Star.
London, England, 1830-05-12 00:00:00

PRACTICE OP TIIE COURTCORRIE V. CORRIE.

Mr. SPENCE was instructed to apply to the Court to
allow this case to be put into the paper on Friday, to be
spoke to on the minutes, as they had been drawn up by
the Registrar directly contrary to the way in which it
had been pronounced by the Court.
The MASTER of the Rou.s (with some warmth)-1
really cannot allow these things ; this has of late been
continually the course adopted ; parties must settle the
minutes at the time the decree is pronounced. Parties
or Counsel cannot have attended to the declarations of
the Court. I certainly will permit these species of ap-
plications no longer.
Mr. SPENCE had given every attention in his power
to the order pronounced by the Court in this case, and he
could take upon himself to say that the decree, as drawn
up by the registrar, had never been pronounced by his
honour. The learned counsel then stated what the de-
cree was that he understood the court to have pronounced,
and also the decree drawn up by the registrar.
The MASTER of the RoLLs—I really wish counsel
would attend and understand what the decree of the
court is.

Mr. SPENCE—ReaIIy, Sir, I consider such observa-
tions as now fell from the court, entirely uncalled for in
this case. I flattered myself that I understood every part
of the case, and I can take upon myself to say no such
order was pronounced by the court.
The Registrar who drew up the order not being in at-
tendance, the COURT, after some further discussion,
gave Mr. SPENCE leave to mention the case when he
was in Court.
COURT OF KING'S BENCH—WESTMINSTER, MAY 10.
GAME LAWS.—CRIMINAL INFORMATION,-.THE KING v. ROIL

Mr. B ROUG A U shewed cause against a rule obtained
by Mr. DENMAN, to file a criminal information against
William Ross, Esq. for certain statements which he en-
tered in a rate-book of the parish of Upham, in the county
of Southampton, where Mr. Ross was the neighbour of
the prosecutor, Edward Gregory Morant Gale, Esq. It
appeared that the parties had lived upon good terms un-
til Mr. Gale prosecuted the servant of Mr. Ross for lay-
ing wires in Ross's ground to kill rabbits. The man was
prosecuted and convicted in the. penalty of 51. without,
the knowledge of Mr. Ross, who in fact had ordered him
to lay the snare. This severe proceeding under the
Game Laws was considered by the defendant a most un-
nieghbourly act; and more particularly so, as the man
had long borne a most excellent character. Mr. Ross,
who was Overseer of the parish, paid half the penalty for
his servant, and under the irritation of the moment made
the following entry in the rate-book :—" Paid 21. being
the balance of 51. illegally and maliciously imposed by
Edward Gregory Morant Gale, of Upton, on a poor man,
who gained no more by his labour than nine shillings a
week."

Mr. %Lou Gnats( said he had the affidavits of five re-
spectable yeomen, describing the conduct of the poor man
to be generally correct, and in no way connected with
poaching.
Lord TENTERDEN—He made this entry in the rate-
book, where every one might see it.
Mr. Baovottam contended that Mr. Gale's conduct
did not entitle him to come to this Court for the extraor-
dinary interposition by criminal information.
Mr. FOLLET argued on the same side.
Lord TENTERDEN—Who has possession of the book
lin which this libel was written ?

Mr. DENMAN—The rate-book goes before the Ma-
gistrates.
Lord TEN Tgamar—Let the rule be discharged on pay-
ment of costs, the defendant undertaking to cause the
libel to be obliterated from the rate book.

Mr. DENMAN —The parish have come to a resolution
that it shall be obliterated.

The rule was discharged on payment of costs.
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, MAY 11.
STRACEY AND ANOTHER V. THE BANK OF ENGLAND.

This was an action tried some time since, and was
brought by the plaintiffs, partners in the late banking
establishment of Marsh, Stracey, and Fauntleroy, to re-
cover from the Bank of England 6051. I Is. Long An-
nuities, entered in the bank books to Sir E. Stracey and
Josiah Henry Stracey, as trustees under the will of
Harding Stracey, which annuities were fraudulently
transferred to Gilbert Barrington by a forged power of
attorney by the partner, Henry Fauntleroy, when a spe-
cial verdict was returned.

Mr. Sergeant SPAN K I E addressed the Court this morn-
ing for the plaintiffs, and read the terms of the special
verdict, from which it appeared that it was admitted that
the stock in question was in the Bank of England ; that
it was fraudulently transferred by the plaintiff's partner,
Fauntleroy ; that the amount was afterwards paid into the
plaintiff's banking concern ; and that the Bank of England
offered an equivalent for the stock in question, provided the
plaintiffs consented to give evidence, so as to enable the
Bank of England to recover from the bankrupt's estates.
The Learned Sergeant argued that the Bank were the
mere agents of the Government, and that they were
adopting a course of conduct, in thus opposing a just
claim with respect to government property, that could not
be justified. One ground of objection to the plaintiffs'
claim was that, in consequence of some agreement between
the plaintiffs and Mr.Freshtield, the solicitor to the Bank,
the former agreed to receive certain dividends upon the
before-mentioned stock, upon certain conditions ; but he
denied that the agreement iu question could affect the right
of the plaintiffs, for in the receipts given by the plaintiffs
for those payments, they expressly set forth, that they
received those dividends without prejudice to their right
to have the stock replaced.
~ r. Sergeant TA n DY, in reply, said, that the Bank did
not refuse to replace the stock in question, but they asked
of the plaintiffs, in return, that they would give such evi-
dence as would have enabled them (the Bank of England)
to move under the bankrupt's estate. This the plaintiffs
assented to at first, but subsequently they objected coming
forward, and this was the real ground upon which the
Bank opposed the claim made by the plaintiffs. The
Learned Sergeant then went into a variety of arguments,
to show that the Bank of England were not liable, as
they had not possession of the property sought to be re-
covered, and that upon the special verdict that had been
found by the Jury, he trusted the Court would be of
opinion that their judgment must be in favour of the Bank
of England.
•
Mr. Sergeant SPA Nx Zs having replied,
The Cu tar JUITiCE said, the Court would sake time
to consider the case. •

-