Star.
London, England, 1824-11-20 00:00:00

-

o preach. I trust yo4ll,ordship will exercise your Jur
isdietion over these trustees to prevefit them from let-
' ling Mr.. Fletcher. into the pulpit. The Learned Conn-
eel then called the attention of the Court to the terms
of the deed, and proceeded to contend that the assumed
miscondott came within the meaning of the trust-deed.
The LORD CHANCELLOR—You have no evidence of
any such act. The deed refers to malverse in conver-
sation ; bat Mr. Fletcher swears that he has been sus-
pended in consequence of a breach of promise of mar.
riage. Do you mean to contend that this is malverse
in conversation ?
Mr. SHADwEt.L.—Yes, my Lord.
The LORD CHANCELLOR.—There is a peculiarity in
this case. If this Court confirms the temporary suspen-
sion of Mr. Fletcher, it does equally as much mischief
as if it were to issue a decree, which, on the hearing it,
would certainly not do unless the sentence was recorded
in this Court. Tnat sentence is not in Court, and before
deciding this truif important question, I must have the
sentence produced.
Mr. Hoax' objected to any observations relative to that docu-
ment, unless it was in Court.
Mr. SNADIVZLL said, he and his Learned Friends did not mean to
argue that the Synod might not have erred in their judgment.
The LORD eIiANCRLLOR.—Put out of view for MO•
meat thaA Mr. Fletcher was a Minister, and suppose he
thought fit to go into the pulpit with the consent of the
congregation, could this Court do anything to prevent
him? Was there any instance in which this Court per-
sonally enjoined a pleacher from going into the pulpit?
Mr. SMALWELL was not aware that any precise cave in point
ever occurred.

The LORD Citsnoeu.ort intiona/ed, that the case
might be a proper subject for the consideration of the
Court of King's Bench. If Mr. Fletcher had the legal
trust reposed in him, the Court would be at liberty to
strip him of all interference in ihe trust if he acted con-
trary to the terms of the deed.
The Counsel for the defendant here consented to the sentence
being produced.
Mr. SDADWELL proceeded to contend that Mr.
Fletcher was bound by the deed to submit to the Synod,
and in his chat acter of one of the trustees, within the
jurisdiction of this Court, as The whole of the parties
were bound by the deed.
The LORD CHANCELLOR.--It is under the deed that
lam bound to decide. All that was now asked was,
to carry the terms of the deed into effect, and that the
trusts should not be violated.

The LORD CHASCELLOIL—Hand me up your notice of motion.
Mr. SWANN, in a maiden speech, followed on the
same side, arid in a speech which fixed the attention of
the Court, argued in support of the motion, on the
grounds alt eady stated. He added, that the Synod had
no intention of appointing a .permanent Minister with-
out the consent of the congregation, and the appoint.
ment of a Preacher, ad interim, was rather a burden on.
the Synod, and only vested in them as a matter of con-
venience; and under these circumstances, he trusted his
Lordship would be of opinion, that sufficient reasons
had been adduced for granting the injunction.
Mr. Thar skewed cause against the motion, and intimated, that
f cm what had fallen from his Lordship, it would, in all probabi-
lity, be wasting the time of the Court for him to proceed.
The Loan CtlaNcci.Loa.—Oh, no, proceed.
M!. HART then proceeded, in a most forcible speech,
to s::ew the very high and paramount importance of
the i,resetit case, not only to his ciient, who had so vast
and beneficial an interest in the result, but to the public
in general, as this would form a precedent on which
finnie cases would he decided.

Further argument was also adduced by Mr. Mau) to the same
4.4 feet ; and the Lord Chancellor ruse before Air. Solizitor-Lieneral
had the right to reply.

COURT OF RING'S DENCIi, NOV. 19.

CRIMINAL INFORMATION.-THE KIND V. DR. BAIRD..

