Star.
London, England, 1825-05-16 00:00:00

CA7IWLIC CLAIMS.
--..d0.--

The partizans of the Roman Catholic Relief Bill have
earnestly deprecated the cry of " No Popery ;" we much
doubt whether, if this measure be adopted, we should
not soon ha* the cry raised of Nu Protestant." . Al-
ready, in the neighbourhood of Preston, in Lancashire,
the Papists have begun to anticipate their triumph
over the English Church. We have been assured, from
a quarter on which we can rely, that a very general
expectation prevailed there, that on Ester Sunday, the
Churches were to be given up to the • Romish Priests,
and that Mass was there to be. sung. There is a very
general expectation that the " old religion" will be es-
tablished, and supersede the Pt otestant heresy, and that
vengeance will soon be taken on all who do not embrace
their faith. These threats are in some instances hor-
rible—one fellow has repeatedly declared that he wbuld
wade up to his knees in Protestant Llood, and is in the
habit of using other similar language, in anticipation
of the day of retribution. The common people are
much disturbed in consequence ; and this agita-ion
extends to such of the higher classes as can interpret
the signs of the times—for they see all the elements 61
actisity which produce turbulence, and the most dread-
ful outrages. The mine is ready, it wants but a spat k
to cause the most fatal explosion. Our readers may
remember that Stonyhurst, the College of the Jesuits,
who h ave long been actively employed in converting the
peasantry around them, is distant but a few miles from
Preston.—Oxford Hera'd.

LORD MAYOR'S COURT, MAY 14.

BIffiNET V. WALSH.

fir this case, which was a proceeding on an attach-
ment, there arose a question of very great importance
to the City and the Public at large.
The plaintiff, who is an eminent distiller, residing
out of the City, attached the pro forty of the defendant,
a publican, in the hands of 111 r. Iliomley, a broker,
both of whom also reside out of the City. Mr. Brom-
ley had walked into the City, when the attachment
was served upon him in the usual manner. Those
facts h4ving appeared from the evidence,
Mt. BARNARD, for the garnishee, or holder of the
property, contended, that this attachment was not
maintainable, inasmuch as it was not proved that the debt
was contracted n ithin the jurisdiction of the City. He
knew that such attachm►nts had hitherto been held
good in this Court, but they must make their proceed-
ings conformable to those of Courts above, which re-
quired a different practice. He then.cited a cise where
an action had been brought against the holder of some
property belonging to the action. The defence set up
was, th4t it had been given up in pursuance of a ver-
dct of this Court, when Lord Ellenborough, who
presided, required proof that the debt had been con-
tracted within the City, in order to bring the case
within the jurisdiction of this Court. It would be a
most grievous thing if it were to be allowed that a
man, who was not a citizen, might be entrapped into
the City, and there served with an attachment from a
person not residing in the City, for a debt not con-
tracted within its jut isdiction. But whether the pro-
perty were in the City or out of it, the Court above
would require the proof that the debt was contracted
within its jurisdiction before the holder could avail
himself of i:s decision, as a substantial ground for
parting with it. The decisions were recorded, and
the law was incontrovertible. Until it was over-ruled,
every person situated as his client was, would be com-
pelled to pay over the money twice, unless the Court,
as it was bound to do, made its proceedings conform-
able to those of the Courts above.
Mr. BOLLAND said, no one had a greater respect
than he had for the decisions of Lord Ellenborough,
but it was possible that in a Nisi Prius case his Lord-
ship might err. Certain k
,was, however, that if the
proof of the jurisdiction were required in that Court
to sustain every attachment, the custom and privilege,
which had been ever found so beneficial to the citizens
of London, and the public at large, would be almost
entirely destroyed. It bad been the custom to act
without any such proof. How frequently did it hap-
pen that immense sums of money belonging to persons
in India, or America, were attached in the hands of
Messrs. Coitus, when they came to receive dividends in
the City ? In one half of the cases brought beneficially
for the public into this Court, the property was foreign,
and the debt was contracted out of the City jurisdiction.
Money was thus got by merchants of the City of Lou..
don that never could have been obtained otherwise.

Mr. BARNARD replied at considerable length.
The Comm were of opinion, that the debt was rightly
attachable upon the person of Mr. Bromley; for money,
as had been stated, always followed the person, and it
was presumed that the holder carried it about with him,
and therefore, that it was in his possession in the City
at the time he was there. The Jury were directed to
find a verdict for the plaintiff, subject to the opinion
of the Court on the other point, as to whether it was
necessary to prove that the debt was contracted within
its jurisdiction ?—Verdict for plaintiff.

His Grace the Lora Primate of IRELAND has given
the sem of 50004 towards the erection of a Fever Hos.
pital in Armagh.