Star.
London, England, 1830-06-15 00:00:00

LA lY REPORTS.

VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT, Jorrt 14.
HARLAND V. BzxNETT.—The defendant was brought up in
custody, in order that the bill might be taken pro confeaso against
him, for refusing to put in his answer. It will be recollected that
this prisoner was the man who the Solicitor-General said, on his
being brought up on a former occasion, refused to answer the bill
only because he thought he could live better in prison than he could
out of it.

The Vice Chancellor asked the prisoner what be had to say
against the application ?
The prisoner handed up a paper.
Ills Honour after reading it, said the document was to the put,.
pose, and ordered the bill to be taken pro confess°, as prayed.
COURT OF KING'S BENCH, Juxz 14.
THE KING V. THE JUSTICES OF GLOUCESTERSHIRE.—
On a former day Mr. Campbell obtained a rule calling on the de.
fendants to show cause why a writ of mandamus should not issue
against them, directing them to hear an appeal which had been
made to them. It appeared that in a certain parish, in the
county of Gloucestershire, there were two overseers annually, in
addition to various other officers, to transact parish affairs. Each
of these overseers had different districts, and at particular periods
made a return of their receipts. In this instance one of the over.
seers had appealed to the quarter sessions against the accounts of his
co-overseer. On the appeal coining on before the magistrates, in
sessions assembled, for baring, they had heard one witness, and were
proceeding to take evidence of a second, when Mr. Justice, who ap.
for the respondents, took objection,submitting that the Sessions
rair tillo jurisdiction. The objection was allowed by the Bench, and
the appeal dismissed. Mr. Capmbell had therefore moved for the
writ of mandamus, upon the ground that the Bench had jurisdic-
tion, and the appeal had not been heard.
Mr. ATTOBNEY4ENERAL Mr. JUSTICE, and Mr. ALEX.
ANDES., showed cause, contending that if the Bench of Magistrates
had jurisdiction, the appeal bad been heard.
Mr. CAMPBELL having been heard,
The COVET expressed themselves as of opinion that an overseer
had a right of appeal against the accounts of his co-overseer; con-
sequently, that the Bench had jurisdiction, and therefore that this
appeal had not been heard.
The mandamus was accordingly directed to issue.
Swaxw v. WHARTOL—This was a rule nisi calling on a
Mr. Smithson, the solicitor to the plaintiff, to permit the de.
fendant to inspect and take copies of certain deeds and vouchers
in this case.

The circumstances of this case must be familiar to our readers,
as it has occupied much of the time of the Court during the two last
terms. They arise out of certain annuities granted in 1786, 1814,
and 1819.

Mr. ALDZRION showed cause this day, and
Mr. BROUGHAM and Mr. HUMPHREYS Wen heard in support
of the rub.

The rule etas ultimately made absolute in a modified form.
__ COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Jura
.14.

HARNER V. MILTON.—This was an action brought to recover
601. for the keep of a racehorse called Figaro. The action was tried
at the last sittings at Guildhall. Upon the trial it was proved that
the horse was bred by the plaintiff, and purchased by the defen.
dant, in proof of which purchase a letter in the hand-writing of the
defendant was produced, in which he acknowledged the purchase of
the horse. The plaintiff, however, according to the letter, was to
keep possession of the horse until it was paid for. A verdict, con-
sequently, passed for the plaintiff.
Mr. Sergeant IVILDE moved to set the verdict aside, and enter a
nonsuit, on the ground that there was no proof of any sale of the
horse to the defendant, nor was there any proof of tender to the de.
fendant. It was at the same time proved that the plaintiff had a
lien on the horse, and therefore it still remained his property. The
evidence given upon the trial would not have been sufficient to esta-
blish a claim to the price of the horse.
Rule to show cause granted.