Star.
London, England, 1824-11-30 00:00:00

LAW REPUB.':
..._........-,_
COURT OF CHANCERY, NOVEMBER 29.

OPARANHOU9E.
Mr. HART moved for the Court to appoint a ma-
nager of the Opera-House. After being heard shortly,
and o ithout the Court intimating any opinion, the mo-
tion was ordered to stand over till next 'Thursday, that
the Solicitor-General might be prepated to meet it.
Mr. HART moved, in another cause respecting the
Opera-House, in which Mr. Chambers is the plaintiff,
and Mr: Waters and others are the defendants, that Mr.
Waters, being in contempt, might be discharged upon
paying the costs of the contempt, and that he might be
at liberty to take nut a commission to put in his answer,
and have six weeks' time for that purpose.
Mr. Sum nppostql the motion.
I.ordsliip considered that thlre must be some rule of prac-
tice with revt.ct to this question which be did not know at present.
The case was ordered so stand over till the next Seal, that this
}Oita of practice may be looked
BLAKESIORE 14GLAMORGANSIIIRE CANAL COMPANY.
The Lotto CHANCELLOR expressed his doubts on the
effect of the alleged contempt and disobedience in this
case on Saturday ; but made use of the, opportunity to
admonish the good people of Wales, Magistrates inclu-
sive, not to be quite so ready in their appeals to club-
law, as the transactions which hal been referred to in
this case would indicate.
His Lordship, agreeably to his promise on Saturday,
determined upon the cases of Griffiths, Routh, Craw-
shaw, and Guest, members of the Committee, whose
commitment had been prayed, that there were no
grounds for imprisoning them. Upon the fate of Reece,
the filth of the defendants, his Lordship still hesitated,
but undertook to give his decision on Thursday mornings,
COURT OW KING'S BENCH, NOVEMBER 29.
POLICE REPORTS.—DUNCAN V. THWALTES.
• The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE gave jodgment in this
cause, which has excited curisidetable interest, inas-
much as the liberty of making reports from police offices,„
was supposed to be a question the Judges would decide.
The plaintiff brought his action against the Morning
Herald, for an alleged libel. The publication which
became the subject of appeal to a legal tribunal, was
a report of an examination which the plaintiff under-
went before a Magistrate at Bow-street, on a charge of
improper conduct towards a young female. The plain-
tiff complained in his declaration,. that the said report
of the examination was false and calumnious. The
defendant put in eight special pleas of justification,
which set out, in substance, that the report which vies
the subject of action, was a true account of that which
took place before the Magistrate; that no malice had
been entertained, and that a short account of the trans-
action had been given, because all the details were not
fit for the public eye. To these pleas the plaintiff de-
murred, and the question was most ably argued before
the Coon. In the present instance the Court had to
decide upon the validity of the pleas. His Lordship
having stated the formal matter of the proceedings,
said, Mr. Justice Bayley, Mr. Justice Holroyd, and
himself, were of opinion, that judgment upon six of
the eight pleas must be for the plaintiff; and upon two,
namely, the sixth and eighth, for the defendant. One
of the six contained the whole of the depositions ; and
upon those depositions, the report appeased not to be a
correct and fair account of the examination, inasmuch
as it did not state the evidence of the surgeon, which
plaintiff considered favourable. On the question whe-
ther reports from police offices of ex parte evidence
wete legal ? it was not then necessary to give any dis-
tinct decision, because there was no doubt, when persons
were brought before the Justices, they had authority to
take private examinations, and to keep evidence secret
for the putposis of justice. His Lordship did not de-
cide even upon the question, whether reports of proceed-
ing, ex parte in that Court, were legal? It would be
time to decide when the question came under their judg-
ment. With respect-to malice, the Court were of opi-
nion, that where an injury was done by the publication
of a calumny, malice was to be presumed. The case
of Curry v. Walter had been urged as favourable to the
defendant's case, but his Lordship upOn that drew a
different conclusion.
Judgment was accordingly entered for the plaintiff on six pleas,
and for the defendant on two.
THE KING V. JOSIAS TAYLOR.
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE gave judgment in this case.
The case came before the Court on a plea of auirPfois
acquit, and the question was, whether that plea could
be sustained? It was an indictment for a misdemeanour
in keeping a common gaining-house. His Lordship
cited Various legal authotities to shew that the plea of
outrefois acquit .had only been held good in felonies, out
of regard to human life ; but in cases of misdemeanour
it bad never been admitted. The Court, for that reason,
held the plea in bar to be invalid.
COURT OP COMMON PLEAS, NOVEMBER 29.
DAVIS V. THE BANK OF ENGLAND.
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE said, that he WAS now
to pronounce the judgment of the Court in this import-
ant cee. It was a special action on the case for a breach
' of duty on the part of the defendants in not paying cer-
tain dividends to the plaintiff, and also for transferring
stock belonging to the plaintiff, without his authority.
A verdict was entered for the defendants, subject to the
opinion of the Court on a special case. His Lordship
here read the facts, from which it appeared that the
plaintiff, in May, 1819, had £5,000 in the three per
cent. Consols, Boa £5,000 in the Long Annuities, and
£I7S in the h.e per cents. on which stock he in that
month teceived Ow dividends. On the 6th October and
Nth November, Messrs. Drummond received certain
instruments put porting to be powers of attorney pro-
pet ly attested, authorising them to sell out the two sums
of £5,000 each ; and ou the 10th of January they re-
ceived another order to sell out £75, being part of the
sum of £l7B five per cents. These nista uments were
severally forged and counterfeited. The plaintiff never
had any deaiings with Messrs. Drummond, nor ever
received any part of the stock sold out by them by vir-
tue of the said forged powers of attorney. On the :Id
of Match, 1820, John Henry Davis, the brother of the
plaintiff, was attested on a charge of forgery, and'
lodged in Giltspur-street Compter, for the purpose of
being taken before the Lord Mayor to be examined;
and on the sth of March the plaintiff had an interview
with him, when the plaintiff said, " as-you ate charged
with a forgery upon a stranger, have you done anything
with my property ?" J. H. Davis then told the plain-
tiff that he had transferred the stock which had stood in
the plaintiff's name.. On which the plaintiff observed,
out have endeavoured to beggar ine." J. H.
7terwards wt ate a letter ttrMessrs. Druinnwnd,
I to one to his brother, desiring them to pay to
miff ti.e balance due to him in their hands. On
of April, 1820, J. H. Davis escaped from the

" then )c
ivis Aft
enc.osed
- the Train
the illt t