Star.
London, England, 1802-05-24 00:00:00

vation of punifbment, and contended that the libel
WAS one which calledfor the fverett animadverlion. I
Mr. MARitIOTT rofe to add his obfervations, but I
Mr.
_lattice GROSE defired that the bufinefs
lhould Rand over, and the defendant be brought i
up again on the kelt day of the Term.
THli KING V. THE INHABITANTS OF THE WEST
KUHN° OF YOAKSHIRE.
This came to be argued on a demurrer to a
plea, and the queltion to be determined was,
Whether the Riding Was bound to pay the expence
of repairing a Bridge, ereet,:d by the Commillion•
ers of a turnpike road, under the provifions of an
Ad of Parliament ? On the par tof the Riding it
Was contended, that they were only bound to repair
ancient bridges, but that as for bridges of modern
et eetion, if any body was bound to repair them, it
was them that built them.
it was argued on the other fide, and ruled by
the Court, that if an individual or a par ifh built a
bridge, they were not bound by law to keep it in
repair. If the bridge was ufelefs and merely or-
namental, no body was bound to repair it. If the
bridge, from its bad conitruetion, or incommodh
ous fa:ration, was a null:ince, it might be abated
as a nuitance, and thole who ereaed It profecuted ;
but when the bridge was, as in this cak, of public
utility, and for a long time ufed by the public, the
law put it on the public, that is the County or the
Riding, to keep it in replir.
For the future, if a county ohjeaed to the ex-
pence of keeping in repair any fimilar bridges that
were going to be ereaed, they fhould oppofe the
introduction of the Ad of Parliament.
CASE OF JOHN CHAMBERS.
Mr. GARROW moved for the Matter's report in
this cafe. The Matter reported that the defendant,
John Chambers, WAS an attorney of that Court,
who had been attached, and ordered to be exa-
mined by him on interrogatories. He had pro-
ceeded to examine him, arid his report was, 1, That
the defendant's conduit was incorreo;" but of the
enormity of it the Court would judge : he only
reported him to be in contempt.
Mr. Jultice GROSE afked Mr. Erikine, whether
he had any thing to fay on behalf of the delen
.dant ?
Mr. ERSKINE laid, that the defendant was exa-
mined upon interrogatories, and a great deal de-
pended upon how the anfwers were given.
Mr. Jullice LAWRENCE Paid, that the report was
this, 1, That the defendant took a warrant of at
torney to enter up judgment for his father against
a perfon to whom he had lent a fum of money.—
That when that fum became due, he took another
warrant at attorney for the fame money, without
advancing any frefh firm of money, and re-
peated this practice feverish times, to the intolera-
ble grievance of the party to whom this money
was advanced."
Mr. GARROW Paid, that this cafe was very like
ufury.
Mr. Juflice ("host raid, it certainly was fo.
Mr. ERSK INK fait], that the defendant was an
attorney, a very young man, and entirely in the
hands of his father, who led him into this bufinefs
for his own gain.
Mr. GIBBS laid, it was impoflible that either
himfelf or his learned Friend, Mr. Erfkine, could
fry any thing in extenuation of the offence itfelf,
which the Mather had fixed upon the defendant,
and by his report,tire defendant was in contempt;
but he believed re Court would fee that he was,
as his Learned Friend, Mr. Erfkine, had Rated,
entirely under the influence of his father, and it was
needlcfs to fry any more.
Mr. GI RROW laid, he was for the prorv:ution
in this cafe, and he believed the father was as
much the greater as he was the older offender of
the two, but this young man had been the intim-
mcnt of great oppreffion to the perfon who brought
him to jullice, and therefore could not be paired
over; he had rather, however, have had to pray a
judgment again!" the father, for it appeared that
this was a trade carried on a: a.public.houte in
Fltet-flreet, where poor people were accommo.
, dated w.th finall rums of =racy. The father ad-
, warmed it. The fon drew a warrant of attorney
to enter up judgment in cafe the money was not
• paid upon a given day; another warrant was given
for the fame fum of money, to the difgrace of the
Minitters of the Law as well as to the fcandalous
griping of the poor.
Mr. Jullice GROSZ afked, whether the profe-
eutor, in this cafe, was in a fituation that made the
colts of it an objea to him
Mr. GARROW Paid, the profecntor was a very
needy man, or elfe he never would have been the
object of the griping avarice of the defendant's
father.
Mr. Jullice GROSS.—" I think this is a very
bad Cale if it be not ufury it is very near it. It
is, betides the grofs abufe of the office of an At-
torney, who is a Miniller of the Law, fwprn to
ail faithfully in that character, and who, inflead
of committing fuch an offence, ought to have
brought before this Court any other whom he
knew to have committed it. It is impoffible that
be thould continue a Miniiler of this Court ; he
mull, therefore, be (truck off the Rolls; and he
mull alt.() pay the coils of this proceeding againft
him, and let him underhand (whatever he may
. think of it himfelf) we confider this a very flight
punifhment fur fuels an offence; Lut he is a very
young man, and may have been, as Rated at the
Bar, too much under the influence of his father in
this proceeding. If he cannot pay the coils, he
mull Rand committed."
, The father then came into Court, and entered
into a rule to pay the coils, with which Mr. Gar-
• row Paid he was latisfied on the part of the profe-
cution, and therefore the defendant was allowed
. to go at large with the punilhment only of being
Itruck off the roll.