Star.
London, England, 1831-02-03 00:00:00

LAW RETORTS.

SHERIFFS COURT, ST RATFORD, JAW. 29.

1

.

--
Seals, Appeals, Re-hearings, and Petitions, before the LORD CHAD•
ctramt, after Hilary Term, 1831.
Friday. February II —The First Seal.
Saturday. Feb. 12, Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Fri-
day, and Saturday—Petitions and Re.hearings, and Appeals.
Monday, Feb. 21.—The Second Seal.
Tuesday. Feb. 22, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, Saturday:, Men-
day. Tuesday, March 1, Wednesday and Thunday—Re-hearinp and
Appeals.
Friday. March 4. The Third Seal.
Saturday, March 5, Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday—
Re-hearings and Appeals.
Friday, March 11.—The Fourth Seal.
Saturday, March 12, Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday,
Friday, and Saturday.,rfte-harinp and Appeals,
Monday, March 21.—The Fifth
Tuesday, March 22.—Petitions.

Seals, Pleas, Demurrers. Exceptions, Causes, Further Directions, snit
Petitions. before the VICE Cnancia.tort, after Hilary Term, HISL
Friday, February 11.—The First Seal.
Saturday, Feb. 12, Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Psl.
day, and Saturday.—Motions and Bankrupt Petitions.
Monday, Feb. 2l.—The Second Seal.
Tuesday, Feb. 22, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, Saturday, Mow
day, Tuesday, March 1, Wednesday, and Thursday.—Pleas, Demurrers,
Exceptions. Causes, and Further Directions.
Friday. March t —The Third Seal.
Saturday, March 5, Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday.
Demurrers. Exceptions, Causes, and Further Directions.
Friday, March 11.—The Fourth Seal.
Saturday, March 12, Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday,
Friday, and Saturday.—Pleas, Demurrers, Exceptions, Causes, and
Further Directions.
Monday, March 21.—The Fifth Seal.
Tuesday, March 22.—Petitions.

COURT OF XING% BENCH, Fn. t.
=non v. sexton.
This was an action brought by the Plaintiff to recover compensation
in damages for injury sustained in his character from an unfounded
charge of felony preferred against him by Defendant,
From the statement of the Learned Counsel, and the evidence
of the witnesses, it appeared that the parties had had some con-
nexion with one another as bone-dealers, in which business the
plaintiff contended that be was a partner. The defendant. how-
ever refused to acknowledge that claim. and insisted on the con-
nection being dissolved ; in consequence of which he caused notice
to be served on the customers not to pay any money, or to deliver op
any goods to the plaintiff ; notwithstanding which the plaintiff did ob-
tain two horses, which had been let on hire to a gentleman named Ri-
mers for six months. The defendant then obtained a warrant against
him for stealing the horses, and after several examinations at Marlbo-
rough-street Police Office, the plaintiff was fully committed to take his
nisi for the alleged felony. The Grand Jury, however, ignored the
bill, and the plaintiff brought thisaction to recover compensation for the
injury he had sustained by these proceedings.
Several witnesses were called, who proved In detail the particulars of
the facts, of which the above is shortly the substance.
Lord TIINTZSDLN, however, stopped the caw. His Lordship said
that there was no evidence to prove that the defendant was aensated in
what he bad done by any malicious Intention, and the action could not
therefore be sustained.
His Lordship ordered the plaintiff to be called. Plaintiff consulted
accordingly.

