Star.
London, England, 1809-11-22 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, N0V.21.
COVENT-GARDEN. THEATRE.
The ATTORNEY GENERAL said, that one of the af-
fidavits, on which he had moved for leave to file a
criminal information against certain persons for riot-
ous conduct in Covent Garden Theatre, happened
not to have been sworn yesterday, it was sworn this
morning ; he, therefore, hoped the Court would let
him have the Rule be drawn up as if the motion was
made this day.
Lord ELLENSDROUGH Let the Rule be drawn
up as of this day."
'FERE V. LORD CAWDOR AND ANOTHER.
This was an action for damages, on account of the
Defendant's game keeper having shot and killed the
Plaintiff's dog.
The plea was, that the Defendant, Lord Cawdnr,
was Lord of a Manor, at Kidwelly, in the county of
Carmarthen, and that the other Defendant was his
Lordship's game keeper; that the Plaintiff's dog came
upon that manor, and tvas following a hare, and
might then and there have killed the said hare ;
t!tat the game keeper shot the said dog, as it was 1 tw.
ful for him to do. To which plea there was a de-
murrer.
Lord ELLENROROUGH) by way of shewing the ab-
surdity of this plea, said—" I think the plea does tot
justify the killing of the game keeper ; is it to be en-
dured that a man's dog, or any other animal, shall be
shot, because he follows a hare, without stating in
the justification of killing that dog it was necessary to
ki:l it ; or that the dog belonged to an unqualified
person, and was pursuing game unlawfully ? All
this, or some of this, was surely necessary to be
statcd."
Mr. Scartarre quoted several cases as analogous
to this plea, and one, frnm the precedent of which
this plea had been actually drawn.
Lord ELLENBOROCOH—" Upon this plea, the ques-
tion is, whether a dog incurs the penalty of death for
running after a hare, in the manor of another. This
case, upon this plea, has nothing to do with property
in game, nor with any right that may be delegated,
by a Lord of the Manor, pr any other qualified
person, to a game-keeper; but it is the simple
case of one animal running after another ; and the
question is, if a question it can be called, whether
the animal so pursuing another, may legally be killed,
without stating that ate act of killing him was neces-
sary? If there be a precedent for such a plea as this,
it is a precedent against common reasoning and com-
mon sense, and the sooner it is overturned the better.
It is a precedent, from which the eyes of those who
are engaged in drawing pleadings, may properly be
averted."—ludgment for the plaintiff.
Mr. PARK moved for a mandamus to be directed to
a gentleman of the name of Davis, a surveyor ap-
pointed by the authority of two Acts of Parliament,
to act tut ler certain Commissioners for dividing cer-
tain lands in Merionethshire, commarding Mr.
Davis to deliver tip certain plans, which he had
drawn by order of the Commissioners, without which
plans it was alledged that the Commissioner; could
not proceed in the business of their commission.—
These plans the Commissioners had called upon Mr.
Davis to deliver tip, to enable them to act under the
provisions of the Act of Parliament.
The Court asked whether Mr. Davis had been ten-
dered payment of whatever demand he may have for
acting as a surveyor in this case ?
Mr. PARK s.iid, No ; the mode in which lie was to
be paid, was not provided for by the Act of Parlia-
ment. No doubt but he ought to be, and must be
paid ; hut he had not demanded payment, nor had
he m de the non-payment of what demand he might
have, an objection to the delivery of these plans, but
he had sturdily said, be would not give up the plan.
The Court held, that in no case could a ntandamus
be granted to compel any person to deliver up any
document in his possession, until a laukr shall have
been made to him of the amount of his demand, for
the service he has rendered in the business to which
that document relates ; for no person shall be called
upon to part from the firm he has upon documents in
his ro-session. Therefine tender should be made to
this Gentleman, .of his demand for his trouble in this
business ; and if, after that, he refuse to deliver up
these plans, this application to the Court might be
renewed, and the Court would attend to it—at present
the motion could not be granted.
CAPTAIN SHELDON. • •
Mr. Tomato said he was instructed to move the
Court for an attachment against Captain Sheldon, for
not returning a writ of Habeas Corpus, which had
been directed to him, commanding him to bring
up t e lesciv of a young woman under his controul,
that she might be delivered to her father, she being a
minor, who had eloped from him with he Captain.
The writ was issued on the lath instant, and had ken
served on Captain Sheldon at Manchester. The un-
happy father of this unfortunate female, he, Mr. Top-
ping, had seen this morning ; from him he learned
that the Captain and this young woman had arrived
by the coach this morning ; and this application for
an attachment was for his not producing'her in Court
this day.
Lord Etwenseisoucit observed, that having ar-
rived only this day, it could hardly be made the
foundation of an attachment against him for not ap-
pearing in Court with the writ to-day ; and the as.
rival of the parties rather indicated an intention to
obey the writ than otherwise. If there should be
any thing like a disposition shewn to evade the writ,
the Court would grant the attachment immediately.
Mr. TOPPING said, he made this motion merely to
comply with the anxiety of the parent in this case.
Rule for attachment refused.
ARTICLES OF TIIE PEACE.
Mr. GLEED moved for, and of course obtained, leave
to exhibit articles of the peace. From which, being
read, it appeared, that Mr. Joseph Hibbert, who was
in partnership with his father, Joseph Hibbert, and his
brother, John Hibbert, carrying on trade in wine,
spirits, and beer, in Hylord's.court, Crutched-friars,
had to complain of the misconduct of his brother
John, who had, on several occasions, used very vul-
gar epithets towards him ; threatening to knock him
doefre &c.—in one instance to stab him—in another,
giving a bludgeon to one of the clerks, and desiring'
such down the exhibitant. some otiit4-
11"..ctances "die stated of the turbulent disposition of
/al,. John Hibbert. The quarrel appeared to have

r arisen from some counting-house commas of the parr
nership.
The Court allowed the articles. to be filed, and or-
dered Mr. John Hibbert to find sureties to preserve
the peace towards his brother.

HABEAS CORPUS.

The bocly of an old gentleman, named Thomas
Wright, was brought up by a writ of habeas corpus,
obtained upon a former day by Mr. BOLLAND. who
had then stated, that Mr. Weight had been forcibly
detained in custody.by a near relative, with a view to
induce him to make over his property to that relative.
Mr. LAWES on the part of John Wright, the bro-
ther of Thomas, -this day, moved the return of the
habeas corpus. He said this was a mere family dispute
between relatives, which of them should have Thomas
Wright, the old gentleman, to reside with them. He
was a man of some property, and superannuated.
He was examined by the Court, and said his wish
was to reside with leis brother, who was very kind and
attentive to him ; sad Lord ELLENnottot•Git told him
he was at perfect liberty to dispose of himself as he
pleased.