Star.
London, England, 1823-11-26 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF CHANCERY, NOVEMBER 2.5.
ill THE CASE OF ST. STEPHEN'S, COLEIIAN-bTREVIS.
PRATT Pi FA YLE.

The LORD CHANCELLOR (after hearing Mr. Shadwell
in support of the presentation) declared that he would
not decide on the validity or invalidity of the votes ad-
mitted or rejected; but he had heard enough to make him
doubt whether M r.Fay le was not the person duly elected.
Two or three hundred parishioners were the trustees in
this case. If these trustees, by any circumstances, wete
prevented from exercising their tight of preventing to
the vicarage, it was his duty, as Chancellor, to prevent
any other party, suppose the Bishop of London, irons
exercising the right. So long as the Court entertained
any doubt whether the trust has been duly executed, so
long shall he take care that the rights and interests of
the trustees were neither usurped nor infringed on. He
should therefore feel himself bound, for the protection
of the trustees, to grant an order for revoking the pre-
sentation, and preventing the Bishop of London from
inducting Mr. Pratt, or any other, into the office of
Vicar, until be shall have been sanctioned by the future
decision of the Court.
• COURT OF KING'S BENCH, NOVEMBER 25.
SURREY THEATRE.—THE THURTELLS.
THE LINO V. WILLIAMS.
Mr. GURNEY moved to make a Rule absolute against
Mr. Williams, proprietor of the Surrey Theatae.
The Corrimota-Sznazawr appeared tor. Mr. Williams.
The Rule had been obtained on the affidavit of Mr.
Fenton, a Solicitor, who' stated that the play-bill con-
tained allusions calculated to prejudice the trials ofJohn
lliurtell, prisoner in Hertford Jail, and Thomas Thur.
tell, prisoner in Newgate: it also stated that the repre-
sentation contained atrocious allusions to the murder of
Mr. Weare. The bill was fint'exhibited on the 17th,
and notice was served on the evening of the 18th, but
too late to prevent the representation for the night, and
it was discontinued from that day. He hoped, there-
fore, that it would be thought that the object sought was
obtained, and that it would not be pressed further.
Mr. Guassv said he could not accede.- •
The Comstou-Sanaeforr.—There was nothing in tig!
affidavit to connect the representation with the ThuT.
tells. It was stated, that the details in the public papers
made it notorious; but the assertion of notoriety was'
nut sufficient without bringing the Papers more ..fully
before the Court.

The CIIIEY JUSTICE.—A person is introduced upon
the stage who commits the murder, and when the Officer
seizes him there is applause by the audience.; and the,
person so represented is now in jail, •
Mr. Justice BEST—And about to taste his trial.
The COMMON-SZRJEANT pleaded that the defendant
had done all he could to compry with the object de-
sired; and the Court would take this into consideration.
It was not for
_him to attempt a justification, when the
defendant had done so.
Mr. BARNEWAL followed, and argued, that there was
no connection shewn between the representation and the
murderof Mr.•Weare, which ought to satisfy the Court,
Mr. MARRYATT appeared fox Romney, whose name
was to the hand-bill as printer. There was no evidence
that he was the printer, and he had no connection with
this representation. lle proceeded then to the argument
of the connection of the representation with the murder.
The Cuter JUSTICE—You rely on the want of evi-
dence that he is the printer.
Mr. GURNEY.—PubIic justice should not be preju-
diced by public newspapers or otherwise. Ry late pro-
ceedings, it would appear that it was thought that per.
sons charged with public crimes should be tried any
where but in Courts of Justice. The atrocity of this
proceeding was strikingly exhibited here. It is net de-
nied the play-bill distinctly alludes to the persons on trial
for murder. He could not have a fair trial if the public
mind should be influenced, and the public judgment
prejudiced against a person presumed to be innocent.
The Learned Counsel proceeded to contend that the
printer was sufficiently brough. before the.CoUrt.
:me Court thought there had uglier been an instance
where the appearance of the name at the bottom of a
printed paper was held evidence of that person being
•
the printer.
Mr. ANDREWS and Mr. CHITTY followed; but the
Court thought it unnecessary to hear further arguments.
The Loan Cuter JUSTICE—•The allegation against
the printet must be discharged, for there is no affidavit
that he is believed to have printed the bill. But we are
all clearly of opinion that the rule must be made abso-
lute against the proprietor of the theatre. Mr. Common-
Serjeant has argued with great propriety, that it is not
sworn that the scenic representation is as •etact repred
sentation of the circumstances of the murder. His or-
gutnents ate entitled to great weight; but if is sweet,

