Star.
London, England, 1830-04-24 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH..-APRIL 23.
WATICRMEN.-HALPTEXNY V. /WITH.
This action was brought to try whether the Society of Waterman,
called the Sunday Fare Society, had the exclusive right to carry
pasnengers to and from Greenwich to the bile of Dogs. After the
evidence had been heard, it wan found insufficient to support the de-
claration, and the Plaintiff was nonsuited.

MAHONE V. ASHLEY.
This was an action brought by the Plaintiff, who is one of the
Gem constituting the New Provincial Bank in Ireland, upon a bill
of exchange for 9461. drawn by Sharp and Company, in Dublin,
and accepted by the Defendant in London ; the Bank of Ireland,
being the holders of the bill, brought the action.
The ATTORNEY.GENEMAL stated, that when the bill was
drawn, it was sent to Messrs. Ashley for acceptance, they having
received a consideration from Sharpe and Co. A letter had been
written, in which the Defendants made a promise to accept, and the
question was whether they had accepted the bill ?
Mr. JAMES Mansti•sr., Secretary to the Provincial Bank So-
ciety, said he went to the Defendants by order of the Directors
in the beginning of April, last year. They had received the bill
at their office in London. He asked Mr. Ashley about the bill
which had been left for acceptance, and inquired why it had not
been accepted He told them it appeared that a specific remittance
had been madeby Messrs. Sharpe and Co. in consequence of
which the Defendants had promised to accept the bill. The Direc-
tors of the Provincial Bank, therefore, considered Messrs. Ashley
and Co. bound to accept. Mr. Ashley said it was true they had
promised to accept, but did not make that promise to the Directors.
The end of the conversation was a refusal to accept. A paper con-
taining admissions on both sides was then put in and read.
Mr. Casernet.i objected to the Plaintiff's right in law to re.
cover, and submitted that a nonsuit must be entered. This was
not a foreign bill of exchange. If it were, the letter with the pro-
mise might amount to an acceptance. Was it not an inland Bill ?
The Act of the First and Second of his present Majesty provided
that an inland bill of exchange could not bind any person, unless
the acceptance appeared in the hand-writing of the person. The
Act had been repealed by the 9th of the king, for consolidating
all the Irish Acts, but the law had not been altered. The question
was, whether a bill, drawn in Dublin upon a person in London,
could not be considered an inland bill of exchange ? Since the
Union, Ireland had been made a part of the Kingdom. The in ten.
Lion of the Legislature was to make no distinction between Ireland
and England, and as both were considered one kingdom they might
look at the bill in question as an inland bill. If so, it was quite
clear the Plaintiff could not recover.
Lord TENTEZDEN had no doubt, upon leading the Act relating
to inland bills of exchange, that this was not an inland bill. They
most understand an inland bill to be drawn in England or Wales.
Ibis was not such a bill. Whether bills between England and Ire-
land ought to be put upon a footing with inland bills, was another
question.
The Jury found a verdict for the Plaintiff—Damages, 9661. The
point of law was reserved fur future consideration.

LIBIEL.CARLILE V. DUNN AND ANOTHER.
This was an action brought by the notorious Richard Carrie, of
Fleet-street, against the proprietors of the Noteiisyhans and Newark
Mercury, to recover compensation is damages for a libel published
in that paper, reflecting upon his character.
Mr. Carle appeared to advocate his own cause in person, and
Mr. Diximiar, with whom was Mr. BILL, appeared for the de.
fendants.

111 r. Carlile addressed the jury at considerable length, and stated
that his character had been much mistaken ; he was not the man the
public generally supposed, for he was strictly moral in all the oblige-
dims of life; he was a kind husband and an indulgent father—
educating his sons in the paths of morality, though he did not con-
ceive it necessary to make them adopt any particular religious pet.
suasion. lie felt it a duty to his family that he should main-
tain the purity of his character, and not to suffer it to be publicly and
wantonly assailed without any foundation, and for these rtssons
It was that he had instituted the present action. lie went last
autumn to Nottingham, and while there, owing to some cir-
cumstances which would be explained in evidence, he had
given a challenge to a public discussion upon religious topics
to the Rev. Mr. Gilbert. The challenge was accepted, and
the Exchange.roorns were to be the se•-ne of discussion. These,
however, were refused, and then the Riding School was ap-
pointed. So greatly was public curiosity excited, that tickets
were selling at one pound premium. At the Ridirg School
some difficulties occurred, and then another place was appointed,
but Mr. Gilbert did not think proper to appear there. Sub-
segue-nay, however blr. Gilbert wrote a letter to the Netting.
ham Mercury, which letter formed the ground of the present
action against the proprietors of the Paper, who refused to rive
up Mr. Gilbert as the author. Mr. Carlile, after addressing
the Court for upwards of an hour, concluded by observing that
he had but two witnesses, and that it was possible the case might
be put an end to as soon as they were called, if questions were
asked them as to their religious belief. His son was one of
these witnesses, and be would only say lie had taught him to be
honest—he had taught him to be moral—but he had not taught
him to be religious. To reject his testimony on that ground
would not be consistent with the liberality of the present day.
and he trusted so illiberal a proceeding would not be adopted
by the Gentlemen of the Bar. The damages were laid at 2001.
but as his *My project was to vindicate his character, he would
nut ask for more than nominal damages at the hands of a Jury.
The libel was read, from which it appeared that Mr. Gillhrt, in
justifying iiiinself tur Lot appearing at the meeting, had said that it
appeared to him, from the writings of Mr. Carlile, that he dim.
gargled all appropriate kinds of truth, and that be did not believe
truth was lib object in seeking to have that meeting. That of his
morals he was happily ignorant, but that if he could reconcile it to
himself to embody the principles of his works in his practice--par.
titularly of some of them which he could not name—there was not
a father, brother, or husband in the kingdom, whose first indignant
impulse would not be such as he could not rapers' in gentlemanly
langu
Mr age-
•
. Crank then called his son.

