Star.
London, England, 1808-05-05 00:00:00

.LAW

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, MAY 4.

This being the first day of Term, the Court was opened with
the usual ceremonies. The reports were produced by the pro-
per officer of the state of the gaols, and convicts at hard labour;
and the details being read,were found In every respect satisfactory.
A Lady of the name of Phillips having presented herself for
bail, was opposed by the Counsel for the Plaintiff, on the ground
that she was about to be married to the Defendant. A question
being proposed on this subject, ir.ord ELLE N noßoucit said, that
it was an improper one. The Counsel resumed, observing, that
be understood the banns were published, and, by the marriage,
she would defeat the security of the Plain:iff, who held her to bail.
The Cuter los rice over-ruled the objection, remarking, that
the enquiry if the bail were afflicted with a fatal disease, by which
the benefit of the security would be lost, would not be more ir-
regular.
MANDAMUS TO TILE MAYOR AND NOBLE RECORDER OF

TILL BOROVGII OF THETFORD.
We have so often had occasion to state the constitution of this
Borough, that we need only refer to it.
Mr. Gartsow said, that a vacancy in the .Commonality had
been occasioned by the death of a Mr. Harvey, and that applica-
tion had been ineffectually made to the Mayor, by the Coroner, to
proceed to a new election to supply the place of the deceased.
Rule to shew cause granted.
SMITH V. WARNFORD.

....-
Mr. PAAR applied to set aside the verdict in this cause, and to
have a nonsuit enteied. It was an action for selling a hare. The
man was employed to prevent poachers, and had taken up a hare
which had been shot on the manor, and sold it, after having car-
ried it to the Steward. Mr. Park said, that the Learned Counsel
who appeared for the Plaintiff, stated the case of Moulton and
Cheesby, I Esp. 123, white it is said, that a man was found guilty
for taking away a pheasant which had been killed by aocident.—
Judge Buller is reported to have observed, that the killing by ac-
cident was no ground of-action, but that the Defendant aught to
have left it upon the ground where it was.
On this occasion Mr. Justice LAURENCE said, Re did not see at
all the reas•n of that opinion of his I.earned Predecessor. The
question was, if in this case the hare was robe left tote run over
6y carriages, or destroyed by vermin ?—Rule to show cause granted.,

