Star.
London, England, 1824-11-04 00:00:00

LATE REPORT.

sittings appointed to be held in Middlesex and Lon-
don, wore the Right Honourable Sir Commits ABBOTT Knight,
Lord Chief Justice of the Court of King's Bench, in andafter Mi-
chaelmas Term, 1824:
is Trios: MlDDLUEl—Thursday, Nov. 11; Thursday, Nov.
; Friday, Nov. 26.
',Osumi—Saturday, Nov. 13; Saturday, Nov. 20 ; Saturday,

N3l. 47.
AFTER TERM : MIDDLESEX--Tuesday, November 50.
LoNpos—Wednesday, December I.
Sit at half-past twelve on the Ilth, 13:h, 18th, and 20th of No-
vember, and at half-past nine on the other dap.
sittings appointed in Middlesex and London, before
the Right Honourable Sir WILLIAM DRAPER BEST, Knight, Lord
Chief Justice of his Majesty's Court of Common Pleas, at West-
minster, in and after Michaelmas Term, 1824 :
Is Tasst : MIDDLESEX—Monday, Nov. 8; Wednesday, Nov.
17; W:dnesday, Nov. 24.
nos_: Thursday, Nov. 11 ; 'Thursday, Nov. IS ; Thursday,
Nov. 25.
Arms TERM: Miootrsex—Tuesday, November 30.
insos—Wednesday, December 1.
NM. The Court will sit at one o'cisock on Nov. Bth,llth,l7th and
Mb, and at half-past nine precisely on each of the other days.

VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT, NOVEMBER 3.
YOUNG V. BOODSON.
HIS HONOUR took his seat at twenty minuses past
eleven o'clock, stating he had read all the papers in this
case,
and it appeared to him necessary to allow the de-
murrer. The bill was filed by Sir W. Young, in his cha-
racter r,f trustee, which prayed that he, as trustee, might
be declared entitled to take possession of the premises
in gaestiou, under and subject to the trusts of the par-
ticular indenture which created those tru t, ; and the
4lttestion made by the demurtet was, whether the cestai
quo trusts under that indenture, who are equally inte-
rested with Sir NV. Young, under the second mortgage
deed, should not be parties to the bill? And it was
very obvions, that unless there were some particular
objection to be taken, every person interested in this
c:be must be a party to the bill; and r:rz. reason was,
that unless that were so, the effect of the decree in the
cause would exclude those who were -interested under
the second mortgage, and of necessity, therefore, they
had a tight to prevent that decree. It had been con-
tended, however, at the bar, that there was a speciality
in this case, which was, that Sir James Law's inden-
ture (who is the second mortagee) contained a cettain
declaration of trust, to which other parties interested
were not parties; therefore the Court wit; to consider
that declaration as voluntary on the part of Sir James
Law ; and, having been voluntary, was not to be con-
sidered binding. The first answer to that was, that it'
was totally inconsistent with the phintiff's own bill,
far it prayed that he might be entitled under and sub-
ject to that very indenture. The Duke of Nlarlbo-
rough's case did not apply here; if it had applied, Sir
James would have had to have revoked the trust; but
he had not revoked it, and therefore it remained an
effectual trust. It was for these reasons that the de-
murrer would have to be allowed, with liberty to the
plaintiff to amend his bill upon the usual terms. •

SPANISH LOAN.
JABATIP. CAMPBELL, LUBBOCK, AND Co.