Mr. Diestm.txrnadenoobj- 7ection to his taking the oath.
Mr. Dimmest then plead a number of pamphlets in the hands
of the witness, and asked him if they were in the habit of being sold
in his father's shop ? Witness replied in the affirmative ; amongst
than were books called " Good Sense,' " Every Wunian's Book,"
the •' Republican," and' The Lion."
alt. Leigh deposed that Mr. Carlile was a lodger in the family
into which the witness married, in Nottingham. Went with him to
the shop of Mr. Dunn. on the 28th of Sept. where he purchased the
paper in question. Mr. Dunn war a•kei if he would give up 31r.
Gilbert as the author, to which he replied that he could not, foe the
letter was sent by Mr. Gilbert, but he could nut take it upon him.
self to say that he was the author. Ilr. C. was well received be-
fore the publication in Nottingham, but afterwards there was an ef-
fort made to insult tutu.

Craria.extunined by Mr. W. Hill—There ate persons who take
in Mr. Cattle's works in Nottingham. Mr. Garlik has an agent
there.

Mr. Dzirman, for the defendant, said that he felt that he might
have put an end to the plaintiff's case by objecting to the testimony
of his son, whom he represented as being brought up without religion.
He had a strong opinion upon the subject, and he thought it far nester
to rely on the probable tepid which might be enterts.ined to an
oath, than to reject a witness who may be resolved to tell the truth,
though he deviates in some respects from the religious belief of
the country. '1 he Learned Counsel then went minutely through
the paragraphs complained of, and contended that they were
not of a libellous tendency, MI could they in any way hurt the
character of the plaintiff. The defendants were the publishers
of the letter, purporting to be written by a Reverend Gentle.
man, whose principles were those of the Christian, and contained
sentiments which had been induced by the statements made by
the Plaintiff at a public controversy. They were such, concluded
the Learned Gentleman, as would lead him to sit down, with a I
confident expectation of their verdict being returned in tabour of
the Defendants.

Lued Ttarr carts x said the question for the Jury was, whether.
or not the parsgraghs alluded to were of such a minima' to injure
the Plaintifin t estimation of the people of Nottingham. If
so, they would Mid* 'ANN: for the rlauitilf; bait it they should.

be of opinion that such an effect would not be produr.,.l, tiCY
would find for the Defendants.
The Jury, after a few minutes' consultation, found a vetatct
the Defendants.

COUKT OF CoMNION PLEAS.
(Before dee Lord Mil Jattiee TINDAL and a Special Je,r,

PHILLIPS V. ROPER.

The plaintiff in this (Xus;i; Air. Phillips, of Bond-street, le,
was defendant in an action brought against him on Monday Ism by
the present defendant, Major Roper, in which the plaintiff, Pio.
lips, was cast in damages of 60W. for having pr mecuted hia clays
in the Court of Chancery by bankruptcy, instead of proceeding 1.,
the common law courts.

Mr. Sergeant WILDE Nude(' the plaintiff's arse, to which no (Iv.
fence wu offered.

Robert Ball, clerk to the plaintiff; proved plaintirs demand,
amounting to upwards of 2,5001. The plaintiff's books were pro.
dneed in Court, by which it appeared that the debt had been ac.
cruing through a period of fifteen years ; that the Defendant, 3lsio!
Roper, had been in the constant habit of attending the sale rooms e.
the plaintiff.

The items of the account were jewels, pictures, watches, wines
plate, books, fowling-peces, cases of EMI de Cologne, wearing al.
pare!, and a long list of miscellaneous articles, for which the d-.
fendant had succeeded in obtaining credit.
A verdict was entered for the plaintiff.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.