Star.
London, England, 1830-02-18 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT, Fn. 17.

• JUDGMEN re--POZTRR IX RE Bistmorms.
This was $ Petition to supersede a Commission of Bankruptcy,
on objections to the trading, to the petitioning creditor's debt, and
to the act of bankruptcy, which was argued before his Honour
the Vice-Chancellor a few days since. His Honour pro.
nounced judgment, dismissing the Petition with costs, as it ap.
peered the only object sought was to met aside the bankrupt's radi-
ate, and tome up a certain instrument, by which the petitioner
would obtain a preference ova the other creditors in the payment of
his debt.

BURKE V. 101$ AND °Tata&
Mr. SEIRBOW applied to the court foe an lojenction to restrain
the defendants from transferring the sum of 1,6001. stock standing
in their names at the Bank of England. From the affidavits in
support of the application, It appeared that a snideness oldie name
of Chancey, who died at an advanced age in Dassmber last, was
fortratees very intemperate in his habits, and subject to lits of abate.
don Of mind. In one of his moments of be assigned
the stock in question to a lady with whom he far Kane time co-
habited, and she transferred it to the defendants, as her trustees.
The plaintiff, who had married one of Mr. Chancey's d ghters,
having ascertained the circumstance, mentioned it to Mr. C6aoay
before his death, but he professed himself totally ignorant of what
he had done.
The VICE-Climrcitm.on thought that these facts made out a
sufficient prima facie ease to entitle the plaintiff to the injunction.
COURT OF SING'S BENCH, Vas 17.
IN/INT V. PITZOZDALD.
- - - -

This was an action brought against the „Defendant, under an
Act passed in the reign of Queen Anne, for the prevention of usury.
The Plaintiff was a plasterer in Westminster, and the Defendant
was an oil and colour man, also residing in Westminster. The as.
don was to recover the sum of 4731. lls. that sum being three
times the amount of the bills discounted. It appeared, from the
evidence of the plaintiff's brother, that he had formerly worked be
the plaintiff's service as a journeyman, and that in February, DWI,
he had taken a bill for 64/. 71. at five months, to the defendant to
get discounted, and that he received from him but 691. 171. that in
klatch, in the same year, he had taken to the defendant two bills,
having six months to run, amounting to 1021. and that the defend-
ant gave him in return 981.
Mr. OuINEY, for the defendant, said be was placed in an unplea-
sant situation in consequence of his client not being able to call a
Iwitness who could explain the nature of the transactions between
himself and the plaintiff, as no person bad ever been present on the
several occasions besides themselves, to call evidence Os attempt to
throw discredit upon the testimony of the witness produced by the
plaintiff:
Several witnesses were called, but ant one of them was able to
contradict the plaintiff's brother, or to say that which entitled the
Jury to entertain a suspicion of his veracity.
The Jury therefore found for the plaintiff—Damages, 4731.115.
Another action was then called on, the same plaintiff against the
father of the defendant In the last cause, and brought under the same
A verdict for the plaintiff for 1141. lbs. was taken

by consent.
AIDIAULT.--41ALLIZORNE T. HOMES.
This was an action to recover compensation In &Magee for an
assault and false imprisonment. It appeared from the elessenent of
ML PLATT, that the plaintiff is•cabinetsnalter, esailles fa Aybte.
bury-street, Clerkenwell, and was some time in the service of the
defendant, who is in the same trade, residing at Ant*. The
parties not agreeing together, the plaintiff lett the deiradmet, and
commenced business for himself. About three maths raw this
time the defendant, in company with a constable, weld tut de yids.
tiff's house, took him into custody, and dragged him Wee Weriblp,
street Police-office. After waiting at the office some bouts, the no
was called on, and when the defendant was asked what *asp Ite
had to prefer, said that he had been robbed of a piece of wood, moil
he believed it was the plaintiff who bad taken it. He admitted**
value was only eightpence. There was not the least ground of
suspicion against the plaintiff and Mr. Broughton, the Magistrate,
instantly discharged him. The defendant, when be ordered the
senstabk to take the plaintiff into custody, called out before his
(the plaintiff's) journeyman, 4, This is the rogue that robbed me of
my propeuy. but I will stick to him." Under these circumstances
the plaintiff had deemed it necessary, in vindication of his *arge-
nt, to bring the present action.
A witness fully proved the above statement.
Mr. Gunnar said he could not justify the part the defendant
had taken. lie might have acted, however, wider wrong impres-
sion, which the Jury would take into their :onside:ad*.
V11.411C, fee the plaintiff— Damages, SOL
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Fan. 17.
WHYDIND AND ANOTHIS V. CAREL AND ANOTHER.
This wee an action to recover compensation for the loss of a bone,
value 00 guineas.
It appeared, from the statement of Mr. Sergeant WILDE, drat
the plaintiff is a dealer in bones, residing in Long-lane, Smithfield,
and was in the habit of letting them out to different coal merchants.
4 In the 18th of April last the waaggggocna of Messrs. Weft and Freeman
was passing up Bridge.street, Blaekfrlats, when one of Mr. Capers
waggons came up at full gallop, which so frightened the horses that
they fell, and one of them was so seriously injured that it died in
consequence.
Several witnesses were called on both sides, end the Learned
Judge having summed up, the Jury returned a verdict for the
. .
831.

