The Sun.
London, England, 1827-02-02 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT, Tnu R MAY, FEB. 1.
FRACTIOE OF THE COURT.
The following notice was posted in Court this morning
" Notice is hereby given, that his Honour will in future require,
when any application is made to him to advance causes, further
directions, excepting pleas,. demurrers, or petitions, or to have
any of them put into the paper to be spoke to, an affidavit
that notice has been given to the other side, that such an applica-
tion is intended to be made ; and his Honour has directed the Re-
gistrars not to put any such causes, further directions, excep-
tions, pleas, "demurrers, and petitions, into the paper without
such affidavit being first produced to them."

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, WESTMINSTER, FEB. I.
THE KING V. JAMES WHITEHEAD.

Mr. SCARLETT, during-MichaelMas Term, obtained a rule,
calling on the defendant to show cause why a criminal informa-
tion should not be filed against him for having written a letter to
the Rev. H. Campbell, a Clergyman of the Church of England,
and a Magistrate of the county of Gloucester, reflecting on his
character awl conduct of a Justice of the Peace.

The COMMON SF.RGEANT now appeared on behalf of Mr.
Whitehead, who, he said, was ready to admit that the letter in
question was wholly without foundation, and perfectly unjusti-
fiable.

Mr. ScAnLarr, on behalf of the prosecutor—As the defendant
had given so ample a denial of the imputations contained in the
letter, would accept his apology on payment of costs. At the
came time he must remind his Learned Friend, that a similar rule
had been obtained by Mr. Campbell against Mr. Hadley, the Edi-
tor of the Cheltenham Journal and Gloucestershire Gazette,
for a libel of a similar description.
The COMMON SERGEANT on behalf of Mr. Hadley, was in-
structed to offer the same apology.
Mr. SCARLET; on such .conditions should not oppose the dis-
charge of the rules.

Rules discharged accordingly, on payment of costs.
HARNETT V. THWAITES.
This was an action by the plaintiff, an attorney, against the
defendant, the Editor of the Morning Herald, for a libel pub-
lished in that paper.
The COURT directed that the trial should be postponed until
the next Middlesex adjourned sittings.

COURT OF COAIMON PLEAS, GUILDHALL, FEB. 1.
TINSLEY' V. NASSAU, ESQ.
This was an action brought against the defendant, who was
Sheriff for the county of Essex, to recover damages for a levy
which the plaintiff alleged had been improperly made upon him.
The Loan CHIEF JusTica directed the plaintiff to be nonsuit-
ed, at the same time giving him leave to move to set it aside.
nuawrr v. DIXON.
This was an action of trespass, for an assault which the defend-
ant had committed upon the plaintiff. The defendant pleaded the
general issue.
Mr. Sergeant SPANICIE stated, that the plaintiff in this case

was a person carrying on business as a cheesenaonger, in the Wal-
worth-road. The defendant was well known in • the city, from
the exhibitions he had made in the Common Conned.
William March, shopman to the plaintiff, remembered the de-
fendant's coming into his shop on the Bth of July last, about eight
o'clock in the evening. Mr. Burnby was outside the shop, serving
bacon to the customers at the window. The defendant came in
to speak about a padlock which he said was lest : he made a great
noise about it, and said one of our boys had it. Plaintiff came in
and requested him very mildly to quit his shop. Defendant im-
mediately gave him a blow, and said, " There, take that ; I am
an old man—you are a young one." He then put himself in a
fighting attitude, saying," I am as good a man as you at any
time." Mr. Burnby refused to fight ; and Mr. Dixon finding
that the case, after much noise and uproar, left the shop.
Cross-examined.—He was not aware that the boy was apt to
tease and annoy Mr. Dixon. He believed Mr. Dixon was about
'76 years of age, Mr. Burnby about 40. Mr. Dixon had been in
the habit of dealing at Mr. Burnby 's shop for several years, and
had occasionally done so since the assault complained of, but not
regularly ; they had never booked him since.—(A laugh.)
The nephew was then ealled, who confirmed the evidence of
the last witness.

Mr. Sergeant VAUGHAN addressed the Jury for the defendant.
Mr. Dixon was represented as a man who had arrived at seventy-
six years : be would inquire of the Jury whether they thought a
person of this age would strike another without some provocation.
The plaintiff was stated to be about 40 years of age : the difference
in years was therefore very considerable ; not that he meant to say
Mr. Dixon was at all impaired by years, or that he was unable to
cope with the defendant; be knew that his
" - age, is as a lusty winter,
" Frosty but kindly ;"
and although he had been in the habit of frequenting the civic
feasts he,

neverreel
rebellious
apply
ors in his blood •
- ; 171 et and b
• " Nor did not with unbashful forehead woo'
" The means of weakness and debility."
It was evident also, that he bore no to the plaintiff, with
whom it appeared he had continued his custom. It must have
been some provocation to him when he inquired of the boy for the
lock, to be told a direct lie, which was a thing Mr. Dixon had a
complete horror of—(a laugh)—he had never told a lie for 78
years.—(Continued laughter.)—Ho thought it was altogether an
improbable story: he should call no witnesses, and was aware
that the verdict must be for the plaintiff, but trusted it would .be
for very moderate-damages.
Verdict for the plaintiff—Damages 30 guineas.