Star.
London, England, 1823-02-14 00:00:00

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, FEB. 13.

to pursuance of his Majesty's warrant, Mr. Justice
LIYLEY, M. Justice HoLuoyn, and Mr. Justice BEST,
ante in a room adjoining the Court for the dispatch
of Tern business in arrear. They were engaged in
hearing arguments on Rules for new trials from the
Home Circuit, of no nuhlic interest.

SITTINGS AT NISI PRIUS.
PRIDDIE V. DIALLAM AND HOWELL.
This was an action of trespass, brought by a widow
residing in Queen's-walk, Chelsea, against Mallam,
the constable, and Howell, the collector of Poor-
rates of that parish, for breaking into her house and
disturbing her in her possession. The sum of £3 was
paid into Court as amends.
It appeared in evidence, that a sum of El. as. had
been due fromlhe plaintiff, on account of Poor-rates,
for some rime, and that on the Bth of May last, this
sum was demanded. In answer to the application,
the party was info, med that Mrs. Priddie was from
home. but that the money would be ready at three
o'clock in the afternoon of that day. At that hour
no one called, but at eight in the evening, a knock
was heard at the front door, and soon after, Miss
Priddie. in passing a window on the staircase, saw
Mallain in the act of scaling the palings at.the bot-
tom of the garden. She hastened to the back door,
which was a little open, and bolted it; but immedi-
ately after he bloke open the door with considerable
violence, and entered the house. She then laid on
the table a sovereign and nearly 20 shillings in silver,
and begged him to take the rate and retire; he did
not take it then, but rushed by her and opened the
front door, when Howell and another person, named
Cranbrooke,entered the house. She then paid 1 /.115.6d.
but Mr. Cranbrooke afterwards returned 6s. 6d. to
her, saying that she had given too much. They re-
mained three-quarters of an hour in the house, and
Mallam and Howell behaved with great rudeness and
violence, being in a state of intoxication ; but Cran-
brooke conducted himself with civility and kindness. CONDUCT OF KING'S COUNSEL IN THE COURT
A mob was collected at the door; but whether by 0 K CHANCERY AND THE VICE-CHANCELLOR'S
the conduct of the defendants, or the attempt of the COURT.
women to obtain advice and assistance, did not dis- Yesterday a very numerous Meeting of the most
tinctly appear. respectable Solicitors of this metropolis assembled at
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE suggested a doubt whe- the CroWn and Anchor Tavern, in the Strand, for
Cher the action of trespass could be supported, as the the very important purpose of • adopting such mea.
Local Act under which the rate was levied, decided sures, with respect to the Gentlemen of the Bar in
that no action of trespass should be sustained for any highest practice at the Cpurt of Chancery, as may
irregularity in conducting a distress by virtue of a lead to a more effectual performance of their duty
warrant, and recommended that, in order to avoid to their clients than has taken place since the esta-
this question, some accommodation should be effected. blishment of the Vice-Chancellor's Court. These
The SolaciToß-GENERAL, for the defendants, of- were upwards of 250 of the Profession present. Mr.
fered to withdraw a Juror ; but the COMMON SER- La BLANC was unanimously called to the Chair.
JEAN''', for the plaintiff, rejected the offer, expressing The principal Members stated, that the proverbial
bis confidence that the forcible entry of the house delays in the Court of Chancery •were greatly in-
was no irregularity, but an unjustifiable trespass. creased, and the expenses of suitors alarmingly aug-
The SoLiclroa-Gaaaam. addressed the Jury, ar- mented, by the manner in which the Chancery bum-
ping that the witnesses had evidently attempted to ness was transacted by the leading Counsel at that
gsve a false colouring to the transaction, in which Bar. It was usual for a King's Counsel, after making
they were almost as much interested as the plaintiff. a speech in the Court of Chancery, to pop off to the
—He did not put in the warrant, and therefore the Vice-Chancellor's Court, and these to make another
question respecting the form of action anticipated by speech ; after which, he perhaps ran down to the
the Lord Chief Justice did not arise. House of Lords, or back to the Court of Chancery,
The Jury found a verdict for the plaintiff, damages 'without making himself acquainted with the argil.
MO, in addition to the ES paid into Court- ments on the opposite side, or doing anything further
TRUSCOTT AND OTHERS V. MARSH AND OTHERS.
for the benefit of his client. The consequence of such a
'
This was an action against Messrs. Marsh and Co. mode of disposing of the important dust reposed in the
tankers, to recover the sum of 4061. alleged to be re- hands of Chancel y Solicitors was recessively injurious.
It was notot ions that leading Counsel walked from
teived by them to the use of the plaintiffs.
The SOLICITOE•GINIERAL stated the circumstances one Court to the other, and kept the fees they re-
nuder which the plaintiffs sought to recover. Some • ceived in cases which were going an at the same mo-
lithe before the Coronation of his Majesty, many per- meta in both Courts; it being an established pin-
ions were desirous of obtaining from the Board of ciple with there never to return a fee, to whatever
Works permission to erect temporary buildings for motive their absence from the Court in which their'
attendance might be of vital importance to suitors'
the accommodation of the spectators. Among these
should be attributable. It beass.me necessary, thare•
ye* the plaintiffs, who proposed to take a frontage
If Ile feet, at 31. 10s. a foot. Befote this contract lore, to adopt means of remedying ineonversiendes
vas completed, Messrs. Brindles s offered to take a and vexations of this descriptioh, for the purpose 4
Iccomplishing which, the .assistaace of ail Solicitors
larger piece of ground, including this, and it was '
rantedao them on condition that they would let the whose practice lay ia the Chancel y Court vias nece-
-116 feet vi the o.tintiffs at the saute tii ice %Ahich they sary. Under such circumstance., the measure ',lnch
litre to pay to Goveinment. As it was doubtful ! suggested itself as most advisable, was the appointment
*bathe the Coronation would take place, and as ,t : at a Committer to consider the propriety of signing
Was undetstood .i.l,' ' - should not cccurj GOVCOPIPStiGII CO thetr clients) b., employ Iblaa Ciaallaaaal

It appeared on the evidence of the plaintiff's wit-
nesses, that the defendant, about eight o'clock in the
evening, attempted to intrude himself into the pri-
vate boxes of the Theatre, and consequently some
disturbance arose. This drew Mr. Kent from his
box, who remonstrated with Mr. Tebbutt on the ins-
propriety of his conduct, which Mr. Tebbutt resented
by a kick. At a subsequent period of the evening,
Mr. Kent was taking refreshment in the saloon, when,
Mr. Tebbutt came in, struck him violently, gave him
a black eye, and broke his nose; the marks of which
were not wholly obliterated at the present time. Mr.
Ford, the attorney, was called, but did not answer.
Mr. ADOLPHUS addressed the Jury for the defend.
ant, and called a witness, who proved, that at the
trial of the indictment Mr. Kent was asked whether
he had not brought an action? to which he replied,
that he had dropped it.
Upon this the LORD CHIRP JUSTICE asked Mr.
Phillips whether he could expect to obtain more than
nominal damages?
Mr. C. PHILLIPS, in reply, assured his Lordship
that he fully expected to be able to prove the cir-
cumstance which he stated in his opening; but that,
as the Attorney did not appear, he could not, after
what had passed, press the case farther.
The Jury then, under the direction of the Lord
Chief Justice, found a verdict for the plaintiff—
Damages One Shilling.

BUSINESS IN CHANCERY.

w 45 aaJerttOOd th.tt if it should sot =Ur) —• c • ••
•
I - •