The Court was next occupied in bearing the discus.
:ion of this plea, which was opened on Tuesday, filed
against the bill of Dan Juan Jabat, praying that the
Court would declare him to be entitled to a lien upon
tunds.in the hands of the defendants, to the amount of
0( /and a fraction.
The bill stated, that the plaintiff at one time bore the
:aaiacter of Plenipotentiary for the Government of
Spain, and was employed to contract a Loan in this
enintry for the Government he represented ; he had
dated that to a certain extent; sums were placed in
the hands of the defendants, employed by the Spanish
Commissioners to receive those sums; and the plaintiff
temitted to the Spanish Government upwards of
13,0001. which, with payments to others, and his
espenses in this country, amounted to more than
27,0001. and which he now sought to be reimbursed
out of the funds in the hands of the defendants.
—The proposition made by the Counsel in support of the
plea was, that the fund in the hands of the defendant's'
was raised for the Spanish Government upon a substan-
tial and collateral agreement, entered into between that
linvertiment and the defendants, that they should raise
a fund for the use of that Government, and the money
now raised did net, tier could include the produce of
the sale of 50,000 rills, upon which the plaintiff was
to have a claim ; that the fund was raised in conse-
quence of a contract, to which the plaintiff was no party.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL, however, contended, that
as the bill charged a correspondence had taken place
between the plaintiff and the Spanish Government,
which shewed that he had a claim upon this fund ; the
defendants were bound to put in their answer, stating
what specific monies they had received, what certificates
they had in their hands, whether there had not been
specific trusts imposed upon them, and whether they
bad or had not discharged those trusts P
The VICE-CHANCELLOR, without hearing Mr. Hart
in reply, said it was extremely clear in this case that the
plaintiff had a demand upon the Spanish Government
to the amount stated, say 27,0001. and a fraction. It
was equally clear that the Commissioners had placed
in the hands of the defendants certain certificates and
papers to satisfy the plaintiff, among other creditors,
and that the plaintiff has a lien on those inscriptions ;
hut the question was, whether the plaintiff had a lien
en the produce now it the hands of Messrs. Campbell,
Lubbock', and Co. ? Certain stock had been placed in
their hands, at their disposition, and was that for the
purpose of paying the plaintiff (which they might have
done)? or was it for the purpose of paying other debts
uitilin their authority to pay ? Upon reading the r ecord,
it was clear that the funds ►•ere placed in the hands of
the defendants, not for the purpose of paying the plain-
tiff's claim, but for the purpose of paying other claims
against the Spanish Government ; it was impossible,
therefore, that he could have a lien upon that fund.
But then it had been said, that the fund placed in the
hands of the defendants, though held not to be for the
purpose of paying -the plaintiff's claim, might do more
than pay the particular debts it was intended to pay,
ann that upon the remaining surplus the plaintiff might
have a lien ; the Court, however, was not of that opinion.
It was not competent for a creditor to file a bill, in the
first instance, against an agent, unless he could charge
misconduct; no such charge was made here, or at-
tempted to be made; and therefore, upon very clear
principles, the plea would have to be allowed.
COURT Or lING'S BENCH, NOVEMBER 3.
THE BOROUGH OF MONMOUTH.
TIIK KING V YATES.

The question in this case was, whether the defendant
was duly elected a free Burg.e,s of the Borough of Mon-
mouth ? It w a. used at Gloucester brfore Mr. Justice
t'Autc, when a verdict was found for the Crown. Mr.
CommoN SERJEANT, who conducted the defendant's

ease, afterwards moved the Collet for a rule to spew
cause why a new trial should not be granted. That rule
was obtained, and came on this morning to be argued.
Mr. Justice LITTLZDALs read Mr. Justice PARK%
notes of the evidence.

