Star.
London, England, 1807-06-18 00:00:00

1.411, INTELLIGENCE.

COTTRT OF CHANCERY, JUNE T 7.
THR 44.01114 FM, OF YORK,
,AIGAIHST THR MAYOR
AItD CORPORATIM OF THS CITY OF YORK.
In this cafe, the A: chhiihop file ci his bill for an
injurietion againß the Defendants, to rearain them
from demolithing or pulling down the gates of tile
City of York, by which the Plaintiff apprehended'he
would Wain injury or lofs of pa operty. The Plaintiff
claimed a prefcriptive right to the toll of a great an-
nual fair, called Lammas Fair, in which a great
number of cattle was fold, in the City of York. It
was the ufage for the Mayor, trout time immemorial,
on each fair day, to deliver up to the Archbithop the
keys and gatis of the City, for the day. in order the
more advantageoufly to collesl the toll, and prevent
the cattle from paffing, without payment of fuch
toll ; he alledged, by his bill, that he would fuffer
lobs and inconvenience, by the want of the gates, and
would find difficulty incolleeting the toll, whichwould
str,t be fo produElive to him, if the gates were taken
down, as the Defendants intended, and had aCtually
commenced fuch pulling down, at one of the gates,
previous to the bill being filed lan year, when the
Plaintiff obtained an injunClion. This injunflion was,
on this day, after being in forte feven months, moved
to be diffolveti. the parties confenting to try the right
by a feigned iffue. This iffue was found difficult to
be framed, as the terms of it, when made tome time
back, were, that the Defendants had broken down
the polls of one of the gates, by which the Plaintiff
had fuflained lots or injury ; but, on confideration,
it was found that fuch an iffue could not be proved
in an) manner, being in fa& a falfehood,.for that no
fair bad been held there fince the trefpafs was com-
menced, nor could any fair be held before the next
•aflizev. It was much urged upon the Court, to dif-
Calve the injunction, upon the terms offered by the
Defendants ; but the Coatiesx.r.ort Rated, that he
could not comply with the motion, nor diffolve the
injunction, on the grounds Rated ; he, however, ce-
p did a with that the parties might agree upon ome
terms of an iffue, by which the right might be tried,
and cleared, at Come future time, to fee what iffue
could be framed for this purpofe.
At the riling of the Court, it was fuggetted to his
Lordfkip, that the Mayor and Corporation were wil-
ling to agree to the terms of any iffue; but the Conn-
ie' for the Plaiotiff laid nothing on this occafion.—
Thus the matter feems now to tell as nnfettled as
ever.

GREY V. TRW DUX, VT NORTHUMBPRLAND.

