Star.
London, England, 1802-05-29 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, MAY 28.

Mr. Class moved for, and obtained a rule n;/f,
againft a man of the name of Hall, upon the affi-
davit of a Mr. Courtly Gidley, an Attorney of tt.e
Court.—Mr. Gidley, it teemed, had been an At-
torney in a replevin caufe between a perfon of the
name of Carter, and the above-named Hall. In
the courfe of this he made an affidavit, by which
a rule was difcharged with colts, againft Mr. Hall.
It alfo appeared that a perfon of the name of
Tucker made an affidavit contradifting all Mr.
Gidley's flatements, but which affidavit was not
ufed on account of the death of the Jurator. The
code of complaint now was, tbat Mr. Hall had
printed both affidavits, and had endured them to
/tlr. Gidley, fenior, the father of the perfon on
%elde behalf he moved, and to Mr. Gidley him-
fell. His Loreilhip would fee that this went di
reftly to impute perjury to Mr. Gidley.
Lord EeesitaoeouGH Paid, the granting the
rule tit/ might be the means of flopping further
proceedings, efpecially as he obferved in one part
of the affidavit, that it was imputed that this was
done to flop Mr. Gidley from further proceedings
in the original caufe.
In the KING and Gaao, which was the rule for
a criminal information, obtained the other day
againft the defendant, for attempting to bribe the
eleiors of Bofflgny, in Cornwall, the rule was
enlarged until nest Term, on the ground that
there had not been fufficient time to get the affida-
vits hi aufwer.
The Cline was done alfo is the rule of the Kim;
and the- Rev. NICHOLAS TURNER, calling upon
the Lkfendant to thew caufe why a criminal in-
formation should not be filed againft him for af-
faulting one of hisparifhioners, and challenging
him to fight a duel, obtained on Wednefelay.

ASSIGNRIS Or KIRKPATRICK 4. CHAatiocir•
This came on in the fhapt of an argument for
a new trial. The caufe was tried at Guildhall laft
fittings, before Juflice Le BLANC and i Special
Jury ; and as the point at iffue was merely a quef-
lion of law, the verdia for the plaintiffs was re- ,
(erred for die opinion of the whole Court. The
cafe was (imply this:—Kirkpatrick, the bankrupt,'
was indebted to the defendant in the fum of 8001.
Having been preifed by the defendant's agent at
Liverpool to make fome arrangement for the
payment of that furn, he executed an affignment
of his fhare, being two-thirds, of a veffel then at
lea. A few days after he became a bankrupt.—
The defendant had no opportunity, until after his
bankruptcy, of executing the different formalities
required by the Ads of Parliament, known by the
name of Lord Hawkelbury's Ad, with refped to
the transfer of veffels at lea.
The Jury, by the diredion of the Judge who
tried the caufe, and who was decidedly of opinion,
that till the completion of thofe formalities, no
title could pafs to the defendant, hut that the title
remained in the bankrupt, and confequently gaffed
to his affignees, found their verdia for the plaintiffs.
Mr. ERSKINE and Mr. Gum for the defendant
contended ffrongly, that the tide given by the deed
of affignment could not be defeated by the bank-
ruptcy intervening between the dare of it and the
time neceffarily taken up in complying with the
formalities.
Mr. PAW, on the other fide, argued, that the
affigument was null and void until the regiftering,
and that' therefore the property was not out of
the bankrupt at the time of his bankruptcy, and
confequently veiled in the plaintiffs as his affignee.
The Court laid, that as fo large a property was
at Mite, they fhould take time to give the fubjth
the fulleft confideration.