Star.
London, England, 1825-11-26 00:00:00

L 4Vti REPORT.

COURT OF CIiANCERY, Novestica 43.
A person of venerable appearance addressed the Lord
Chancellor at the sitting of the Court, !imbly entreat-
ing his Lordship would so far relieve him, tit to pro-
nounce judgment in a case, 4‘ Colemili v. Smithies,"
which had been long waiting for decision. The ap-
plicant further stated, that he was among the creditors
of a bankrupts estate, and that by the proceedings
which had taken place thereupon in this Court he had
22.0001. 10-ked up. As he was 72 years of age, and
had 17 children, and six grandchildren, it was his
earnest desire to be put in a condition which would en-
able him fOrthwith to settle his worldly affairs.
The Loup CHANCELLOR expressed his readiness to
further the designs of the applicant, and directed that
his case should stand for judgment. Upon recollection
fur an instant, his Lordship said that it occut red to him
that he had given judgment in the case six months ago,
and that finally. And, upon further investigation, it
appeared, that judgment was pronounced ; but the
decree had not been drawn, as the Register hid been
impressed with the idea that his Lordship wished to pen
the minutes himself. His Lordship added, that it was
to be desired that the old practice could be revived,
Whereby the party who prevailed moved and obtained
the minutes of the deuce before the cause was taken,
out of Court.
Mr. Roars, on the part of the father of Mr. Wells,
who lies under the injunction of the Court, not to
pursue his pretensions to Miss Adams, a ward of Court,
took the opportunity of disowning that he (the father
of Mr. Wells) had any knowledge of, or concurrence in,
the designs of his son, as had been stated to the Court,
in moving for the injunction.

COUBT OF KING'S BENCH, Noumea% 25.
PICA RDO V. MACHADn.

This, it will be recollected, was an application to
discharge the defendant on common bail, on two ob-
jections to the affidavit to hold to bail; first, that it was
sworn before a British Consnl.at Cadiz ; and second,
that the money for which the defendant was at rested,
was described as pounds sterling. The case was argues'
on a former day, and now, _

The LORD Cuter Jon.lce delivered judgment. Upon
the first point, he said, them was a difference of opinion
nn the Bench, as to the sufficiency of an affidavit of
debt taken before a British Consul abroad, to hold a
defendant to bail in this country; and, therefore, no
judgment would be delivered on that point. But upon
the second, three of the Judges were of opinion that
the description " pounds sterling" was too uncertain,
and, therefore, the Rule must be made absolute. His
Lordship had the misfortune to differ in opinion from
his Learned Brethren, but the defendant having bein
held to bail by an order signed by himself, he the more
readily yielded to their judgment upon the point.—
Rule absolute.

Till KING V. TUE HON. AUGUSTUS STANUOPB.

Mr. Buoucitiist, who is instructed for the defendant
in this case, requested that the matter might stand over,
he not having yet had an opportunity of reading his
instructions.

The Arroaysv-Grutaat. (who had filed the articles on behalf
of the Marquis of Hertford) said he had no objection to the case
standing over on the ground suggested by his Learned Friend, and
for his personal accommodation.

THE PING V. JOHN DUDEMA N.

This defendant had been convicted at tiltelast Sussex
Assizes, before Lord Chief Justice B •st, of wilful and
corrupt perjury, assigned upon an affidavit made by
him before a Master Extraordinary in Chancery, in
opposition to a petition to the Lord Chancellor for a
commission of bankrupt against the defendant.
On the motion of Mr. Gusset, the defendant was remanded to
the custody of the Marshal of the blarshalsea, and ordered to be
brought up for judgment on the fourth day of next Term.

CRIMINAL INFOR:4ATION.

Mr. SCARLET? moved for a rule to she" cause why
a criminal information should not be filed against the
Commissioners for Paving ani Lighting a part of the
Borough of SJutliwark, on the ground of their being
supposed to have improperly laid out certain sums of
money in making an unsuccessful application to P.lrlia-
merit, for a Bill to enable them to carry on certain
works. The Court refused the rule, on the ground of
the lateness of the application, being on the last day but
one of Term, but told the Learned Counsel, that if he
thought proper to renew his application on the first day
of n at Term, he was at liberty so to do.—Mule refused

pro tempore.
Mr. Serjeant WILDE moa►d for an information in
the nature of a quo warrant°, calling upon the Sheriffs
of the County .of the city of Bristol, to shew cause by
what authority they held the said office. The L arneJ
Serjeant then stated, that the city of B. istol was by
charter a county, and drat the present sheriffs, sho
had served the office within the last three years, had
been elected to the office again by the Common Council.
He relied upon two objections to their election—lst,
that by I Richard IL c. 11. none that bath been Sheriff
shall be so again in three years, if therebe other suffi-
cient in the county ; and, second, that the right of
election to the office of Sheriff was by Charter in the
Burgess-s at large, and not in the C.'mmon Council.
The Count refused the rule on the fast ground, because the statute
relied upon did not apply to cities which were made counties by
charter; but, on the second ground, granted a Rule Nisi.