The plaintiff in this cafe filed his bill for an in-
junflion to reftrain the defendant from fearching for
or digging coals upon the plaintiff's eflate at Back.
ward, in the Manor of Tynemouth, in the county
of Northumberland. The Duke claimed a prefcrip.
live tight to enter upon, fearch for, and dig coals
Upon the defendant's eaate, as well as on feveral ,
other denominations, towns, and lands, in the Manor
of Tynemonth, of which his Grace ii the Lor'd, al
ledging, that no copyholder had ever before denied or
refilled fuch an nfage, on being paid for the trefpafs
crammitted or done to the foil only. " Mr. Grey did
hot VL lib to fee his copyhold ellate converted into a
colliery," laid Sir SAMuSL ROMILLY, "and although
his Grace's anfwer, which came in only two days
ago, was taken upon his honour, it did not appear
perfitively Rated in it, that he had fuch a clear pre-
fcriptive right as was contended ; for, if filch right
had in fad exified in the plane in queßion, his Grace
would nor, as admitted by the anfwer, give any
compenfation to any tenant, for the damage done to
the foil ; for the right to the mines or minerals, if
prefcriptive or nndoubted, would of necellity carry
along with it the liberty of damaging the foil, in
working the mines, er in fearching for loch minerals."
—ln addition t 6 this lA, it was Rated, that no filch
general right exited in the Manor of Tynemouth ;
and even if fuch a right had trifled, it had not ex-
tended to the town of Backward, the lotto in quo of
this trefpafs ; and if it was a well bunded claim, it
would have been earlier retorted to and aliened. The
Learned Counfel contended, that the iffue before
tried in this caufe, at Newcallle, in 1805, was ren-
dered improper, by the perfons concerned for the
defendant, and that all delay was imputable to
them ; as alfo the impoffibility of putting in any
proper replication to the defendant's iffue at law,
which was tried and found for the defendant, being
an immaterial iffue, and a cafe not triable by any
iffue. It was mentioned that the land in quellion was
in the potTaGon of Sir Matthew White Ridley, who
was foreman of the Jury who tried the Are. *. The
Court of King's Beach, upon a motion for a new
trial, refuted to fet afide the verdia ; and it appear-
ed, that Rabies, and other apparatus for the colliery,
bad been crated on the plaintiff's land ; and his
Counfel fuccefsfully argued, that this motion for dif-
folving the injunaion upon his Grace's anfwer, mutt
be refufed ; as, atall events, the injunction mutt Rand,
on account of the Rabies and other ereaions.
The LO) CriancaLina faid, he well knew both
parties, and was very forty that they could not agree
upon this matter. The injunction Rands in force
againfl his Grace, and the works mutt be difcon-
tinued.
For his Grace it was Rated, that his realbn for not
former exercifing this sigh', was his not fooner hav-
ing wanted to extend the collieries to that quarter.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, JUNE :7.
DMITHOLOINEW V. CLIFTON.
Mr. fferjeant VAUGHAN applied to the Court to
make an order eMpowering the Warden of the Fleet
to remove the defendant (who was in a Rate of high
mental derangement) from his 'anion to St. Luke's
orforne other fit rteeptaele for perfons in
his onhappy Rite, with had arifen from the ernbar-
raffed Hate of. his affairs. In confequence of his pe-
cuniary difficulties' the defendant Leaf arrefled in
NoveMber, tffo6, and from tt.e exceffive anguifh of
his feelingibis the occafiin,became deranged. In that
Rite he wit fetst to the Fleet, which fo aggravated his
Malady arsid' tinder Inns completely furious and on.
vefttsfitEThe Warden was therefore undkr the ne-
cfSfr df chaining Mn to the floor of the Broa*
idiom i mttd in confcquence of this neceffary but fevere
coercion, the life of the unfortunate than was
in dao-
Scrjettit added* that Acre was
Oat Peiffiss'id believe the objea of the Piaintin'
4knothey, in continuing the Defendant in prifew,
wink* iortnre theioinpaffinnnf the Defendant's bail
or of his Wends, into a 'Richlands of the debt. *h

therefore entreated the Coot to telieve the Warden
of the Fleet prifon, from performing the diragteeable
office of the keeper of a mad houfe ; and as the De-
fendant was now before the Court, in virtue of a
Habeas Corpus, he hoped their Lordiblps would order
him to St. Luke's Hnfpital, where he would be in
equally fare cuaody,and be treated with the tendernefs
and medical aid neceffary to his unhappy fituation.
Sir jam s s MANSFIELD laid, the Court had no
difcretion to order the removal of the Defendant :
that, certainly, it was neceffary for Parliament to
veil Come loch power in the Warden of the Fleet,
under fuch circumßances, as in this point the law
was certainly defeflive. llis Lordihip, however,
obferved, that the defendant did not feem, from his
prefent appearance, to be either in that high Elate of
derangement, or danger to his life, which had been
reprefented.
Mr. Serjcant VAUGHAN replied, that, although
the unhappy man appeared tranquil for the prefent,
he was under the aria care of keepers, to prevent
him from any at of violence in Court. The learn.
ed Serjeaot, however. was conflrained to withdraw
his application, and fnffer the matter to rell entirely
upon the mercy of the Plaintiff.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH.
On the sth day of May laft a Pule to thew Caufe
was obtained againft Francis Redfearn, of Laugten
Lodge, in the County of York, Big. on the affidavits
of John Thompfon, Thomas Bolton, and William
Sowerby, attorney, riming to the belt of their belief,
that a certain letter figned F. R. laid to have been
received by the laid John Thompfon, doting the !aft
affizes at York, where he was attending as a witnefs
for the fait' Francis Redfearn, was of the hand-
writing of the laid Francis Redfearn. And, on the
3d day of June inllant, caufe was (hewn by Mr.
PARKE, of Counfel for the laid Francis Redfearn, in
oppoll ion to the laid Rule, on feveral affidavits
filed for that purple, when the Court was pleafed
to difcharge the fail Rule with Colts.

