Star.
London, England, 1822-11-27 00:00:00

AND GIBBS.

The VICE-CHANCELLOR observed, that he had
stated on Saturday that he would decide the question
of costs in this case, after the action at law had been
tried ; but upon reconsideration he thought it would
be best to dispose of it now, when the facts were
fresh in the minds of all parties concerned.
Mr. BELL stated, that he had been instructed to
inform his Honour, that if Mr. Grinstead had agreed,
at the suggestion of the Court, to change the action
at law into a suit, the question could not have been
tried at the time fixed, because a new record and a
new Jury process would have been necessary : other-
wise, none of the witnesses could have been prose-
cuted for perjury if they had falsely sworn.
The VICE-CHANCELLOR thought it necessary that
some inquiry should be made into the correctness of
this statement. It it should turn out to be true, the
assignees must pay the costs of the application which
he was called upon to decide on Saturday ; is other-
wise, they must be paid by Mr. Grimstead.
Mr. MONTAGUE assured his Honour, the consent
of Mr. Grimstead to the proposed change of the na-
ture of the trial would have been unavailing. If, how-
ever, the assignees thought otherwise, Mr. Gritnstead
would now consent to what was asked.

His HONOUR said, that it would save expense if
the assigaees would accept the consent.
Mr. HORSE, on the part of the assignees, agreed
to take the consent of Mr. Grimstead.

The case stands over to the last day of Term.
EY•PAItTE SHAW, IN THE MATTER OF HOWARD AND

GIBBS.

Mr. HORNE stated, that this was a petition from
the present assignees of the bankrupts, praying that
the defendant, Mr. Bowen, who had been the mes-
senger under the former commission, might account
for the wines and spirits which remained under his
care in the cellars of the bankrupts, from the month
of February to the month of August, 181 ; and also
that he might be restrained from proceeding in an
action at law against the present assignees, for a debt
-which he alleged to be due to him for services per-
' formed under the former assignees. The Learned
Counsel was proceeding to open the case, when
Mr. MONTAGUE objected, that the former assignees
ought to have been made parties to the suit.
The VICE-CHANCELLOR thought that the objection
must be sustained. It might appear that the de-
fendant had acted in all that he had done under the
directions of the former assignees, which he was
bound to obey. The former assignees, and not the
defendant, were liable to account to the plaintiff.
Mr. HORNE admitted, that if this had been a bill,
it would have been necessaty to make the former as-
signees parties; but he maintained that it was not re-
quisite, on the presentation of a petition, to fix upon
more than one party. The defendant must defend
himself as he would in an action at law.

The VICE-CHANCELLOR directed the petition to
stand over, until be had an opportunity of talking the
subject over with the Lord Chancellor.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, NOVENIBER 26.
THE KING V. WILLIAM ANDERSON.

This defendant had pleaded guilty to two indict-
ments charging him with embezzling divers sums of
money in his capacity of Surveyor of the Highways
in the Hamlet of Mile-end, Old Town, with intent to,
cheat and defraud the inhabitants of that hamlet.

The defendant was brought up yesterday to receive
the judgment of the Court, and on that occasion put
in an affidavit tending to impute to Mr. James Pep-
percorn, the prosecutor, vindictive and malicious
motives for this prosecution. He alleged, as the cause
of Mr. Peppercorn's hostility towards him, his refusal
to advance to that individual, some years since, the
sum of 1001. out of the highway rates for the purpose
of building a wall kt the end of his garden. He
im-
puted to the prosecutor expressions of hostility towards
him, to the effect that he (the prosecutor) would not
cease to persecute him (the defendant) until he had
effected his ruin. With respect to the charge of em-.
bezzlement, .he said, that the errors in his accounts
arose entirely from inadvertence, and not from any
wilful intention of committing a fraud upon the in-
habitants of the hamlet, and that he had offered to
make good any deficiency' which might be found to
exist upon an investigation of his accounts. ' He
described himself as a person of very humble cir-
cumstances, and depending entirely upon his wife's
private settlement.

Affidavits were also put in on his behalf, made by i
several respectable persons, who had knoWn him for
a period of twenty years, and they described him as
a man of the strictest honour and-integrity, and Inca•
pable of any deliberate act of dhlultiesty..ll knY
errors were fuund iu his accounts, the deponents