Star.
London, England, 1830-11-15 00:00:00

LA W REPORTS.

KING'S BENCH, Nov. 15.

( I.efute Lord Chief Justice TENT EILDEN and Messrs. Justices JAMES

PARK. TAUNTON. and PATTERSON.
IN RE Tr,SKINS AND 0. HERS.

A motion was made to their Lordship Mr a new trial, upon certain
affidavits, exhibited by the defendants in this cause. The circumstances
of the action arose out of an assault alieged to have been committed by
Mr. H. Temkin. aid ax other individuals, at a vestry meeting of the
parish of Berwick upon-Tweed.
It appears that the right of electing churchwardens had always been
elaitm ti anti ex.acised by the Thayor and corporation of the town, but
the u clot anti !iaciehioners having resolved to dispute this power,
elected two other churcherratlens, who, in the execution of their office.
nail ronvened a vestry to be holden in the parish Church, Feb. 1830,
for tne purpose of making a vote, and for the dispatch of business can.
arena' with the parish. The .layor and corporation, in the mean time,
had exercised their assumed right. said had also appointed two church-
wardens, one of whom was the defendant Tomkins. On the day that
the meeting was called, the defendant, Tomkins, with a number
of others, not rate-payers, appeared, and insisted upon being ad-
mitted into the Church. The constables refused to admit them indis-
criminately, but the corporation churchwardens setting the example,
forced their way into the church, and disturbed the meeting. The
meeting having been dissolved, it was turther alleged that a mob con.
: intent to follow and insult the officers: and one of them, named Holme,
a tweed into a ditch. Mr. Temkin. was close by when this outrage
was perpetrated. The whole seven defendants having bean parties to
the disturbance, were indicted at Berwick, and found guilty.
The WORT having heard the grounds upon which a new trial was
rayed, were of opinion that t.tdEcient reason had not been shewn, and
refused the application.
The defendants were then placed on the floor of the Court for judg-
ment.

Mr. BROUGHAM addressed a few words on behalf of the prosecu.
tun,. observing that the question of the right of electing the church-
wardens was not now to be determined, but whether the defendants
had tot committed a breach of the law by their outrageous conduct ?
;11r. Corzi.ants was heard in mitigation, and a number of affidavits
were put in relating to the respectability and character of the defendants.
The Loon CHIEF JUSTICE, addressing the defendants, remarked
that their cases bore a different degree of culpability. The defendants
Tomkins and Lyall had been in a manner the instigators of the offence
of the other defendants, and therefore the punishment must be pro.
portionate. The defendant Tomkins had taken a wrong method, by
resorting to violence, in refusing to let the business proceed ; his course
ought to have been to have urged his right to the officeof churchwarden
at another tribunal, and to have entered his protest against the proceed-
ings which might have occurred at the vestry. Taking the circum-
stances of the parties having been some time in custody, into conside-
ration, the Court inflicted on Mr. Tomkins a fine of 501. on Mr. Lyall
a fine of 251. and the otter defendants 40s, each ; to be imprisoned
until the respective fines be paid.
C4IURT OF EXCHEQUER, SATURDAY.

SITTINGS IN 1:11110R.—The KING V. Woon.—This case, re.
‘.rved for the opinion of the Judgrs by Mr. Baron Vaughan, on the
western circuit, came on before a full bench yesterday. The circum.
.lances arc shortly as follow :—A writ was issued against a person of
the of Wood. but without any specification of the christian name.
he officer who served it was accompanied by a person who pointed out
ihe defendant as the party against whom the writ had been procured.
The officer proceeded to make his caption, but, on producing his war-
rant, and the omission of the christian name having been discovered,
3lr. Wood tefused to be taken, and upon the plaintiff proceeding to
a,e force, he presented a pistol and shot him. For this offence he had
been tried at the Assizes and found guilty. A justification was pleaded
.n the ground of the illegality of the writ.—Mr. Coleridge, for the de-
f. adapt, submitted that the officeriouligt not to'have persisted in mak.
ing the caption upon a writ of that illegal nature. The learned coun-
sel proceeded to cite cases in point, in which resistance to a caption
was justified by an imperfection in the writ. In particular he produced
3 case where the party had resisted the officer, on the ground that he
had been described as a knight, when he was of the rank of baronet.
The circumstance was held to vitiate the writ. The learned counsel
having closed his arguments, the court rose, and judgment was post-
pones to the next sitting.

IIUBLIN, Nov. 12.

CRIMINAL INFORMATION.
CALLAGHAN V. BALDWIN AND WALSH.

