The Sun.
London, England, 1811-11-29 00:00:00

L4ll REPORT.

COURT OF. KONG'S BENCH, Nov. 17,

V. THE JUSTICES OF SUFFOLK.
Mr. GURNEY. yesterday moved for a rule to show
cmse why a-inandanzus shourci not issue to the Ma-
gistrates of the county of Suffellc, Commanding them
to tender ;11 oaths and receive the declarations under
the 'Tole! ration Aa, 1 W. 'and M. s. 2. c. 18. of
Leonard Ellington, who bad been six months dis'-
senting teacher of a Congregatiori.atMiltort-hall in
that county. This the Magistrates bad refused to
do, without assigning,any reason ; and the applicant
could not be otherwise exempted from the pains and
penalties of certain statutes Of Ch. I.lo'--Itule to skew
cause granted. • r

THE KING, V. AIINISTItoNG.
Mr. PARK prayed the Judgment of the Court.
upon this defendant, against whom a ver'did of:
guilty had passed, at. the last London Sitting 4, for•
libellous- lettersio Mr. Ballot, his brother-
in-law; Lord lillenborough suggesting that course,
upon his entellng iota his personal recognizance
to offend no more, in the penalty of five hundred
pounds. This Jecognizance, Mr. Park said, the
defendant now
.refused to enter into
,most tontu-
maeiouSly, and had been tepewing the offence since
the trial,
The Catinsel for the defendant said, that he
bacf, only ohjeded to the phrase " directly 'or in-
directly libel the prosecutor," .as too wide a term. •
LOrd ELLENBotioUGH, said,, that that was within
tbe spirit of the compromise; and it the defendant
.oniet.ied to it, he must go soTewhere else.
The defendant's. Counsel then complained, that
the re.t.xgnizance had no limit as to time : a man's
whole:lite was too long a term:
Lord EhLENEOttouGst 0444 hat in all these cnses
the court would look ,atihe disposition of the party; •
and fixed the term at seven years.
Into, this recognizance, 'therefore, the defendant
entqed.
THE KING v.,Cparol4TioN OF
Lord Et.4.4:Nsottouott gave the judgment of the
Court on, this appe,..l: front the Sessions, against a
poor-rate levied. by the parish Of .Li,lconibe and
WWtootnbe, ;von. the Nlayor and' Corporation of
Bath, as occupiers 01 spring.; and reser-
voirs situate in, that
_pari4ll ; itttcl the firit question
for 'the Court was, yvttetiter the Ceti oration was
`ratable at, ail ,to ti.te parity It ill question for these
water-workS ; and the 2,4 tith.ition,;i:Nhetherj if
they were: tio,AWY were intatde in I.iticomhe and
Whitcornbe tot the (vhole, or only, for so much as,
was'protit on die concern by the !v,iter-rts.nt colle,ct-
ed in that parish it being. stated that theprofits of
the. whnle wner-woits were tool. per annum,
WheVeof 50J. wali,colle6ed in :the parish in Ties-
' lion,, the remaiturig flour three other
parishes in Will,' to which the water was .conveyed
by pipes from the. rervoir. The Court decided
that the Corporation, were doubtless occupier., at
local and ristbfe property within the parish, and
were the :.tare r.utO,le; 'Jot only by th-. parish of.
Li.tcumne.aud *Whitt:ol3ll.p., for such pr.ofits'as were
made that palish ; and that they were also
rat 0-)le in the three other parishes in which they
prt.lits Drq tgract: It wa4 net necessary thr
the Court to pronoutwe to what"amnunt they were
hatable in the Other parishes ; :and, indeed, they
hail no materials to enable them to de so. It was
sufficient to, say .that this parish was iMproperly
rated for the whOle profits;' and the order of Ses-
sions must therefore be quaslyd. 1