Star.
London, England, 1802-06-29 00:00:00

LAW IxTELLIG.ENCE.

eOURT OF KING'S BENCH, JUNE 25.
RING V. N•YOOM.
Mr. Jravis moved for a rule to thew- eaufe why
4 criminal infer:nation Abould not be panted
agaialt a Mr.H.:ydon, for fending a chaliene to
Mr. Hunter :—Mr. hunter's affidavit Rated, that
Mr. Hayden being an agent for feamen, had con-
feprently accefs t' the books of the Navy Office :
Mr. Hunter, having been informed that he made
a very improper ufe of this liheity, and that, by
the aliiiiance of the Navy borks, he was enabled
the better to fabricate faUt mutters and. return.,
conceived it his duty to lay thi, information before
the Commiaioners of the Navy board, who tOok
care that Haydon Ihould no lor,ger have accefs to
their hooks. Esafperated at this, he fent a letter
to the following effat, to Mr. Hunter :
" Si a—Your ultra tely and unwtrramable attaet on m 7
tharadter nu. to have rceou rt.,: to the laws of my colintry
for rcdrctlo. I r,lulre too to inform me, by twelve o'clock to-
morrow, of th.: precifc tams of your complaint agailtt me,
etherwite I mull :Tidy to the CummitLanters Ice this infor-
toatit.n.
" It you were worthy the, name of a sow. you would have
takru anotlur emit fc ; y u kstow Lint
Finding that no :tutu:ion was paid to this letter,
h. wrt.te the following :
sta—As you do not feet to with to tinder-nand me, I
mot!, mtv ftwak a link. olaraer to you, and t.. 11 you th.:! you are
a coward, and a front:tire!, and I 111311 putt. yo.tz .
Thi Ic two letters Wel." the lubje& of the prefent
- applieation.—Rule -ranted.
IMLAY V. F LLISON. •
Yr. East:l,4E moved that the defendant Mould
br dif,.l:a;ged from collody on finding common
The (-it cumflances of the cafe were as fol.
I.A, th,;: plaintiff is al n:erican, the defendant
fu'ojcsl, and Captata of a vertu; the con•
tI 4 Ft upon which the deli ;oat:, for nh:cli he was
1 ttely arreqed, and witicit the rlaintifF re to be
5 w as to oie it: t!ld 7%;.; ; it u;;..,, that
t,,e al:tettkirL)-0 tious!,l deliver to a roel eantile honk
tl.ere ipec'Cied, in Oftrithoo::11, :?oantity of fit
in bars, wti.z!tiog •110.)3O gtV.lll to
To at IL:Vie de fhPi for that purport:, on the
riaint:if's account. '1 his Elver, the plaintiff al•
in his Alliclavit, the del•crtlAnt bad never de-,
d, either to th::t hottfr, or to any other on his
acce:•,u ; and that front that time to th.: prctcnt
ycat he had e:r,:aowd bcyot:a the leas, and out of
Lb% i!'dic:; 1) of this C:Ant.
Mr. Elst I e pointed out fotte informalities in
plantiff's atbdavit, upon which the defendant
--,44 14.1. f tab lwaivo•lheverviftvl...l .1

matters fivers in the defendant's affidavit, which
the plaiutiffhad not contradicted ; namely, that he
s% as already held to bail in Norway by the plain-
vlitte a law fuit was actually eLpending fist
the faid catife. adly, Tjetit -this contraa, which
was madeat Havre-de•Grace,was direetly contrar)
to the I-awl,: of France at that time!, which forhad
the es portaLiain of lilver tinder the vmalty of death. •
M. GARatow, on the putt of the plaintiff, re,
fitted the- motion ; be relied ot, the general rule of
Court, ts Ilia makes the plainthfs' affidavit con
Clufive in fuch cafes, and on the rcalonablenefs of
it in the prefent inflance, as it was molt certain
that if the defendant was difeharged upon common
bail, he would take Cale not to be found again in
;his country. ,
Lord Eet.twnetouror laid, that in an affidavit
to told to bail, which was fubmitted to the difere-
tion of the Judge, to whom the application was
made, the t:mae technical itrianefs was not nerd=
y as in a declat anion ; that the rule of the Court
n a to receive the defendant's affidavit againit the
Wai.atiff's to hold him to bail, was a very whole-
f,me and tacceilary one; otherwile dekndants
waald he oft;,n tempted to commit perjury, and at
a!l events the Court would be invading the pro-
vince of a Jury, by taking upon thernfelves in fart
to determine causes of peat importance upon con-
tradidory affidavits. As to the laws of France or
Norway, the Judges in this country are not hound
to know them, they may be proved in evidence
b.:fure a Jury.—The motion was refufed.

WARD V. ?RIM

This was a motion exaaly limilar On the part
of the defendant, Mrs. Price, who had been ar-
retied in execution in the year 1797, and con
tinucd to this .day in confinement. The ground of
th.: motion on her part was, that at the time of
her contraniug the faid deht, the was-a married
womn, and the plaintiff knew that her hulband,
the Rev. Mr. Price, was then alive.
In anfwcr to this it was Hated, that although a
married woman, the had lived feparately from
h:r hatband, on a feparate maintenance regularly
paid lizr. That the might have pleaded this in
bar to the a.lion ; but that five, years after the had
1:t judgment and execution go againtl her, the was
too late in ftiggelting it ; this ground was now
taken merely to avoid that difchilure of her pro-
perty required by the LottlV Act.—Motion re-
fuied.