Star.
London, England, 1823-01-24 00:00:00

MULLER V. CHAWELL.

Mr. HART stated, that when his Lordship said the
other day that he had pretty well made up his mind
in this case as to how he should decide, at the same
time requesting him (Mr. Hart) to tell him what
amendments he prayed for, he had now to
say—that as his Lordship had so expressed hiarielf
as to.having made up his mind, he would leave the
case entirely in his Lordship's hands; for whether
the decision would be for or against his client, it
would be satisfactory.
COURT OF KING'S BENCH, JANUARY 9.3.

This being the first day of Hilary Term, the usual
report of the state of the convicts at the several sta-
tions, and on board the various prison-ships, was
made to their Lordships.

BRANSCONIR V. BRIDGES AND ANOTHER.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL said, he had to apply to
their Lordships for a Rule to chew cause, why the
verdict for the plaintiff in this case should not be set
aside, and a nonsuit entered. This was an action of
excessive distress for rent, brought by Lady Brans-
comb. At the trial, the plaintiff proved a tender
previous to the levy, and on this proof he, the Soli-
citor-General, at the trial contended, that the plain-
tiff must be nonsuited. A tender having been proved,
he submitted that no rent remained due on which the
Sheriff could distrain ar all, and, therefore, that his
' entry was a trespass, and the action should have been
one of trespass, and not as in this case it had been,
an action for excessive distress.

The COURT were decidedly of opinion, that a plain-
tiff; under such circumstances, might adopt which-
ever form of action he pleased, and therefore refused
the Rule.

denvouting to go of the httelcoey-coacts, a 4
subject himself, by so doing, to uororehien danger,
Rule refused.

THE KIWO H. POYNUF.E.

The•Costmorr SIIRJEA Nr begged to cal! the pttaaw
Lion of thisAitairvt -again to—therensideration of oh*
case. It was a proceediag-agalat the defer. ant faw
refusing to take on him,elf the office of Oversew
of the Poor of St. Ann's, fltackfriars. The indictmerst •
was tried before the Lord Chief juS6Cei at
and the defendant •was found guilty. lie now appleal
for a new trial. The question was one:Of VII/ grey
importance to a numerous class of individua,ls res.*
ing in the suburbs, hilt having`places of business its
the City ; since, by OTE decision which the Court hat
come to, such penons, although not sleep;ni; at the*
places of business, were made liable to serve Par*
Offices. The defendant it. this case resided at Clap
ham, but had a lime-wharf in the ravish of et. Asir
If this conviction was raid, the defendant mi?ht*
called on to serve the office in two pa!ishes, name!,
at Clapham and in London at the same time.' Thf
Learned Common .Serjeant proceeded to cite eat
epiitions, and provisions, of Statute., tending to ores
turn the liability of persons standing in the defend.
ant's situation to serve.

The COUltis however; said, d,elynttiire,dneoxtecra:iseilej
on in this case to decide that important question. ti
this case it appeared that the detenia
the privilege of a resident householder i.l d'e parish,
by votillk at the election rf a Lectnier, and on °the
occasions; and, having exercised the 1, I tvileges of a
resident householder, he must be held liat6e to serve
parish offices.—Rule for a new trial refused.