'um' 16.
The Arrnew FY GE / eat. appliedto the Court for
a Rule to thew caufe why an Attorney of the Court,
named Neale, (hould not anfwer the matters ccn•
tained in certain affidavits fworn to againfl him. It
was neceffary for him to apprife their Lordfhips, that
this was an application againfl the Attorney for mat
praaices of a very ferious defcription. The fir ft affi
davit defcribed this praaitioner as having written a
letter to the Jailor of the prifon at klodmin, in Corn-
wall, in regard to the difcharge, from that prifon, of
a debtor named Mutton, whole enlargement he had
obtained for 31. t6s. requelling the jailor to recom-
mend hint to the other prifnners for the purpofe cf
procuring them emancipation : he offered the jailor
one half of the profits that might accrue from loch
praaices. The Attorney after this wrote a letter
to the infolvents in general, in Bodmin gaol, Rating
that on account of Mr. Mutton's difcharge he had
'received 31. t6s. but that the enlargement of that
perfon had cog him 51. 6i. betides out of his own
pocket. He did not expea, therefore, that in future
he fhottlel be applied to in that way by any debtor
whole incumbrances did not amount to tool. for
whom he Mould find bail in Town, and even then
he &mid be paid only in n middling way. His
terms wire to find bail for any lam from col. to 501.
ten pounds; from g:1. to tool. fifteen pounds, and
In on progretfively in proportion.—The Attorney
General proceeded to Rate, that the means by which
this Attorney obtained the enlargement of there infol.
vents was by Ann bail; that was, in two infix:tees,
bringing forward men to become bail for tool. who
were not worth a groat each. To thefe twJ intlances
the affidavits fpnke moll pointedly, both their bail
having been rejeited. The jailnr at Bodmin had,
however, refufed the propofal. From there bah the
Attorney General trotted their Lord (hips would agree
with him—that an Attorney pratlifing in London,
who floored to Melt mean praaices and attempts at
Bodmin, was unworthy of continuing longer on the
Roll of Attornies.
Lord ELLERegannan afked the Attorney General
whether he could Rate any other circumllance re.
garding JGam Aai/, than the mere fait of loch bail
having been rejefted
The ATTORNiIt GENIMAL replied in the affirm*.
live, and proceeded to read from an affidavit a copy
of a letter, where the Attorney raid, I can bail the
P. (meaning evidently the prifoner) let the debt
amount—(here the words wete torn off by the feel)
for three Millings in the pound."
Lord Eut,astanaouon—'4 His eondua in offering
in contrael andr price is extremely fbabby, and may
tiltithatelY lead to mar pradiees. The only thing like
crime imputed to hist is the offer to bail the pan.
ners for p. in the pound, and it is proper he (hould
adorer that charge.'.'—Rule granted.
cAartitat V. HOGAN.
VI this cute Mr. Gaatow moved, that the Rule
be made 'Volute. •
Mr. Also?? (hewed Cattle ngainß the Rule on
behalf of the Defendant, whom he Rated to be an
Attorneys clerk, -haviag chambers at Nn. 6, Clif-
ford'. Inn, in the city of London. He had been rued
beft're the Court of Requells of the City of London,
for the fum of four pounds ten Millings for beer fur-
niffted to a friend, and for which he hadcontraeled
tO pay, at the Mitre Tavern, in Mitre-court, Fleet.
Ateet. His refidence was Rated to be well known to
lite Plaintiff, who had there frequently called on him.
Mr. Abbott, however, contended that although the
Defendant polkaed chambers in Clifford's Inn, that
thefe were not the place of his refidence or abode, as
hi lived with his Wife and family on Millbank, Weft-
mitißer, in a honfe belonging to a perfon named
Wilkis,called the bastard bwje, and where he had
lien (cried with the Floods of the Court of Reqneßs.
The Defendant fought his livelihood, in the City of
Londim, itt the cffice of an Attorney, and it was
therefore contended that he did not fall within the
meaning of the Aet, which applied to Om* only
who kept a Sop, flied, or (tall ; or were reeking a
livelihood-in the City of London. The livelihood the
Defendant fought in the City/ elms bbl than intended
by the Aef.
Mr. GAR row faid, that this was one of the plaineß
cafes piiffible. -The Defendant had fworn to his pol.
felling Chambers in Clifford's Inn, and the fait of his
dryer having quitted them for five years, except for
a day. or two, to breathe the hefts air in the country,
Was alto admitted by him. It was not true. that he
lived At Milibsok, but only went oc‘ationally to the
tawititbasife on a Saturday evening, with his wife alit}