PREROGATIVE COURT, Fen. 17.
IN THE CASE OP WHITMORE AND OTHERS IL STEVENS.
Sir Jonx lkitcnoi. pronounced judgment to-day.
This cause was instituted to try the validity of a will propounded
to the Court as the last will and testament of a Mr. Stevens, who
was aged eighty-two at his death, and which was In favour of the
plaintiffs in this cause. The next of kin conceiving that the will
was not valid, applied to the Court not to allow probate. The pro-
per.), at stake is considerable.
After bearing Counsel on both sides' Sir JOHN NICHOL pro.
nounoed for the validity of the will and codicils, conceiving that the
deceased was in sound mind, and capable of making a testantentery
paper when be executed the document propounded. The Court al.
owed lie. Stevens costs out of the estate.
COURT OF EXCHEQUER, Fs*. 17.
IMPORTANT PROSECUTIONS.
The Court was occupied daring the greater pert of the day In
trying the following very important causes:—
ADULTERATION OP romans, GIN, &C.—azx V. THOMAS.
MI. WALTON stated, that this was an information flied by hiol
Ilßury's Attorney-General against the defendant, Mr. W. Thomas,
Ithe proprietor of the Brown Bear public-house., in Broad-street,
Blosaisbury, for a violation of the excise laws, by which he had sub.
pod himself to a penalty of 40W.
The SOLICITOR GENERAL, Sir Edward Sugden, stated that this
was an information tiled against the defendant, for receiving his
his stock a composition called " beer flavour," for the men d
enabling him to increase the quantity of his beer, by weabenies Its
quality ; and this was effected by his drawing off a
genuine beer, and inserting in its place a fluid which
witaftechnically called by the publicans " liquor " w enwilluelea
The effect of this operation was generally to redoes emeigik of
the beer about one-third, sad never lees than onaialibe we
sorry to say that the ingredients were neximes, ail of endebouto
and were as injurious to the health et the pablAs as wets
destructive to the strength of the beer. To the ietWiftst whs
bed brought the parties to justice the thanks of the *ilk ems dino,
It was with pleasure that he (the Solicitor-Geoeral) was swelled as
state, that the brewers wale not gift of deteriorating the quaky
of the article they sold. The beer went from the brewer to the sit
of the publican in a pure state, and there the artiele be.
came deteriorated by the introduction of water and a spokes
rad deleterious mixture, which, by giving a deeper colour and
stronger flavour to the beer, enabled him to peas it sir tee a
genuine article to*the public. He (the Solicitor-General) spud
pot inform the Jury that the effect of this had been, net ady
very much to injur:htattirblic reputation of the brewers, who
ha been unjustly with seeding forth a bed article, fie
which the same price as /sake orders was dosed •but .it bad
also tended to lessen the eoneenrake et whet suet It the best bar
mart of the working r9le of_lllVeted. They (the. sole at
England, we suPPoss latarnso asneiter =Mt) biom net
so pleased with that homage, in conseqemat ef *sir laths e bpdi
PO strong and disagreeable a flavour, but that it wan also we* b lie
flavour, in its nature, and they head it did netj a tbit
end strength which they bad ham asaawated- to esseleell:
she genuine article. he deleserises adds had ban emayred
by Protease Fenadainitketh :deur* Imedueden, who hi
attained that the into the beer was hisdewe to
the health of temple, and *at a publican wield beam en
quantity of the ene.abird, and thereby deer ad .101 leveinole
en commas extent. It wee the deemethadea et the Ceinnlielensis
of Fries to ferret out nog tediebled awe 'Melt 'addle dim.
vestal where these frauds bed been and they were data.
mined in no cue, whsle: the puffs Rl* be, to Wee to a ann.
in the Court It was their desenisation it Meg Mel
LricTnts:lent before the •Ceeet sad the pleb)* * 'eke that Ile,
may Meet with the peeidnewst alas =AA In Of
pima it bad bees assail with the delhaben, then Mesa
„mum ha eiOlet for the -Cava He *Wan *mid ab.
stain from otabing 1510 dinersdnes on vide.pertionip4 dale ; bit
he bed nage it a peedwdar awdiden net to receive a *rile* ter that'
Cameo in this maelek age with the them 1r inglem the cami
and Jeep Es whet papas orbs intlyncalent hoi heft slut
was the dna and eadweable detavainoten etehe,
Beebe with awn* to the idiom et erbkft tie bad been
guilty. With *see observations, be should give the Jury no forth,

trouble, u it had been agreed by the defendant that there should be
a verdict foe the Crown.
The Loan Cam, 13,siox infonned the Jury that they would
Ind fee the Crown in the penalty of /.409.

ILEX O. 11011IIRT WILL/MOTT.
The SOLICITOIII,6ItirMIAL said, this was an infOrnlitkin similar
to the last case, against Mr. WlHulett, the proprietor of the Green
Man and Still public-house, In Mrhitecrossetreet, Cripplegate, for
illy taking into his stock a quantity of beer flavour.
erdict for the Crown was taken.
The following publicans were also convicted in the full penalties :
Mr. John Simpson, of the Grapes, in Porter-street, Newport-
market.
Mr. Talbot Smith, Broad-street, Bloomsbury.
Mr. Transield, the George, Chapel-street, Oxfordeueet.
Air. Devercux, Cherry Tree, Whitecrossetreet.
Mr. Thomas Clarke, Horse and Seeks, Harrow-road.
Mr. Thos. Wemington, Marquis of Granby, Drury-land
Mr. Joseph Bills, Angel, Fleet Market.