Star.
London, England, 1814-06-14 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE..

COURT OF CHANCERY, JUNE ti.
The Loup CIZANCEI.LOR adverted to the arrest, by
the Serjeant at Arms, of two Gentlemen, Tutors at
the University of Cambridge, during a public exami-
nation. Complaint had been Made upon this sub-
ji.ct on a former day. The process of the Court had
issued in consequence of their not• having put in an
answer to a bill in Chancery. They had been hurried '
to town in a manner most inconvenient to themselves.
His Lordship said it was impossible the Solicitor
could have taken so harsh a step, if he had reflected
for a moment upon the sensation such a circumstance
must have produced in the University to which these
Gentlemen belonged, and how very likely it was in
its consequences, to involve them in ruin. His Lord-
ship ordered them to be discharged.

COURT OF KING'S .BENCH, JUNE 11.
BENNET• v. WATSON.
This was an action tried at Maidstone at the last
Assizes. The plaintiff sought to recover damages
for the imprisonment of his wife. The defendant was
a clergyman and a magistrate. A man had been
brought before him on a charge of felony, and Mrs.
Bennet was ehe only evidence against him. Her evi-
dence having been taken before the defendant, he re•
quire(' her to give security tor her appearing against
the prisoner at his trial. She, in reply, stated, that
her husband was absent, and requested indulgence till
next day to put in her recognizance. The defendant
said, such indulgence was unusual, bait he would
grant it to her. She was accordingly suffered to go,
but did not return according to promise next day, nor
did she coma for a week after, when only one day in-
tervening between that and the day fixed for the
trial of the prisoner, the defendant sent a message,
desiring she would come forward with her security.
This she not only refused to do, but declared nothing
should force her to appear at the Sessions, to give evi-
dence against the accused. The defendant, on hear-
ing this, went to her, and used every argument in his
power to induce her to go, but without effect. Upon
which he issued his warrant to take her into custody.
Upon this warrant she was apprehended and taken in.
a coach to the place of trial the night before the trial
came on. She was taken into Court, and upon her
evidence the prisoner was convicted ; for this impri-
sonment of a d.ty and night; her husband, the present
plaintiff, brought his action of damages. The Jury,
under the direction of the Judge, found for the
plaintiff, damages Is. The verdict was entered, with
leave for the defendant to make an application to set
it aside. Mr. GURNEY, in the course of last term, ob-
tained a Rule, calling on the plaintiff to shew cause
why the verdict should not be set aside, and averdict
be entered for the defendant. Mr. CURWEN now
chewed cause against the Rule and contended that
the'Magistraie had exceeded his authority. Mrs. Ben-
net being- a married woman, she was not liable to be
called on to enter into recognizance, nor had the Ma-
gistrate the power of ordering her to be taken into
custody.
The Court, however, held the contrary, and the
Rule tar entering a verdict fox the defendant was
made absolute.
JUNE 13.--CALLOW V. LAWRENCE.
Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL moved fur a new trial in
this cause. He stated, that it was an action by the in-
.!orsze against the acceptor of a bill of exchange.—
The bill was drawn by one Pyewell, and when it be-
came due was dishonoured by Lawrence, the accep-
tor. Pyewell then took it up, and, after being thus
dishonoured, again indorsed it away after it U'.l3 due.
He submitted, that the bill was, after its being thus
taken up, void as a commercial security, and that
nobody could bring an action upon it, bat the person
taking it up, against the acceptor. He cited a case
from H. Blackstone, when Lord Mansfield formerly
held a contrary opinion, but, upon hrgument, main-
tainvd the doctrine which he now contended for.—
Rule Nisi granted.