Lanity, and that he had been found on a Mond'',
morning,. when he was ferved with the procefs of ihei
Court Of Requells.
The Court decided in favour of Mr. Abbott's eient,l
ohferving, that the parties ought to have brought
themfelves within the meaning of the Ad in terms, I
and not by inferenc.: merely.
THE RING V. SARAH SEALE. 1
This war econvitlion under the Little Go AA,
which directs, that where the penalty of tool. for
each offence is not immediately paid by the offender,
the Magiftrate (hall have power to commit the de.
linquent for a period not exceeding fix months. The
Att alfo defcribed the dilltibution of the penalty,
one third to the King, another to the informer, and
the -lan to thole aiding and of lling in the apprehen-
fion of the offender. The conviElion by the Migif.
trate, however, which ought fpecifically to have enu-
merated thedifiribution of the penalty as above Rated,
merely defcribed it as having beeen difiributed as the

law direfls.
Lord EtLvwsonouc H, in delivering the judgment
of the Court, faid, that the cafe had been Ma ably
argued, but one material fa& had been left wholly
undetermit ed, namely, whether or not there had
been any perfons aiding and aftifling in the appre.
henfion of the defendant, to whom one-third of the
penalty ought to have been paid. There was nothing
in the evidence to fupport any idea of the kind, and
it appeared, therefore, to the Court, that the con-
viaion WAS defeEtive, and could not be ma'n aired.

A TTAC HM Kt 4 T.

Mr. LITTLEDALI applied for a rule to Phew caufe
why an attachment &mild not be filed againli Robert
Mounfey, Efq. and Rowlandßowley, for refilling the
execution of a writ of
.fieri facia: iffued out of this Court.
It was fisted in the affilsvits, that Mr. Mounfey wis
Under Sheriff t, r Cumberland, and had granted his
warrant to a creditor, to Gize the goods of his debtor,
and for that prpofe a (pedal bailiff, named Pattick.
fon, was employed. After the officer had entered ,
into poffeffinn, Mr. Mounfey came into the !ionic,
and demanded by what authority Pattitkfon aced;
when the latter (hewed ft:r. Mounfey his own war-
rant, granted as Under Skeriff. Mr. Mounfey in-
Randy fnatched it from the rifficer's hand, and ran
off with it, but Pat rickfon retained poffeffion of the
hoofs. Soon afterwarJs, Bowfey and others cape
there, and, under authority of the Under Sheriff,
broke the pannels of the fireet door, entered the
premifes, affaitlied the officer, and turned him out of
poffeffian, he, however, (Lill keeping the keys.—Rule
to Thew caul( granted.

ARTICLES OF THE PEACE.
Jofeph Wiffin, a Wiltthire farmer, prefented arti
des oldie peace againft Thomas Sutton. They flat
ed, that the complainant was in conflant fear for his
life, in coefequence of the ►epeated threats of Sutton,
and that nn the 18th of January lafl, the latter laid
he would flab him with a carving knife. On the
Bth of February following, as Wiffin was returning
home late at night on hot feback, Sutton flung a large
Anne at the cqmplainant, which bit his hole, and
lamed the animal. On the t3tb of the fame month,
he repeated the like violence, and from that time to
the prefcnt,he put the complainant in continual dread.
Lnrd ELLEI4BOROUOH^" The hft inflance of any
perfonal danger is as long ago as February, and there.
fore the complainant cannot have had much to fear,
or he would have prefented himfelf former. He may
either go before a Magiltrate, or proceed by indiet-
Merit.