!MT V. MSC'.
This was an action to recover damages for an alleged libel.
The plaintiff in this case is the celebrated pea-maker, book mmpiler,
&c. and the defendant is a person of literary habits, who had formerly
been connected with the plaintiff. In consequence of some dispute the
parties separated; subsequently letters were sent to various tradesmen
who worked for the plaintiff, cautioning them arrainst doing business
for "37, Red Lion.equare," (Mr. Perry's residence), as they would be
swindled out of their money. This was the libel charged.
Several witnesses were examined, who deposed to the hand-
writing being similar to the defendant's, but not one of them could
swear positively on the subject.
Other witnesses for the defence swore that the handwriting was not
is the slightest degree like the defendant's.
The Jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff—.Damsges SOL
COURT OF REQUESTS.
QUAITZNIAGZIIIe room:outs' COMPANY V. 2110111STON.
The several Companies of the City of London are in the habit of
levying a tax, which they call quarterage, upon the members. The de-
fendant in this case, a gentleman of considerable public spirit in the
corporation, was some time ago waited upon, by one of the °Mars of
the company, for the sum of His. being arrears of quarterage-move)
imposed by one of the bye-laws of the company, and alleged to be due
from the defendant as a member of it.
Mr. Thornhill denied the right to recover, whereupon he was sum-
moned to attend before the Commissioners of the Court of Requests,
and show cause why be refuted. Mr. Thornhillwished to know
by what authority the demand was made upon him.
The ogees of the Company produced the bye-law, and argued upon
the usage of the Companies, which invariably demanded, and were paid,
Quarterage money.
The Commissioners, having read the bye-law, spoke to the profile-
'iota assistant of the Court, and conferred together, were of opinion
that the liability of the members of the Company to make pecuniary
ontributlen must depend upon the purpose for which contribution
was required ; that this purpose must be consistent with the object
contemplated by the charter, and to secure which the charter was
bestowed" and that it was incumbent upon the Company insisting upon
the contribution, first to shew that it had not a sufficient income derived
from other sources to meet its proper expenditure.
The plaintiffs not being prepared to prove what was required, con-
salted to withdraw their claim.
It is expected that the demand of quarterage will be resisted by the
seetnben of all the Companies which are not so poor as to require sup-
port from sontrlbutioss. The Judges have decided already, that as the
quarterage is a money tax, the Legislators must be applied to before
it can be levied, except for the purpose of saving a pecuniary
necessity.
COURT OF KING'S BENCH, Doman—JAN.3i.
The AVTOIIIIIIIa/ENZSAL came into Court at eleven °Woo*, and
said—" My Lords, in the case of the King against O'Connellaod others,
I beg to inform the Court that one of the traversers bas pleaded to alt the
counts in the indictment not guilty ; that Mr. Steele has pleaded owl
lid record to some of the counts, and not guilty to the remainder; and
that Mr. O'Connell and the other novenas hive demurred to some, and
Ltd.:to the remainder. My Lords, on the part of the Crown I have
demurrer to Mr. Steel's pleas of owl tie. mord. and I have
joined in demur.er on the counts to which the other traverser' have de-
murred. These several issues Wog therefore joined, I now apply to
the Court to appoint an early day for the argument. On the part the
Crown I shall be ready at any time, however short; and, in the course of
this day, perhaps, or early tomorrow, the Court shall be furnished with
the_paper-books.
The CRIS? JOIITICE—Does any one appear for the traversen ?
The Aivoixtev-Gzienaz.—My Ler4 the pleas and demurrers of
the traverser were not filed until Saturday evening ; and we have given
the sadist possible notice of this application.
Judge Jean—You consent to furnish the paper-books, without
brifobtie the traverser' to join in the expense.
r Arroascr-GeoznaL—Just so, my Lord.
The CHIZP` JWITICI—As notice of this application was given only
this morning, and there is no appearance for the traverser', you had bet-
ter make this application at the sitting of the Court to-morrow, and
give notice of your intention to the traverser'.
The ATTORIIIIY.ORWERAL said that the Defendants were bound,
under their recognisance!, to be personally present in the Court every
day during the Term. He then bowed and retired.

• TAIIM T.
Two writs of .!epic were executed at the King's Head Inn, Stratford,
on Saturday last, before the Under-Sheriff of this county and a respect-
able jury. One writ, in the King's Bench, for a debt of 1,0001 and
upwards, due to the plaintiff, who resides in London, for money ad-
vanced. The other writ, in the Common Pleas, foe 1,1001. and upwards,
due to the awe plaintiff
Mr. Stephen Newman, the head Clerk from the office of the solicitor
to the Beni of England, produced Mr. Wellesley's original marriage
settlement, dated In March, 10111. by which It appumd that he is te-
nant for life of the whole of the Eats estates, the property of Was
Long previous to her marriage.
George Wright, Esq. Mr. Well oley's land steward, was called to
prove that the defendant was in possession of the property comprised in
the setdement, sad that be was in the enjoyment of the rents and profits
Th., quantity of land was ascertained to be 9,717 acres.
Mr. 'Laskin, a solicitor, proved that the whole of the Essex estates,
specified in a schedule which he produced, and to which the defendant
was entitled ender the settlement, were charged with ineambramoto to a
large amount g the European office in particular, be said, bad a prior
claWpf beterem 110,0001. and 40,000 i.
114 Horan Satrourr charged the Jury, who returned verdicts' in
each caers..tbst the “erst was poressed of the estates behre-asen-
tioned foe his life, bet tbat they were encumbered.
In casegvousif dos above verdicts, Mr. Parker may gply to the
Court to amide alliher of the rents, fa cider that the sambas may be
Pad 4 isfilliesehlmenft hisdebts.
At the haunt the jury bed been swam, one of them fell from his disk
le s tit, eint mobs* Opus was aMesearlly- wont to serve ia his
stead. We are happy in Mktg able to add, that the gentleman, for
whose, lids peiddx.ahla aivelheashas were it one dm amisishisd,
was solleisatly removemailiedimillsuese M ihe WWI.* is admilibliet
to return b9nitoo.—Zsemialiedilh,:. * ..3

.ter---,~--.