Mr. A LDERSON moved to file a criminal information
against Dr. 13 aid, a Phyilcian at Ipswich, in Suffolk,
fur endeavouring to provoke Dr. Beck, another phy-
sician, to fight a duel. The Learned Counsel stateJ,
that about three months since Dr. Baifd went to prac-
tice as a physician at Ipse ich. Ile was a Bachelor of
Medicine, and entitled, as a graduate, to practise. Soon
after his arrival he was told areport had been cit ciliated
that he was net qualified to act as a physician, and that
Dr. Beck was the 'author of the report. He took no
notice of it until he found himself obliged to remnve
the objection against him. He then inserted in a news-
paper the situation in which he stood as a Graduate of
an University, and cited a legal opinion, proving that
his Scotch diploma intitled him to act as a physician at
any place, with the exception of the City of London,
where a diploma from the College of Physicians was re-
quired. He also called on Dr. Beck, and asked him whe-
ther he had been instrumental in circulating this report?
He said no, but a medical friend had told him so. Dr.
Baird asked, whether the name could' be given up ?
The answer was,, he should consult his friend, and
answer the question. He did so, and mentioned the
name of a respectabli Physician of Ipswich.—Having
said he had received the report from another, Dr. Baird
said he wished for inforniation respecting the other. Dr.
Beck wished, as in the former case, to have permission
t mention the name. Dr. Baird then wise, can you do
i before ten o'clock to-morrow morning? Next morn-
ing:at half-past eight o'clock, Dr. Beck sent a message
to tile Gentleman, who had been engaged at an early
hour, and Dr. Beck could not receive an answer before
half-past twelve o'clock. In the meantime he sent to
the friend of Dr. Baird to account for not making the
cominunicatioti at the time before-mentioned. Dr.
Baird then sent a letter in substance:
sni—Considering your conduct, so far as concerns my intervibv,
unwarrantable, with regard to my feelings as a Gentleman, and
having failed to make good your promise to my friend, Mr. Ald ridgo,
I say the charge against me is an atrocious falsehood. I therefore
cannot hesitate to make use of your name as one who has forfeited
all claim to the character of a Gentleman. _

The above was followed up by a notice to the follow-
inx purport:
Dr. Beck having published a falsehood against me, and having
refused to give the satisfaction of a Gentleman, 1 am compelled to
post him as a I.—r and poltroon.
A copy of this.was sent to the public coffee-room at
Ipswich, and there exhibited.
• Mr. ALuzasoe having proceeded thus far,
The Loan Crusr Juana: said—Take a rule to spew caw'.

LIABILITY TO PAY A STOLEN ACCEPTANCE.
OWL V. CVLIT.

This case had been tried at Guildhall, before the Lord
Chief Justice, and a verdict found for the defendant.
The plaintiff was a bill•broker, who discounted a bill
accepted by the defendant, but the bill had been in-
closed by the drawer in a parcel dii ected to his corre-
spondent in Birmingham. The parcel arrived, but
without the bills, of which this was one. The plaintiff's
clerk proved that he had discounted the bill for a
stranger, who had formerly discounted bankers' bills.
IZo bfameitas imputed to the plaintiff, who was at Li.
verpool at the time of the transaction. The Lord Chief
Justice had put the neglect of due inquiry to the Jury,,

~,--!

'and hod supposed the case of a bal-biuker inscribing
over his door, "Good bills discounted here, and no
questions asked." A rule was afterwards obtained to
shew cause why the verdict should not be set aside, abd
a new trial granted.
Mr. GURNEY supported the rule, and cited a case
precisely similar, in which the verdict was given for the,
plaintiff. If there was any want of caution, it was on
the part of the drawer of the bill, who sent it to 'lir-
mingham without a special endorsement. It was not,
a case of inviting persons to discount by advertising,
according to his Lordship's supposed case, that good
bills should be discounted for persons unknown. The
person who presented the bill was supposed by the
Clerk to be known to him.
Mr. F. Pou.ocx followed on the same side. In the
case cited, Lawson v. Weston, Lord Kenyon had laid it
down that if bills for which full value was given with-
out any malajdes, were not recoverable, -it woad pa-
ralyze the circulation of bills of exchange. His Lot d-
ship had put the case strongly against the plaintiff. It
was impossible to fix the limits of due caution; and in
this case there was a degree of caution quite sufficient
to satisfy the conscience.
Mr. GURNEY wished to make it a special verdict.
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE could not see how it could
be made so.