ROBIIRTS V. CAPAPIELL.

This was an aiti, n for Bander, brought by the
Plaintiff, an attorney cf. the. Great SPlEuns of Cl.e
(hire, who had obtained a verdift in his favour. Mr.
Butterwort,. on a- former day, had obtained a rule
to thew cattle why judgment thould not be atrelled,
on the ground, that the words Rated in-the declara-
don were not actionable. The words Rated in the
counts wore, (peaking of the plaintiff, " he is wider
the charge of a profecution for perjury ;" and it was
added, that a pubrc officer would pi ofecute him for it.
The ATTORWIY GititißAL. and Mr. SCARLET,
oppoled this rule. The gnettion was, whether ex•
preffions of this nature, would or would not have
the effect of injuring, difgracing, ar.d perhaps of
ruining the plaintiff? On flanderoos expreffions, there
were a great variety of cafes in the books, in the de-
cifions refpeCting which learned Judges had materi-
ally differed ; and where authorities thus went hods
ways, their 1..-n-dfhips would. mbar, think it fafer
to troll t ) their own views of truth, reafrn, and Cllt.
mon fettle, than to confide in any curfi ry claffifica-
tion of thi fe cafes. On fuch grounds the Learned
Colloid hoped that their Lorilfhips would difcharge
this rule.
Mr. 'roman and Mr. Boartoucus contended, 1
that words derogatory to the party againtt whom
they were dilated, were-not always the fubje& of an
attion ; and in fupport of this pofition, they cited
the cafes of Holt v. Schofield, Haynes e. Sprott,
Stewart v Bi(hop, and Powell v. Winde, which,
with fome others, are to be found in Hobart, Cro.
Eliz. and Williams' Sautriers, particularly in the
latter, tfl vol. 203. note 4, whe-e all the cafes or
iouendoes are colle&ed in Croft v. Boite. From
there authorities they infifled, that to. difgrace the
party was pot fufficient, the words mull alledge fome
crime, which would fubjee the plaintiff to capital
poniffistent ; and the meaning of fuch terms could
not be extended by inuendoes. There muff be a di-
re& affertion. of guilt, which could not be pre-
tended in any rational conttruBion of the expreffions
employed by the defendant in this cafe, fince they
imputed no dire& came, but merely that the party
was under the charge, and that the public officer
I
was employed to profecute the accufed.
Lord ELLINTIOROUGH." We will look into the
cafes, for we are unwilling to lay down a rule which
may encourage improper applications, or diferrunte-
stance the' fit teference to the authority of the Court,
in cafes of this nature. Although the atinnhere is
of little conktinence, yet the ntle may lia al wasp
• .
invariance-4°- : ~., .
, . 07301/na CIRC DU* '..:i;6141;
C 1::::
,tz
:a i
: "'Amax= i
__ _ . &it ,&11 i;:ns;
ti. ton—Tuesday, s4th July,at tb01:44101111101101114.,
Saturday. ISth July, at New Sutra I • '.„ ..,s. .., f, ~, ; I
IDedetL—W'edetefday. tad Idly, at Dorelltlta..Z -"I '' ---
6.: aggdp.aajdond4 wart& July, at the Calle atamapt.2eLiM
ty
Oltr anil Causal of kjeter—Sasso day, at ahlt 411101."140P
ef
i-Cora*lll--1"43T, salAnivn., at &Alvin. ;L-'-'? '-' 2
Bitilkifel•—Sititrany, &It Augalt, et Brklgewater:73(• ; "Y." •
Owned Ceuutrut ihittol.—Wri•lay, Lath Aura', It della&
i bail Id lb City IA BrtlitaL ~ ~ , .1 tat
Sir A.ThOsupfon, Kat. and Sir S. Laurence, Km.. ~ .. • -
, ... •:;;0,- 1