The Sun.
London, England, 1829-02-09 00:00:00

COURT OF KING'S BENCEI, FF B. 7.

Mr. Justice LITTLEDALE sat for a short time to hear
motions of course, after which their Lordships sat in Banco.
Lord TFNTERDEN informed the Bar that the Court
..vould sit, under the King's warrant, during tlee follow-
ing per;ods after term, namely, from Friday, the 13th
inst. to Thursday, the 19th, and limn Wednesday, the
2:2d Al'ril, till Tuesday, May b. his Lordship also inti-
mated that he should sit with his Learned Brothers on the
Monday, Tncsday, and Wednesday, in the first week after
Term.

THE KING V. REV. J. SIMMONDS.

Mr. CA tI'I3ELL moved the Court to discharge a rule ob-
tained by Sir J. Suarlett, calling upon the .defendant to
show cause why a criminal information should not he filed
against him for some abusive- expressions towards the late
Mayor of Hereford, Mr. Garrat. It appeared that the
defendant had received a summons to appear before the
Mayor of Hereford at the Guildhall, to show cause why he
refused to pay a certain balance of wages to his female ser-
vant. According to Mr. Garrat's affidavit, the defendant
was summoned to attend at 12 o'clock, and did not attend
till four; that on discussing dieser vant's claim, the defendant,
Mr. Simmonds, behaved with such insolence, that he con-
r.idered it his duty to order him into custody ; but upon his
making an apology, he was released, and agreed to pay the
wages. This was on the 4th of October. On the fol-
_

lowing Tuesday, after Mr. Garrat had gone out of office
as Mayor, he was walking near the Nye Bridge, when
he was accosted by Mr. Simtnonds in the following terms:
—" You exceeded your duty on Saturday, and are no
longer Mayor." Mr. Garrat replied, "Iflam no longer
Mayor, I am a Magistrate, and will not be insulted."

—Mr. Simmonde then followed him, and said, " You
are a dirty fellow and a Magistrate, and I will
have you put in the stocks; you are no longer Mayer."
Such was the affidavit of Mr. Garrat, who swears that
he eon' I not have used abuse, but he (Mr. Campbell) bad
the affidavits of two other persona, who heard detached
expressions from Mr. Garrat, and their Lordships would
find that abuse was used by him, and that the retaliation
was very excusable under the circumstances. Mr. Sim-
motls now swears by his affidavit that on the day in ques-
tion he attended to the summons at half-past two o'clock,
and had agreed to pay the whole of the wages before Mr.
Garrat came in. When he entered deponent was writing out.
a stamp receipt, which he had prepared for the purpose.
Mr. Garrat addressed deponent, with " What, are you
going to pay the whole of the wages?" Deponent replied,
that he was, and that he should proceed in another way
against the servant, for the misconduct of which she had
been guilty whilst in his service. Mr. Garrat replied,
that he was bound to tell deponent publicly, that he had
behaved most shamefully in the business, and had tampered
shamefully with the boy ; alluding, as deponent believes,
to John Harpole, who had been examined on another
occasion relative to some dispute between the ser-
vant who had summoned him end another ser-
vant of the deponent's family. Deponent immedi-
ately wrote down the words tittered by Mr. Garrat
on the back of the receipt. This greatly enraged the Mayor,
who said that he would have the whole affair published in
the newspapers. Deponent replied, that he could do that
as well, and Mr. Garrat immediately ordered him into
custody. Not wishing to be at variance with the Mayor,
he made a slight apology, and was liberated. He was
afterwards told that Mr. Garrat had exceeded his duty,
and seeing Mr. Garrat on Tuesday, he crossed over to tell
him so. A few words passed between them, in which
Mr. Garrat said he would be happy to meet him if he
would go to law. He was going away, when he added,
"_ and expose you, you scoundrel." Deponent followed
him, and asked him if his ears had deceived him, or if he
had really addressed that epithet to him? Mr. Garret
replied by telling deponent that every one called him the
fighting parson, and accused him of beating a tinker. De-
ponent then said, that if it were not for his character as a
Clergyman, he should take a decisive course; that it was
cowardly of Mr. Garrat to have used the above expres-
sion., when he knew that deponent could not resent them.
lie admitted having added, that Garrat was a disgrace to
the Magistrary.
Sir J. SCARLETT here remarked, that Mr. Simmonds
had had the advantage of swearing last.
Mr. CAMPBELL then submitted that the ride ought to
be discharged.

The COURT thought that it was a ease in which they
ought not to interfere, and discharged the rule.

REX V. KNIGHT (CLERK).

Mr. BROUGHAM moved that the rule in this case should
be made absolute.

Sir J. Scaamtrr shoved cause against the rule. The
defendant was a Clergyman and a Magistrate of the county
of Oxford, and the principal charge against him was,
that
he had, out of resentment against a Mts. Higgs, refused to
grant a license to her husband, who kept a pubhc-honse in
a small village near Oxford.
Rule discharged, without costs on either side.

EX-PARTE INGLIS AND RAIKES, TRUSTF.EB OF THE ESTATE.

AND ZPVECT3 OF MESSRS. LAW ES AND CORVALLIER.

The ATTORNEY-GENERA I. now showed cause against a
rule obtained by Sir J. Scarlett in the course of List Easier
Term, calling on the Commi+sioners appointed by the 59th
of the late King, for the liquidation.of the claims of British
subjects on France, to shetv',cause why a mandamus should
not issue to compel them to pay the claims of the applicants
from the surplus in their hands in the French Compensa-
tion Funds.

After Sir J. SCA KLETT hail been heard at some length in
support of the rule, the Court took time to consider, before
pronouncing judgment.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER, FEB. 7.
THE KING V. MARY SWINTON.

This suit was instituted on the part of the Crown against
the defendant for u trespass, inasmuch as she had cut and
carried away turf and peat for sale, and to an extent, not
warranted by the Act of Parliament. The plea set up for
the defendant Was, that having a right of common, she
had, under the Act, a right to cut and carry away what-
ever quantity of turf or peat she thought proper.
The CHIEF Baum; delivered his opinion to the effect
that he did not pushier the plea put in as one Which could