that the person represented as a murderer is believed to
represent John rumen, a prisoner in Hertford jail, and
that the representation highly excited the audience,
which was very crowded, and that applauses followed
the apprehension of the murderer. This Court, ani he
might say any man, could not consider a representation
upon the public stage, of matter to be brought before
a Jury, but as highly improper and illegal : the Uncut
therefore male this rule absolute.
The oilier Judges concurred.
Rule for criminal information against Llewellyn War-
kin Williams made absolute.
Mr. CommoN-SERJSA N r had in the course of his ar-
gument stated, that the omission of WAtkin" in setting
forth the name was urged to him as an objection, b.lt
the Count smiling at it as insignificant, the Learned
Gentleman did trot press it.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT ON CAMBLF.ItS.
TIM KING V. FIELDER AND ALDRIDGE?.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL prayed judgment c)f.
Court on Fielder and Aldridge, who %%ere convicted of
keeping a common gaming house, No. 9, Bennett-
street, St. James's.
The LORD CHIEF 3C)TICE recited the indictment and
evidence on the trial.

The prosecutor was the same as in the case of yes-1
terday, namely, Thomas Et skine Grant. The defendants
presented thamseives on the floor of the Court.
Mr. ADOLPIIUi submitted, that in this case there
must be an arrest of judgment, on the ground of
technical objection to the torm of the indictment.
Mr. CHITTY followed on the same side. It was not
suffizient to desetibe the defendants as being common
gamblers, but that there must be a local place or situa-
', tiara given, which in this case had not been set forth
with sufficient precision, as to what was termed their
keeping a common gaming-house. By the statute, a
penalty of am was given ,to the poor of the parish ;
and that made it the more imperative that it should be
distinctly set out where situate, in order to ascertain
what palish was entitled to'the penalty.
LORD CHIEF Jusnce.—lf the count in the indict-.
ment charged the room to be in the parish of St. James,
when proved on the trial it was not, the defendant was
entitled to an acquittal on that account.
Mr. Justice BATLEY.-It would be equally important
in all indictments for felony, that they should set out
the true parish.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL, in reply, said he appre-
hended all the arguments used by his Learned Friends
would apply to a civil action, and not to an indictment
for nuisance. Ile contended it was not necessa, yin
actions for nuisance correctly to desci ibe the parish, and
referred to several authorities in answer to the objec-
tions taken for the defendants.
The LORD Cum JUSTICE directed the defendants •to
be brought up again to-morrow, in order that the Court
might have time to consider whether it would grant a
rule to thew cause.

Mr. Justice Basel, EY here observed, that he recollected
a person of the same name (we think he said Fielder)
being tried before him when sitting in the other Court
for Lord Ellenborough, and in which be was found
guilty, hut never brought up for judgment. If his
Lordship's memory was correct, this was six or eight
years ago. He would, however, refer to his note books,
to be correct in referring to the subject.
Ordered to come up again to-morrow.
CRIMINAL INFORMATIONS.
Mr. Corm moved to file a criminal information
against a printer named Joseph Edgerly, of No. 76,
Fleet-street ; also against Messrs. Sherwood and Jones,
for the publication of a Narrative of the Murder of Mr.
Weare, with an account of Probert's Cottage, and Facts
said to be furnished by the Proprietor of the Cottage.
The motion was made upon an affidavit stating that
10,000 of the publitation had been sold in the county
of Herts, where the prisoners were committed for trial.
It was therefore considered that a prejudice had been
excited injurious to the persons to be tried.
The affidavit appearing to the Court to be defective,
Mr. Curry undertook to amend it, and renew his mo-
tion. The Learned Counsel stated, that he bad two
applications to make against publishers.