Star.
London, England, 1824-01-30 00:00:00

DUCHY or LANCASTER coußr—turs DAY.

.

-11A1.1..
Blare Lord BEILET (as Chancellor of that Du:ti), Mr. Justice BAY-

LET, and Mr. Justice a, as Asscssars.

This was an appeal made by Mr. Clement, the Pro-
prietor of Thc Observer Sunday Newspaper, against a
fine of £5OO, imposed on him for having published in
that Paper the proceedings against Thistlewood and
Ings, and the rest of the Cato•street conspirators, while
the trials were yet pending, contrary to an order made
I3y the Lord Chief Justice ABBOTT, who visited the
offence as a contempt of Court, by imposing the above-
named sum as a fine.

Mr. DENMAN rose, and, on behalf of the appellant,
memorialized the Court for a postponement of the pro-
ceedings, on an affidavit, stating that Mr. Clement had
intended to have retained Mr. Scarlett as one of his
Counsel ; but that that Learned Gentleman had declined
accepting a brief, expecting, as be was Attorney-Gene-
ral for the Duchy, that he should have been retained
on the part of the Crown. This not having been the
case, he was now willing to lhold a brief for Mr. Cle-
ment, and the delay was prayed to afford him time to
make himself acquainted with the merits of the case
The affidavit went on to say, that Mr. Clement regarded
the professional asiistance of Mr. Scarlett as being of
the most essential importance to his case.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL declared himself, on be-
half of the Crown, anxious for the fullest investigation
of the case, and his consequent willingness to accede to
the postponement prayed tor.
After a short consultation, the Court agreed to post-
pone the case till the 13th of February.

COURT OF CHANCERY, JANUARY 29.

IN THE MATTER OF SIR GREGORY PAGE TURNER.

Mr. HART said, that a petition in this matter was to
have been discussed to-day, but, on account of a family
calamity, Mr. Horne was prevented from attending to-
day, therefore, that petition could not come on ; but he
(Mr. Hat t) held a petition of Captain Turnet's in his
hand, praying that he might be appointed the interim
Committee, which pressed very much in consequence
of proceedings at law.
His LORDSHIP thought the best thing to be done
would be to order the petition of traverse to come on
on Saturday morning, for he considered that anything
to be done beyond this petition would depend on the
result of it ; and he considered it a matter of course that
the prayer of that petition would have to be granted.
Mr. HART was aware of that, but he considered that
a very different consequence might attend the Court's
direct order to traverse the commission, from the
pai ty's own demand of right to do so under the Act.
Mr. SUGDEN said, a question would arise as to whe-
ther this was really the petition of Sir Gregory himself,
or the petition of some other person, in consequence of
a change of Solicitors ?
His LORDSHIP said, another thing to be observed was,
that a gardener who had been taken down to Sir Gre-
gory's residence had written a letter to him, stating that
he had put the garden into excellent order, and desired
to know whether he might be authorised to purchase
all the necessary seeds, trees, &c. ? The letter concluded
by requesting his Lordship to convey the necessary in-
formation to him immediately. Therefore, as this point
called for the Court's instantaneous attention, he thought
this, with all other matters, might be considered till Sa-
turday morning, and then to Have the whole discussed.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, JANUARY 29.
The Judges appeared in Court in their Crown Robes,
scarlet and ermine, in compliment to his Majesty's Ac-
cession to the Throne, this being the first day of the
fifth year of his reign.
LIABILITY OF COACH PROPRIETORS.—MARSH V. HORNE.

This had been an action by a silk-mercer, in Bath,
against a coach-proprietor in London, for compensa-
tion for damage done to silk in its carriage from Lon-
don to Bath.
Mr. SCARLETT moved for a new trial, on the grounds
that the damage arose from no neglect, and that the
value was above 51. without paying carriage in propor-
tion.—The Court granted the rule, and directed Mr.
Scarlett to come prepared to argue that the defendant's
knowledge that the goods were of greater value than 51.
did not deprive him of the benefit of his notice.

IDENTITY OF A SHIP.
This case, which had been lately tried in Guildhall,
involved a question, whether a ship s'ld at Cape Coast
Castle, on the coast of Africa, was from necessity so snld,
or was capable of being repaired? The action was against
the Underwriter, and the verdict had been for the de-
fendant, upon evidence that the same ship was seen a
few weeks after the sale at a considerable distance,
taking in a cargo of slaves.
Mr. GURNEY obtained a rule to set aside the verdict,
on the ground that the witness to the identity was wrong.
HORSE CAUSE. V. BENNET._

MI. COMMON SERJEANT moved to set aside the ver-
dict for the defendant. The Lord Chief Justice had
thought there was no warranty, that was now not dis-
puted. But the rule was moved, upon the defects which
were not visible to every observer:—they were a bog-
spavin and a thorough-pin. A Learned Person had at
the trial asked, whether the bog-spavitt was in the fbre
leg or hinder leg ?
Loan CiiiEr Jusnca—The question implies ignorance, I suppose?
Mr. COMMON SERJEANT laughed assent.
LORD CutEr JusTtcx—l asked the question of course.
Mr. COMMON Stataaasa—lt only shews that the most learned in
the land may be ignorant of horses.
Mr. Justice BAYLEY—What is thorough-pin ?
Mr. COMMON SIRJYANTI have an affidavit which will answer
that question.—( It was read.)—The bog-spavin was a visible swell-
ing : the thorough-pin an invisible affection of the joint.
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE read his notes. The ptice
was 591.—Rule refused.