Star.
London, England, 1809-01-27 00:00:00

i

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, JAN. 24.
The LORD CHIEF Jusricz was not present, and there-
fore Mr. Justice GROSE observed, that the course to be
recommended to the bar was, that upon motions for
new trials, which must all be moved within the first
four days of the Term, the names only of the causes
should be mentioned, and the motions, should be made
afterwArds in their order, in the presence of my Lord
Chief Justice ; thus the Court would learn, at least,
the number of this description, which might have
some effect in guiding the future arrangement of the
business. The Learned Judge suggested also, that it
would perhaps be of advantage in the arrangement
of business, that there should be no special argument
on Friday, nor any case in the drown paper on Sa-
turday, so that the Court might, during the whole
of this week, go on from day to day with the peremp-
tory paper, and this would be of advantage to those
Solicitors who were interested in those motions for new
trials, in which it will be necessary to be prepared for
the next Assizes, of which cases there are many.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL then stated the case of
Chambers, Esq. v. Jones, Esq. which was an action
for an escape, on which there was a verdict for the
Plaintiff ; but certain.points of law had been reserved
by my Lord Chief Justice, and upon the statement of
them the Court granted a rule to shew cause why
there should not be a new trial. The other causes in
which the Attorney-General said he had to move for
new trials, were all tried at the last sittings in Guild-
hall, and are as follows :—Hayman v. Parish ; At-
kinson v. Adam; Boulton v. Dobrie ; Slacev. Black;
Ind Forbes v. Cowie.
Mr. GARROW said, that the only cause in which he
-had at present instructions to move for a new trial,
;was that of Goodland v. Blewett.

Mr. PARKE said, he had to move for one in the case
of Bourdon v. Vaughan. He moved another by leave
of the Court, of M'Pherson v. Vaughan, upon a non.
suit ; but the Court refused the mown.

lIMCKLY I'. THE REV. MR. CROFT.

Mr. WroLEY moved for a rule to shew cause why
a writ of Certiorari should not issue to remove a trial
in the cause from the Sessions at Beverley, for the
East Riding of Yorkshire, to the Assizes at York.
The circumstances, as stated by Mr. Wtotev, were
these :—ThiLaffidavits alledged, that the parties re-
sided in the same neighbourhood : the Plaintiff was
a Gentleman possessing 5001. a-year, and the Defen-
dant was a Clergyman. On the 3d of November the
Plaintiff went out for the purpose of having a day's
shooting. In the course of his amusement, he
was accosted by the Defendant, wko told him he
had no right to shoot on that land, as he was the
Lord of the Manor ; and, if he did not depart im-
mediately, he would shoot him. The Plaintiff quietly
went off the ground, and was going towards his car-
riage when the Defendant followed him, levelled his
piece at him, threatening to shoot him, and called him
" a rascal and a scoundrel." On the 25th of the same
month he went tckthe Magistrates of Beverley to lodge
his complaint. On his entrance into the room, he found
the Defendant there ; and the Magistrates for some'
time objected to take the Plaintiff's information.—
At length they took cross-informations. It was also
alledged, that the Magistrates called the Plaintiff's
proceeding " a Newmarket trick." The Learned
Counsel contended he was entitled to the rule, as the
Magistrates were prejudiced, and therefore the cause
ought not to be tried before them.—Rule granted.

A TTORNIES.
Mr. DAtmczy moved, that the name of Mr. Charles
Carpenter might be struck off the roll of Anomie%
of that Court, as he had been appointed a Justice of,
the Peace for the county of Cornwall.—Granted.