Star.
London, England, 1830-07-02 00:00:00

LAW REPORTS.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, JULY 1.
LIBEL.— -WHITEHEAD V. SMITH AND OTHERS.
This was an action to recover compensation in damages for certain
Libels published in the Liverpool Mercury, of which the defendants
are the proprietors. The plaintiff is an attorney, practising at Liver-
pool. The alleged libels imputed various acts of oppression and
cruelty to the plaintiff, towards two poor persons of the name of
Yates. They were also alleged to bare stigmatised his conduct
when acting in the capacity of attorney to several actions. One of
them accused him of having been taken before a magistrate, on a
warrant of bastardy.
Witnesses were called to prove the proprietorship of the paper,
the publication of the paragraphs complained of, and the damage
sustained by the plaintiff; by the loss of professional business, in
consequence of the publication.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL and Mr. KELLY conducted the
plaintiff's case.
Mr. BROUGHAM, for the defendants, made a very long, eloquent,
and ingenious speech, commenting in very severe terms on the fact
of this cue being brought up to London for trial, when the imputed
offence' if offence there was, had been committed in Liverpool—when
the plaintiff was a resident in Liverpool—when the plaintiff was in
full practice. as his learned friend the Attorney-General had said,
though he disclaimed any knowledge of him in Liverpool, (the
heart almost of its county,)—when the defendant's paper was pub-
lished in Liverpool, and was read there and in the county—where
the parties must be better known, and where, as he (Mr. B.) should
contend, the plaintiff would have been able to obtain such damages,
in the shape of compensation, as he was entitled to, if indeed the
Jury could have been satisfied of any injury having been sustained
by him. The plaintiff however had determined to try this experi-
ment, and he trusted that the Jury of Middlesex would prove to
him the folly of his having deviated from the general practice.
Mr. Justice PARE summed up.
The Jury retired for half an hour, and on their return found a
verdict for the plaintiff—Damages 501.
ARCHES' COURT, JULY 1.
THE LORD BISHOP OF ELY V. GIBBONS AND HOLLEY.

The question in this suit assumed the form of an appeal from the
Coneistorial Court, and is of importance as respects the liability of
tithe.impropriators to repair the chancel of the parish church. The
suit was instituted by the churchwardens of the parish of Clare
against the Bishop of Ely, for having refused to repair the chancel
of the church, the Lord Bishop being the principal impropriator of
the great tithes.
Dr. Phillimore appeared to support the suit, followed by Dr.
Lushington ; and the King's Advocate, supported by Dr. Addatns,
contended for the non•liability of the Bishop of Ely.
It wu admitted as a general principle that all titha.ownen were
liable, severally and collectively, for the repairs of the chancel ; but
in this case, the objection rested upon peculiar grounds, arising
from the history of the tithes. The tithes originally belonged to
the monastery of fit. John the Baptist, and were confiscated by
Henry VIII. In the reign of Elizabeth, it was alleged that these
tithes bad been exchanged for estates of value by the then Bishop
of Ely. It was now contended that the Bishop claimed exemption
from time immemorial. To tstablish this fact, the Judge considered
that certain answers ought to be put in, and therefore allowed a
fortnight to bring forward the requisite proceedings.

DUBLIN LAW INTELLIGENCE.-JUNE 26.

Mr. Owen Kelly, who had been convicted at the last Asslees
of Mayo for having used language and being guilty of conduct
towards Captain Stewart, of Mayo, tending to provoke the latter
to fight a duel, was brought up to receive the judgment of the Court.
Judge JERB pronounced judgment, and sentenced the prisoner to
six months' confinement in the gaol of Mayo—to find security to be
of the peace, himself in the sum of 5001. and two sureties in the sum
of 1001. respectively—and further, to be confined until such were
complied with.
Mr. Kelly's Council submitted to the Court the propriety of
changing the place of his client's confinement, on the ground that
hMayoe (Mr. Kelly) had had a dispute with the keeper of the gaol of
The COURT immediately acceded to this, and altered its rule ini
this particular to the gaol of Kilmainharn.