Mr. SCA R LETT said it was a question of fact, and upon
that fact the Jury found. If the conclusion of the Jury
should be included in the verdict, he had no obyection.
The Clue! JUSTICE said, if he could think that any
different conclusion could be drawn from the facts in
this case, be would willingly send it to another Jory.
The case of Lawson and Watson, decided by Lord
Chief Justice Kenyon, was hardly distinguishable I rom
this case; but had his Lordship contemplated the con-
.sequence of the rule which he laid down, he would have
paused before he had done so. Great encouragement
was given to mail robberies and frauds, by the-facility
Of converting bills into cash. He should be extremely
sorry to do anything that could obstruct the circulation
of bills; but his ()pillion was decided that to (rime a'
new trial in this case would not obstruct commerce, but
the reverse. A person presents a bill two days, after its,
date, and leaves it for consideration. He rnig!it safely
do so, as it was not possible that the robbery could then
be suspected in London. The acceptance was found
to be good, and theiefore money ti as given without in-
quiry. This was not using due caution. The clerk,
too, stated, that it was usual so to do. With the most
unfeigned respect for everything which fell from Lord
Kenyon, he could not help thinking that what he ruled
at that trial was dangerous.
Messrs. Justices BAYLEY and HoLnovn were de-
cidedly against the right of the plaintiff to recovers—
Rule discharged.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, NOVEMBER

BRIGGS V. BOWRY.

This vests an action for assault and-false impriton-
Mein, tried at the last Bristol Assizes. There were
three calms in the declaration ; the first and second for
the assault and battery, and the third 'for dig false im-
prisonment. The Jury gave a verdict generally for,
40s. damages, and the Lord Chief Justice ABBOTT cer-
tified, to prevent the plaintiff from getting costs.
Mr. Serjeant PELL now applied to the Court on be
half of the plaintiff; and submitted that as there was a
separate count for false imprisonment, the certificate of,
the Judge could not extend to that.
The COURT held that there was no ground for such
an application as the present. Such a debision as that
now sought was wholly without precedent.
The Learned Serjeant took nothing by his motion,

cowsisTora COURT, NOVEMBER t 9.
DAVIS AND DAVIS.

lii this case, which was one of a separation and divorce
promoted by the wife against the husband, who is a
tavern-keeper in Threadneedle-street, and has met it by
a counter-charge, there was a long discussion about an
allotment of alimony to the wife, which terminated in
an allotment to her of 601. per annum.

Si 3 ITU V. mirth
Mr. W. Cat michael Smith appeared personally in
Court this day, and stated, that he admitted the mar-
riage (with Mrs. Smith) as pleaded ; but otherwise coo-
tested the suit negatively. He ah prayed leave now
to bring in, in due fuim, certain allegations and ex-
hibits which he woald crave to Lave testi ; and would
then submit to the Court's decision as to whether they
should be to-day argued or not?
The COURT intimated that that would not be the re-
gular course ; but asked Mr. Smith whether he did not
before appear by Counsel; and whether he intended to
dQ so in the future conduct of his cause?
Sruith.—No, my Lord : I am of opinion, that when you
kale a bad saute, the ingenuity of Counsel is very desirable to assist
you through it; but when you have a good and clear cause, as I
have, you only run the risk, by employing Counsel, of having a
varier•,/ of things unstated, and many points neglected that may be
_of the utmost importance to your interests.—(A laugh).
The allegation now stands fur admission neat Court-day.l

THE EVENING STAR.

LONDON.

SATURDAY, NOVEMBER 20, 18%.
TRH FUNDS.

STOCK EXCHANGE, TWELVE O'CLOCK.
Consols opened at 9.53 j for the Account, at which they remain
stationary, with little or nothing doing.