Mr. Sergeant GOOLD moved for a criminal information on the part
of Mr. Daniel Callaghan, M.P. for the city of Cork, against Herbert
Baldwin. M.D. and MrFrancis Walsh. The motion was grounded
en Mr. Callaghan's affidavit, which states several circumstances con-
ree:ad with his first election fur the city, and with the late election, at
both of which his return was opposed by the defendants. Mr. Walsh
harangued the people against him, on the first election, when he was
opposed by Mr. Newenhani, and at the late election, when he was op-
posed by the hon. Mr. Boyle and Doctor Baldwin, as candidates. Mr.
Walsh on one occasion publicly stated that Mr. Callaghan had said, in
a conversation with Mr. Coppinger, that he " did not know whether
he was a catholic or not ; nor whether he had any religion:;" and as he
conceived that Mr. Walsh had stated this with a view to prejudice
hint in the opinions of the people, he contradicted it, but without say-
irg any thing offensive to r. Walsh. Mr. Walsh persisted in
his assertion, and he said if Mr. Coppingcr was there lie would
also deny it. After this he was waited on by a young gentleman.
named Barry. a law student, to request an explanation of
what Mr. Walsh regarded as an imputation on his veracity, and
he expressed his willingness to repeat his statement on tile bust.
logs. alr. Barry withdrew. and his father, the elder Mr. Barry, apolo-
gised for his son's interftrence. After the election had terminated by
his return, he was waited on by Dr. Baldwin, on the part of Mr. Walsh,
to demand satisfaction for the alleged offence, aid produced a letter
front Mr. Coppinger averring the truth of Mr. Walsh's assertion; he
explained as he had before dose, but Dr. Baldwin said he was not an.
tistied, and required him to appoint a friend to arrange the affair as was
customary; he replied that he had already been waited on by Mr.
Barry respecting it, and enquired in what light he was to regard the
tomeatinication now made to him ? Dr. Baldwin said the language was
well understood by every gentleman and man of honour; he enquired
was it his intention to delivers hostile message, and Dr. Baldwin asked
lam would he take any legal advantage of it it he dill; he told the Doc-
tor to act as he thought proper. and the Doctor then withdrew to con-
sult his friend, after which both the parties repeated the same language,
with.mt directly delivering *message. but as lie swore, he believed, with
intention to provoke hint to a breach of the peace. by fighting a duel
with Mr. Walsh, and he denied having given any provocation. A con.
di~‘onal order granted.
CRIMINAL INFORMATION.
GLYNN V. POWER

Mr. Perrin, K. C. applied for a criminal information against Mr.
Robert Power, a barrister, for an attempt to provoke a dud with Mr.
William Glynn. He moved on the affidavit of the plaintiff, which
bt a tul, that the attempt had originated from his having recommended
the examination of Mr. Power on an insolvent case in which he was
concerned, front a belief that Mr. Power would give fair and useful
evidence respecting some circumstances which had given dissatisfaction
to the creditors. The occurrcncee was described in the following man-
ner : —He was passing Essex bridge, Dublin, in company with a Mr.
Pickering and a Mr. Corbett, when he was met by Mr. Power, accom-
panied by two friends. Mr. Power said—" Pickering, who was it that
would have me:examined ? " To which he replied, without conceiv-
ing he had offended, " It was I ;" and Mr. Power all, " Then you're
a damned impertinent fellow for so doing." He felt insulted, and said,
I'll take other notice of that. Mr. Power;" and Mi. Power replied,
"" Only for the law I would wring your nose for you in two minutes."
Ile only observed to this, " Would you ? " and Mr. Power said, " I
would : you are a coward and a blackguard ; and, as he was taken
away by his friends, called out that he was " a dirty fellow. Mr.
hllDermott and Mr. Hickson both stated to the court that Mr. Power
had already expressed his willingness to make any apology required by
the plaintiff and that he regretted the occurrence. His Lordship de-
sired them to confer with Mr. Perrin out of court, and perhaps they
should nor hear any more of the affair.
CRIMINAL INFORMATION.
LAMBERT V. WALLACE.

Mr. Bennett, K. C. applied for a criminal information against Mr.
Wallace, on Mr. Thomas Lamberts affidavit, which stated that
on the 22d of October last he was proceeding to the Sessions Court
in (Jolt to attend his duty as a magistrate, when he was met in the
street by Mr. Wallace, who came up, and in an angry voice, shaking a
whip as if he would strike him, said :—" I now find you are the person
who got me fined ; I have it from the lips of your own man; you are
a blackguard, a rascal, and spy ; and you know where to find me;" to
which he only replied Very well; it is not the first time you
made an apology," and called on a Mr. Blake who was present to ob.
serve Mr. Wallace's words. The affidavit went on to state he had not
procured the fine complained of, which was imposed at the prosecution
of Mr. Dudley Passe, as guardian of Perese, a lunatic, and had not
given any provocation for the attempt to induce him to fight a duel.
Mr. Justice Burton enquired what was the meaning of the observation
of Mr. Lambert its not the first time you made an apology." Mr.
Bennett said there was no explanation given. His Lordship then said
he would grant a conditional order if Mr. Bennett thought fit to take it
subject to the objection of there being no explanatory affidavit of the
expression. Mr. Bennett said he would defer taking the order until he
had such an affidavit to offer.

The petitions agreed to recently in the Edinburgh Assem-
bly Rooms, foe the irstwediais abolition of negro slavery, have been just
closed, after receiving about 25,800 signatures. The petitions for
gradual abolition were signed by about 1080 individuals.