COURT OF CHANCERY, MAY 3.
LhKD MAHON V. EARL STANHOPE.
This came before the MASTFiI of the Rotts, on a petition
from the Noble Defendant to vary the minutes and the decree
which had been pronounced by his Honour In this cause.
Earl STA N tforz rose from behind the Bar to support this Peti-
tion, and he commenced by stating certain Canons with respect
to bills in Chancery, which he said in no case could be disre-
garded, without defeating the objects for which they were framed.
1. The decree must be conformable to the prayer of the bill. 2.
Whatever allegations are contained in the bill. will receive no at-
tention from the Court, unless the! are supported by competent
proof. S. Every article in the prayer of the bill must be followed
up by sufficient corresponding charges properly verified by testi-
mony. 4. Every statement or charge introduced into an original
bill, and excluded from the amended bill, must be considered as
abandoned. 5. When the allegations in the answer are not re-
plied toby the Plibitiff, the matter so alledged must be taken for
facts admitted by the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff cannot afterwards
call such facts In question. 6. In the case of monies resulting
front settled estates laid out on mortgage, it is an agreed principle,
that such act done on the ground of family expediency is justifia-
ble, unless the contrary be shewn. 7. When the Court directs
an enquiry by the Master, a final decree should not be made be-
fore the Court shall know the result of such enquiry.
His Lordship having laid down these principles, said, that the
decree of the 9th of March last (for which we refer our Readmit
to the report we then gave) was erroneous upon each and every
one of these adjusted and determined points • and that, therefore,
the minutes of the decree ought tube amended as follows :—First,
to direct an enquiry if there he not strong grounds of family ex-
pediency to continue the nir.-•,; .ye of 21,3041 55.; secondly, to
omit the clause applying to that subject ; thirdly, to omit the
enquiry with respect to what parts of the estates were sold, and
how the money resulting from such sale has been invested.—
Fourthly, to do the same with respect to the enquiry affecting the
Derbyshire estates. Fifthly, the same with regard to the felling
of trees. Sixthly, the same touching the removal of Mr. Dash-
wood, and to substitute an enquiry if he be not at t trustee.
His Lordship having stated the ground of his objections to the
minutes of the decree, and having distinguished the particulars
to which they were referable, commented anion each, seriatim,
and replied to the arguments of the Learned Counsel, Mr.
RICHARDS, and Sir SAMUEL ROMILLY, whose pleadings in this
cause we have stated on a former occasion. Ho especially resisted
the position of the former, that what was excluded in the amend-
ed Bill in the nature of charge or otherwise, was comprised in
the prayer for general relief, observing, that as in an indictment
so in a Bill, these were superfluous words like these, of no mean-
ing, such as were introduced into the phrase " not having the
fear of Coo before his eyes, and being tempted by the Devil."—
His Lordship said, that as the four legs supported the table, so
there were four things necessary to support a decree: Ist, The
prayer must cover the decree: 2d, There must be a charge con-
formable to the prayer: 3d, There must be a statement of facts
corresponding to the charge: 4th, There must be proof to esta
blish the statement. No one of thess four could be deficient ; it
was an universal rule, without any exception. A man was not
to have a Bill brought against hint for one thing, and to have a
decree for another, as Mr. Burke would have impeached Mr.
Hastings for one crime, and have had him tried for another. His
Lordship had no objection that Mr. Dashwood, as trustee, should
act under the direction of a Master of the Court ; but he would
not have trustees appointed by his son, because he knew the per-
sons, both male end female, whose advice in such case would be re-
ceived, and he distrusted them. He insisted, that it was no objection
to Mr. Dashwood, that he bad been confined in prison for debt :
the late Marquis of Lansdowu, with 40,0001 a year, and the
Duke of Portland, with a much larger income, prior to the mar-
riage of his son with Alio% Scott, had they not been in Parliament,
might both have been immured in prison for debt, as Sir Watkin
Lewis said he was with 50,0001. a year at this moment : and no
one could say that those noble persons, on whom had been con-
ferred the highest stations by the Crown, were unqualified for
sustaining the character of trustees. His lordship concluded with
come ironical remarks on his son's pretended attachment to the
avenue, which he had no opportunity of seeing, it having been ut-
terly destroyed bag before he was born. Upon all these grounds
hr contended that these several parts of the decree ought to be
varied in the manner stated in the petition.
Mr. RICHARDS, in reply, said, that the only question before the
Court was, whether the minutes of the decree were in conformity
of the judgment of the Court ? He admitted, that if Lord Stan-
hope should insist that new Trustees were not to be appointed,
but that they should go before the Master, he could not resist such
a prepc.ition. He hoped that, under all the circumstances, his
Honour would do the Plaintiff the justice to dismiss the .petitien.
and order his Lordship to pay the costs of data application. 1
'lle Counsel for Mr. Dashwood said a few words.
The MA S rca of the Ro lots observed, that the only question
before him was, if the minutes express the decree as pronounced ?
l'he Court could not make any alteration upon tech a petition :
must therefore be dismissed : but he did not see that, under the
circumstances, it ought to be dismissed with costs.

CORK ASSIZES, APRIL 2s.
HAYES T. spILLER.

This was a case of a singular nature, and the trial
w•a: of two days duration. The Plaintiff had pur-
chased the sixteenth of a lottery ticket which was af-
terwards drawn a prize of twenty thousand pounds.
'the defendant who is his brother-in-law, claimed half
the sum a.-tained, upon the grounds that previously to'
the day of drawing, he became a partner in the trans-
action. The circumstances, as they appeared before
the Court, were as follow :—The Plaintiff was en-
gaged in various branches of business in 'Clonakilty.
In the year 180.5 his affairs became involved in embar-
rassment and difficulty, and he brought in the Defen-
dant to assist him in their arrangement. His per-
plexity, it is thought, affected the composure of his
mind, and he evinced some symptoms of mental dis-
order. In August, 1805, the Plaintiff came to this
city upon some business, and while in town purchased
the sixteenth of two lottery tickets, for which he vas