Star.
London, England, 1825-11-22 00:00:00

LNW REPORT.

-..11.1.•.-•
COURT OF CHANCERY, NOVIMIR Qi.
M AGDALEN COLLEGE V. SIBTOORPR.

This case has reference to the will of the late Dr.
Sibthorpe, who had bequeathed a sum of money to the
fellows and scholars, for certain purposes therein de.
scribed. The que•tion was, whether or no these purposes
comprised a charitable or pious use? If the latter, by
the Statute of MortmAin, tl e bequest to the college was
void. But as the legacy might still be capable of legal
effect as a charitable trust, the college might claim to
hold it as appointee.

The COURT was of opinion, that in the latter case the Attorney-
Gtneral must be called in to assert the right of the Crown as
general guardian of charitable trusts.
COURT OF EXCREQUER, Novamiza 21.
THE KING V. PETO.

Mr. CLARK stated that this was a scire facias, or
bond for the performance of certain covenants on the
building of the Custom House, which a short time ago
had fallen down, in consequence of the way in which it''
was erected. The defendant had obtained an order
for a further time of a fortnight to rejoin, and the
Learned Counsel had now to move that that order
should be set aside on the ground of irregularity. The
defendant had in the first instance pleaded the per-
formance of his contract, to which the Crown had re-
plied on certain branches of it. The replication was
given in on the 15th November, and a notice of four
days to the defendant to rejoin ; so that if he did not
on that day rejoin, the Crown would then he entitled to
judgment. The defendant, on Saturday, obtained a rule,
for further time to put in a rejoinder, but no notice to'
that effect had been given to the Solicitor for the Cus-
tom House. The Learned Counsel therefore moved that
it be set aside on the ground of irregularity.
Mr. TINDAL argued against the motion, and con-
tended that sufficient notice had been given, a clerk of
the S-licitor to the Custom House having been present
on Saturday when the application for the order was made. 'I
An argument then took place as to the sufficiency of
the notice given. The Court held the notice to be in-
sufficient, and therefore directed the Rule to be dis-
charged; at the same time stating that the defendant's
Counsel would succeed if he hereafter moved to have
the trial postponed for want of time to arrange the de-
fence. S ,me arrangements had therefore better be made
between the parties to that effect.
Dlr. Csa*i stated his wish to accede to any terms recommended
by the Court.
It was therefore agreed that the case should come on for trial
during the Sittings after Hilary Term.
The bond on which this wire facia: is brought, is in the penal
sum of 3.3,0001. which sum of course depends on the event of the trial.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, Novnissa 21.
THE KING V. COOKE.

Mr. J. S. S. Cooke, who was convicted at the Glou-
cester Spring Assizes, 18'24, of a conspiracy to molest
Sir George Jerningham, since become Lord Stafford,
in the enjoyment of his estates, and to defraud his
tenants, and on whom no judgment has been yet passed,
now appeared in Court.
Mr. CAMPBELL moved, on his behalf, for a rule to
shew cause why judgment should not be arrested or
suspended until atter the ttial of his brother, Richard
ztafford Cooke ? The defendant was indicted, with
three other persons, Richard Stafford Cooke, John
Russell Miles, and Richard Jenkinson, for a conspiracy.
Richard Stafford Cooke pleaded in abatement, 'that he
was Lord Staffot d, Baron Stafford ; James Stamp
Sutton Cooke and Jenkiason pleaded the general issue ;
and Miles never pleaded at all. To the plea of Richard
Stafford Cooke there was a demutrer, which had been
argued and determined for the Crown ; but judgment
of respondeas ouster being given, he afterwards pleaded
" not guilty." While the demurrer was pending, the
issue joined on the pleas of Sutton Cooke and Jenkinson
came on to be tried at Gloucester, before Mr. Justice
Paik, when the Jury acquitted Jenkinson, and found
Cooke guilty of conspiring with his brother, Richard
Stafford Cooke. Now, to constitute the offence of con-
spiracy, it was necessary that two should be im-
plicated; and though, if the verdict of the Jury had
been general, it might have been sustained in reference
to Miles, or to " the persons unknown," with whom all
the parties were alleged to have conspired, it could not
be sustained when it formed a conspiring with a par-
ticular individual, who not only was still unconvicted,
but still might be tried, and between wh•m and the
Crown issue was joined. It was true, that where a
party was dead, or outlawed, a verdict of this kind
had been held good; but the case was otherwise when
it was possible to bring him to trial, and when his inno-
cence might yet be made to appear. Supposing. here-
after, Richard Stafford Cooke should be tried and
acquitted, the foundation of the verdict obtained against
his brother would fail, and yet I,e might have suffered
all the consequences attendant upon conviction.
The COMIT, after ascertaining that the endorsement on the
record was to the effect stated, granted a rule to shew caur.
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Novausra 21.
TROTH V. BAGWELL.

The proceedings in this case were calculated to ex
cite considerable interest, no such trial having come
before the Courts, we understand, for more than hallo
century. It was a trial by the Grand Assize, instituted
by a writ of Magna Assisa Ekgeatia, which commands
the Sheriff to summon four lawful Knights before the
Justices of Assize • there, upon their oaths, to choose
twelve Knights and others, of the vicinage, &c. to pass
upon the Grand Assize between the parties. From their
judgment there is no appeal. The Knights appeared in
Easter Term, and were sworn.
The Officer of the Court proceeded to WI over the panel.
Sir R. Birnie, Knt. and Sir Peter Laurie, Knt. appeared.
Sir lieorge Alderson was next called, whose clerk appeared for
him. and on being sworn stated, that Sir George was this morning
so ill, that be could positively swear he was unable to attend.
Sir James Williams was nest called, but did not appear.
The Officer of the Sheriff proved the serving of a
notice for him to attend, at house in Ketiti-h Town,
when he was informed that Sir James was in Derby-
-shire, and was not expected to return far three months.
The CHIEF JUSTICE intimated, that as only two of
the four Knights who h.;il been sworn appeared, he
thought the cause could not proceed. The Jury must
consist of twelve, with the four Knights.
Mr. Serjeant BOSANQUET argued that it was not ne-
cessary that the whole of the four Knights should be
present after the panel was completed. That if there
were a sufficient number of Esquires present to make
the 16, that was enough.
The Curse Jussies.—You may, if you please, go on ; the Court
leaves it to you ; but let it be distinctly understood that if you do,
it will be in error.
Mr. Serjeant liosartousrr—After what the Court has said, and
having consulted with my brother 'faddy, who is with me for the
defendant, it would be presumption in us to proceed.
Loon Crime JUSTICZ ordered the panel to be
called over, and it appeared that there were only nine
E:quirvs answered. He then said that it WAS neces