Star.
London, England, 1802-02-08 00:00:00

COURT OF IC (NI'S BENCH, FEB. 6.

In the cafe of Hardca file and Otto Bayer, tried laft
Tuelday, and reported in our Paper of Wednefday,
Mr. Erfkine obtained a Rule et)/ for a new trial,
on the ground that the'vcrdia was againft evi-
dence. The attion was for furnifhing water clofets
to new buildings at Brighton, and the qtr.:llion
was, whether credit was given 10 Lail, the con-
traeor for the buildings, or Bayer, the proprietor?
The serdiet was 1(4. the Defendant.*
In the caufe of the executors of Stevenfon againft
Johnfons, tried the fame Jar, Mr. Littledale moved
to reduce the damsges. The aElion was upon a
bond conditioned for the re-in veiling of borrowed
flock, which was to be replaced on the :ft of
Auguft, .1799. The oneftion was, whether the
damages were to be eftimated according to the
price of Stock on the eft of Augua, 1799, when
it ought to have been replaced, or at the higher
price of the day when the allion was brought ?
The Court were of opinion with the Learned Judge
who tried the caufc, that the higheft price of the
Stock ought to be taken as themeafure of damages.
as the plaintiff was damnified to that amount by
the defendant's non-performance of his contra&
—Rule refufed.

T3E XING O. OWEN AND StARDLE.
The def;:ndants were called upon for joligment,
hut not appearing, their bail was Aft) called upon
their recognizance.
Mr. LAWES Rated, from an affidavit, that the
bail had made all poTible exertions to apprehend
them, and prayed a reipite until the firit day of
next term.

ATTORNEY•CINERRL Paid it was to much
more important for the purpofes ofjullice to have
their perfons than the forfeited recognizance of the
that he contented to the motion.—Rule
valued.

THE luxe V. M'CL!OD.

The Arroastsv-Gswsaat. !hewed cat& againll
the Rule obtained by Mr. Scott, in the King and
M'Clend, why the defendant &mid not be at li-
berty to carry down the record by provifit. As a
preliminary, however, he objeCted to any rig& in
the Jefeadant to call upon him to allign caufes for
the delay. It was fufficient that the reafons fads-
Bed his own confctence. He was, however, wil-
ing to flaw thofc reafons from which the delay
originated, though he denied that he was bound
to state them as matter of right. The defendant
had lefs reaCon to complain of delay than any
other man. He could not fear the confequences
of conviaion, infomuch as he had already Coffered
infamous judgment, for other offences, and was
in prifon under former lenience:. The Learned
Gentleman then proceeded to Rate the realms for
the delay. The firit was after lag Trinity Term,
which was canted by the accident happening to
the Earl of Clare, who was a material witnef. up-
on the trial. In lag term it was occafioned by the
prefs of band's ; and when it was defei.red to the
two days fittings before this term, it fo happened
that it clafficd with the days appointed for the trial
of Governor Wall, which he was obliged to at- I
tend. With refpea to the law of the fubjea, he
took it to be perfealy Cettled,and cited feveral cafes
to (hew that the Court couldnot grant the motion;
and the cafe quoted by Mr. Scot:. from 6 Mod.
Rep. was much better reported by Lord Raymond,
in witials lltt.r ?;:vort there was none of thelhff
of the Attorrwy-Gencral affigning_ his reasons,
&c. as was in the Rep. in the 6th Mod. He then
adverted to one part of M'Cleod's affidavit re-
(petting prifon allowances ; this, be (aid, was an
arrow froth the film quiver from which ethers
had been (hot a few terms back, refpeaing prifon
allowances. He knew the land-vvriting again—it
marked its relationfhip—and he knew full well is

popular &Content, and was ant tiled for the pier-
pr ks of the prefent caufe. His trial would, how-
ever, neitl er be retarded nor accelerated a Tingle
da— in coniequence of the prefent motion.
Mr. SCOTT, in reply, argued, that it was a new
afibmption of power in the Attorney-General to
delay the defendant in any information from go.
ing to trial, and that as loon as he had put his
information upon the files of the Court, he was
tbbjed to its jurifdiaion. He infified that he had
made out a cafe to warrant the interference of the
Court, and that the &nation of the fubjea would
he grievous if left to the mercy of the Attorney-
General, who might file informations againfl any
man at his pleafure.

The Cmirt were unanimous that the motion
could not be granted.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, FEB. 6.

No Tuition either novel or interefting in itsna.
lure, was agitated while the Court fat in Banco.—
Lord ALvastay afterwards fat at Nin Prim', and
difpofed of feveral Common Jury caufes. It is
with a confiderable degree of concern we Rate
that an altercation of a very unpleafant nature
took place between Lord Atvauctv and Mr. Ser.
jcant BEST. The Learned Judge, no doubt, from
a momentary mifunderftanding, inferred that the
Learned Serjeant was urging a motion, the objed
of which was to impofe upon the Court. Mr. Ser.
jeant Bur claimed the privilege of explaining ;
he affured his Lorclibip no one entertained a higher
relped for the Court than hintfelf, and infifted his
condua in the prefent inflance was ftriely profef.
fional and undeferving the reproach his Lordfhip's
°Nervations were calculated to call upon it. Al.
tit- fume converfation between the Court and the
Learned Serjeant, the difference was explained,
happily to the fatisfadion of the Bar. The Mo-
tion upon which this mifundertianding took place,
was relative to a Rule having by miftake been
drawn up by the Attorney in terms different from
thole in which it had been originally moved.