Star.
London, England, 1823-05-07 00:00:00

LAW INTILLIGENCE.

COURT OF CHANCERY, MAY 6.
STIITHENS V. CUBE.
Mr. LOVATT, agreeable to permission on a former
day, made a motion in this Case to the following ef-
fect :—A bill was brought against the defendant, and
on the cause being heard before the Vice-Chancellor,
his Honour made a decree in favour of the defend-
ant ; but the plaintiff's Solicitor afterwards informed
the defendant's solicitor, that it was his intention to
appeal from that decree, and that therefore the de-
cree ought not to be drawn up ; but, as it were, by
a side wind, or application, the defendant obtained
his Lordship's signature to the decree whilst a peti-
tion of appeal was preparing ; and it was not on affi-
davits, but on admissions on both sides, that the
Learned Counsel now moved that the enrolment of
the decree might be vacated. In an anonymous case,
reported in Vesey, stn. it appears that Lord Hard-
wicke was of opinion a decree might be vacated on
the ground of having got it enrolled by a fraud or
surprise. This application was made before his Ho-
nour, but he thought he was not at liberty to vacate
the enrolment, but advised a motion to be made be-
fore his Lordship to know if he could do it. It was
alleged there was a surprise here, because the parties
agreed between themselves on the 6rh, and the en-
rolment was obtained on the 10th of the same month.
Mr. ROMILLY appeared to oppose the motion, on
the ground, first, that the enrolment of the decree in
this case was regular; and, secondly, if it should ap-
pear to the Court to be so, then his friend, Mr. Lo-
vatt, could name no case to shew that be was entitled
to the indulgence of the Court to have the enrolment
vacated ; and, thirdly,, that after a decree is pro-
nounced, nothing can prevent the enrolment of it,
but the entry of a caveat on the ground of appealing
from the decree. Now the plaintiff had failed to enter
a caveat; and the Learned Counsel then, in comment-
ing on these points, referred to the practice as laid
down in Harrison's Chancery Practice, and also in
Newland's Practice, to shew that all decrees must be
enrolled before the expiration of the next Michaelmas
or Easter Term after the same decree is pronounced,
or that it cannot be enrolled after that without a
special application being made to the Court.
His LORDS-II IP, after having read the admissions,
really thought it might be fairly said there was a sur-
prise in this case; and if solicitors choose to do such
acts without proper authority, the best thing would
he to vacate the enrolment, on condition that neither
of the solicitors charge their cher is one penny costs.

