mayor and Bur gem
Learned sergeant thought, that as it was quite el i-
dent that no such body as the ,defendants descril ,ed
themselves to be was in existence, the Court would
grant him the rule he prayed for.
Mr.- Justice GASELEE thought there must be some
mistake in the affidavit with respect to the time
when the judgment was issued by the Court of
King's Bench, for he had read a report in the news-
papers (and those reports, though riot given in de-
tail, were generally correct in substance), that a
rule, of a similar kind to that mentioned in the affi-
davit, was granted in the Court of King's Bench
only a few days ago, but he believed his Learned
Brother Russell could confirm the Court on that
point.
Mr: Sergeant RUSSELL said,
.that it certainly was
so—such a rule was moved for arid granted.
Under these circumstances, the Court expressed
great unwillingness to grant the rule. They there-
fore left it to the discretion of Mr. Sergeant Teddy,
to say whether he would not take a rule to show
Cause, why the defendants should not give security
for costs.
To this proposition the Learned Sergeant appear-
ed to consent.
ARNOLD V. THE BISHOP or BATH AND WELLS.
Mr. Sergeant E. LAvvEs moved to discharge a
rule obtained by Mr. Sergeant Wilde on a former
day, calling upon the plaintiff to file his declaration
in this action on or before the last'day of term. He
stated that the rule was obtained only on Saturday
last, and served on Sunday.
Mr. Justice PARk.—Served on a Sunday, and
upon a bishop too ! I hope not.
Mr. Sergeant WILDE said it was served by letter.
He had no objection to enlarge the rule to the first
day of next term, provided the plaintiff Peremptorily
undertook to declare in the mean time.

Mr. Sergeant LAWES had no instructions to ac-
cede to any such proposal ; but the Court, think-
ing it very reasonable, ordered a rule to be drawn
up accordingly,

CONSISTORY COURT, Nov. 21
HARRIS V. HARRIS.
In this suit, which is for a divorce on the ground
of adultery, instituted by Mrs. Harris against Capt.
Harris,,, her husband, the proctor for the former ap-
plied for an allowance on account, till the question
of alimony could be settled. From the answers of
Captain Harris in the Registry, it appeared that his
income amounted to between 5001. and 6001. Mrs.
Harris had received a weekly allowance, equal to
801. per annum, from June till August last, when it
ceased, and she now received no allowance whatever
from her husband. •

The Proctor on the other side stated, that the in-
come of Captain Harris was but 1601. per arnium : a
public situation which he lately held, yielding 1101.,
had ceased. He was willing to allow 501. or 601.
for alimony, but was not prepared to offer any sutil
on account.

The COURT directed 301. to be paid, till the al
mony was settled. •

COURT OF EXCHEQUER, Nov. 27
TROTTER. v. HARRIS.

This was an action of trespass, brought by Mr.
Hartwell, a respectable gentleman, residing in Surrey,
in the name of his tenant, Richard Trotter; against
the defendant, for an invasion of his right to a ferry
on the river Thames, at Lalehain.
_ _

Mr. JEKvts(who 'was assisted by Mr.TEIESIGER)
called evidence which proved Mr. Flartwell's pos-
session ever since 1810, Mr. TatterSall's:Previous
possession, and the former judgment recovered by
him against, the present defendant.
Mr. Tainvi:ort, who, with Mr. COMYN, appeared
for the defendant; contended that there was no evi-
dence to establish the plaintiff's exclusive right to a
ferry on this part of the river.
The Jury returned a verdict • for the plaintiff—
Damages Is., costs 40s. • •
This cause occupied the Nisi Prius court during
the whole of the day.