Star.
London, England, 1824-12-23 00:00:00

LAW REPOlfr.

StALII aw PIIinTIONS IMMIX Nit IbRD CITANCILLON, NRIVIOUS TO
HILARY TENN, 18”, AND Days 7011 JUDGMIINT.
Tuesday, January 11--First Seal.
Wednesday, January 12, and Thursday following—Motions, and
Judgments on Motions, of which a list will be made.
Friday, Jan. 14, and Saturday and Monday following—Bankrupt
Petitions and Judgments in Bankruptcies, of which a list will be made.
Tuesday, January 18—Second Seal.
Wednesday, January 19, and Thursday, Friday, and Saturday
following—Case Petitions, Lunatic Petitions, Judgments in Ap-
peals and Bankrupt Petitions, of which lists will be made; and
Bankrupt Petitions.

STALS Alla PSTITIONS BILIFORT TNT VICO-CHAINCTLLOT TAIITIOUO TO

HitAar Twit, 1825.
Tuesday, January 11—First Seal.
Wednesday, January 12, Thursday, Friday, Saturday, and Mon-
day following—Bankrupt Petitions.
Tuesday, January 18—Seeond Seal.
Wednesday, January 19, Thursday, Friday, and Saturday fol-
lowing—Cause Petitions and Bankrupt Petitions.

COURT OF CHANCERY, DECEMBER 22.
TILE JOHN BULL—SHACKELL O. MACAULAY.
His Lonnstur desired to know whether Mr. Shad-
well's client (the defendant) had filed, or meant to file,
any further affidavit?
Mr. SHADW ELL s:tid no ; but began to read some
paragraph in one of the public papers, which Mr. Soli-
citor-General at once objected to. Mr. Kadwell then
said he did not mean to press it. His clients meant to
file no further affidavit.
His LORDSHIP then said, it was a satisfaction to Mt%
Macaulay, to know that he had an opportunity of stat-
ing, on affidavit all he had to state. There was one cir-
cumstance mentioned by Mr. Macaulay, which the
Court could take, no other notice of than to say, the
Court could not attend to it ; it was, that the populace,
wh'ete the witnesses live that are sought to be examined
by this Commission, are so prejudiced, not only against
him, but against the Legislature of this country, that
no person can be found impartial enough to act as a
Commissioner. Notwithstanding the defendant had
had the opportunity of filing whatever affidavits he
chose, yet all the rules and principles of this Court ap-
plied to motions for a Commission could not be laid
aside for the purpose of deciding in this Court the de-
fendant's justification at law upon these affidavits,
which the Court would have to do were it to refuse the
Commission; therefore his Lordship felt compelled to
grant the Commission.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, DECEMBER 22.
THE ZINO V. PARKINS.
In the STAR of yesterday, we gave a full report of
the most important part of the proceedings in this case,
and in a part of our impression we gave the verdict
of the Jury. Several mere witnesses were examined in
support of the charge.
Mr. PARKINS defended himself, and called several
witnesses, who gave him a good character:
The -LORD CHIEF JUSTICE charged the Jury, and
said, if they were of opinion the defendant was not told
to leave the room before they turned him out of the
house, he was intitled to his acquittal. It they thought
he was directed to leave the room, another point arose,
namely, whether the defendant had misunderstood that
order ? It could not be perjury, if what he swore was,'
occasioned by mistake. He could not help observing,
by tis conduct this day in Court, that he was a man of
warm temper, and it was possible that, when ordered
to leave the room, he might have mistaken that order.
The' ury, after some deliberation, returned a verdict
Of NOT GUILTY.

. ~. w ~`'.