THF: POIrtSMOUTII CAUSE.
His LORDSHIP said, he had had some further com-
munication ss ith Master Conrtenay, respecting the
appointment of the Personal Committee of this Noble
individual—and, horn what pasted, he now consi-
dered it his duty to confirm the appointment.
Mr. SHADWELL then supposed that Mr. Coombe,
the Committee ad interim, was now discharged.
Mr. WETHERELL considered that that must be
left to be decided as the Gentleman who is now ap-
pointed the Committee shall think fit.
His LORDSHlP—Certainly-it must.
FARQUHARSON V. BALFOUR.
The affidavit, which the defendant was ordered to
make to-day, was read in Court, swing that he was
wholly ignorant of what had become-of the letter
particularly alluded to, ehich has not been set forth
in the schedule to-his examination. fie was then prct
Bounced to be no longer a prisoner, on condition-that
he will immediately disclose to the Master all the
deeds and papers he has now in his possession relating
to the estate, and also within a fortnight do the same
as to the books and documents that he had not here
at the time -he pin in his examination, but which, ac-
cording to Mr. Hart's admission, were -no*jn Lon-
don, and also on paying the costs of the contempt'
Immediately on his Lordship's pronouncing a confirmation of
the Master's Report, a Gentleman came between the bar and
the bench, and said," My Lord, with the greatest submission"—
His Lottosotr— Who are you ?
Orator—( In rather a surprised 'and haughty tone)—Who ant I?
Ills Loanstur—Yes, who are you ?
Orator—l azi a suitor.
His LoKostur—Then stop till it comes to your turn to speak.
I ant sure it is not at present. Go on with the regular business
of the day. {addressing the Bar).
This reception seemed to be quite the reverse from
what the un-gowned orator seemed to expect, and
alter giving his Lordship a most significant stare foi-
about a minute or two, he withdrew.
COL= OF KING'S BENCH, MAY 6.
THE KING V. J. A. WILLIAMS. •
This was an indictment against the deflndant for a'
libel, alleged to have been published by him in a
newspaper in the city of Durbin), -entitled the Dur-
ham Advertiser, of which he was the editor.
It appeared that shortly after the death of the late
Queen, a Jong article was published by' he difendant,
in his Journal, which tended to .thiow blame upon
the Clergy of the United Kingdom, and of Durham
and its neighbourhood, for their conduct in not toll-
ing the church bells on ne;outit Of' her 'Majesty's
death. On this ground the pfosecution was-insti-
tuted. The Jury found a verdict of Guilty of a
Libel on the Clergy of Durham and its neighbour-
hood," on the first count. In that count it was set out,
that the defendant had " written and published a libel
of and concerning the Clergy orthe United Kingdom,
and the Clergy of Durham and its neighbourhood."
Mr. BROUGHAM had obtained a Rule to shew rause
why judgment in the cause should not be arrested,
on the ground that the omission of the words " of
and concerning," before " the Clergy of Durham,"
&c. was fatal ; and also that the finding of the Jury,
that the defendant was guilty of publishing a libel
against " the Clergy of,Durham and its neighbour-
hood," was not a sufficient description of the offence
to enable the defendant to know against whom he
was supposed to base written a libel.
Mr. &ARUM' now strewed cause. He considered
that the omission of the words " of and concerning"
was an unimportantobjection. As to the other point
of the finding of the Jury being insufficient, he should
contend that the contrary was the case. His Learned
Friend had said, that the title of the Clergy of Dur-
ham and its neighbourhood was too general, and that
some individual must have been pointed out, in order I
to subject the writer to a prosecution. But be would
contend, that as they were a particular class of men,
that was quite a•sufficient designation. Instances of
this were numerous. Libels on his Majesty's troops
had frequently been held to be good grounds-of pro-
secution.• If a libel were published against the Judges,
sorely no one would say that the libel must mention
, some particular Judge's name. If a libel were writ-

. - .
ten on•tlie House of Commons, must thail3eller name
tt partitubtr Member? If any libellous work accused
the Church of a crime, no matter how enormous,
would it be argued that the writer could not be pro-
secuted unless he had mentioned the name of a par-
ticular clergyman? T4e libel' here applied to the
Church as a class, and therefore he submitted that
the present indictment had been properly preferred.
Mr. TYNDALL followed on the same side.
Mr. BROUGHAM, in support of the Rule, said, that
however the vulgar might construe the words of the
first count of the declaration, yet that was not the
manner in which they ought to be considered in a
Court of Law, and by a man of learning. In this
case, no person skilled in the language of documents
of that description would consider that this was by
any means a sufficient description to point out the
pekson whom the writer of the libel intended to de-
fame. He would not say that it was not an offence
against the law, that the Clergy of Durham and its
suburbs should be libelled ; yet by the case, as set
out in the indictment, it was impossible to fix on the
person on whom the stigma contained in the libel
was intended to fall. The ground on which he had
obtained the Rule was, that the finding of the Jrwy
was too vague. He perfectly agreed with Mr. Scarlett
in the instances to which he had referred, of his Ma-
jesty's troops and the Judges. There a prosecution
would certainly be authorised, because they were
bodies of individuals acknowledged by the Legisla-
ture. But who had ever heard that the Clergy of
Durham and its environs were an acknowledged
political body ? Even in fiscal regulations, w hich
were far more easy, the persons under whose direction
they were made were more exact, although they were
generally formed about five o'clock in the morning.
His Learned Friend had said, a libel on the whole
Church was a fit subject of prosecution. Now, in
" the whole Church" were included Catholics as well
as Protestants, and therefore that proposition was ill
founded. If indeed it had been a libel on the t'ccksia
Anglicana, or Established Church of the United
Kingdom, then that reasoning might be legitimate;
but the Jury had decided this to be merely a libel on
the Clergy of Durham and its neighbourhood. How far
that might extend, whether three, four, or five miles,
was completely uncertain. Ile should, on these
grounds, submit, that the finding of the Jury was too
vague; and therefore, that there was sufficient cause
to induce the Court to arrest its judgment. •
Mr. ALDERSON followed on the same side.
The LORD CHIEF JusTrer.—The 'Court will take
time to consider of this case.