Mr. TAUNTON then proceeded to -thew cause against
the Rnle. He contended that the verdict was right on
the two material issues in the cause, viz —l. Whe-
ther the right of election is such as that claimed and
acted upon in electing the defendant ; and 2. Whether
the defendant was elected according to the usual forms.
Upon the first point, he contended that the Town Coun-
cil must nominate, and the Burgesses at large elect.
But here the Burgesses elected at once. To the same
effect he argued that the Town Clerk ought to mention
or give in the name, and that then proclamation was
made, if any Burgesses objected, to come forward and
shew cause, clearly implying that a previous nomina-
tion bad taken place. But in this case, a Burgess moved
and another seconded the election of Mr. Yates, with-
out any act whatever on the part of the Town Clerk.
Upon the second point, be insisted that the election was,
in point of form, void, because the meeting ss as partial,
and without due notice. Mr. Heath, the Mayor, a par.
tisan of the defendant's, had been elected three weeks
before, when 45 voted for him, and 4.2 against him,
which shewed the number of Burgesses that were ac-
customed to attend at elections. But in the present case,
the:e were only 25 present—all but two of one party.
Those two were, an attorney, who was professionally
present to attend the (tinter Sessions, and a beadle who
was officially present. The rest attended by special in-
sri!ation. A bell was rung between ten and eleven.
Jast before it was rung, three were 25 sitting prepared
to proceed in,tantly to e:ecrion.
Mr. CA NIPBELL, after expressing Iris regret at the ab-
sence of Mr. Common Serjeant, argued for a new trial.
The verdict being general, it was impossible to say that
some of the Jury had not found upon one point, and
others upon another; consequently it could not be
maintained that the verdict had that unanimity which
was essential to a good verdict. He then argued upon
the evidence in the-several points, that the vet diet ought
in justice to have been for the defendant. He con-
tended that the ringing of the belt was sufficient notice,
and that it was quite regularly and properly rung on
this occasion. But he relied particularly on the fact,
that the attorney who was present and protested, never
objected to want of due notice, but protested on the ground
of want of previous nomination, by the Town Council.
The Loon Cute, JUSTICE gave his opinion that a new
trial ought not to be granted. It was quite evident that
the verdict found the particular assembly in this case
not duly called together, and consequently annulled the
election of the defendant. Any other verdict upon that
issue would be contrary to the evidence. Upon the other,
issue, respecting the usage of electing by the burgesses,
without a previous nomination, the best way would be
to restrict the verdict as if the Jury had been discharged
from returning any verdict upon it. The Learned Judge
had properly directed the attention of the Jury to the
two issues, but, unfortunately had neglected to ask the
Jury how they bad found the verdict respecting each
issue? To have done so would have saved much ex-
pense to the parties, and much of the public time. The
other important point, respecting the usage, was there-
fore entirely untouched and left unprejudiced by the
Court refusing a new trial, upon the clear and just find.
ing on the informalities of the assembly.
- The other Judges concurred —Rule discharged.
The Court was occupied, during the remainder of the
day, hearing the arguments of Mr. ALDERSON and Mr.
PARK, in a Commission of Bankrupt case.—No judg-
ment was given.

• ARCHES' COURT, NOV. 3.
DURANT v. DURANT.
This suit was originally instituted by Mrs. Durant in
the Ecclesiastical Court of Litchfield, about five years
since, charging her husband with various acts of adul-
tery, and with different lewd women. The suit was
carried into the High Court of Delegates, and from
thence brought by appeal into this Court. The Lady
charged that considerable delay had taken place, and
prayed the case might be brought to a conclusion.l
Mr. Durant, on the other hand, denied that any delay
had occurred, and applied to the Judge to rescind the
conclusion ; and prayed to be allowed to present an
exceptive allegation to the credit of the witnesses.
Drs. LUSHINGTON and DOBSON (Mr. Durant's Advo-
cates) argued that the acts of adultery were stated so
vaguely and loosely, that it was impossible they could
have been answered by the husband ; they denied that
any delay had taken place; but asserted that all the
witnesses had been examined as early as possible, and
that the illness of Mr. Wood, the Solicitor for Mr. Du-
rant, wire resided at Wolverhampton, could alone oc-
casion any delay.
Dr. ADAMS, in answer, wished Lobe informed what a
Solicitor had to do with a case in the Ecclesiastical Court ?
The illness of Mr. Wood was not a sufficient excuse for
delay. The business of the Court used to be performed
by Proctors, but he believed it was now done by Soli-
citors, and frequently -entrusted by them to their ma-
naging clef ks. At another time that person might be
taken ill, and cause a further delay ; but with respect
to Mr. Wood, although he had stated in his affidavits
that he was several months confined to his room, he (Dr.
Adams) had other affidavits in reply, which stated that
be transacted business during that very time, not only
'atWolverhampton, but some miles distant, and was suf.'
&lend), competent to attend an electioneering business,
draw up hand-bills for one of the candidates, &c: which
he believed was not more sober than a turnpike business.
Sir JOHN NICHOLL observed, that with Attornies the
Court had nothing to do, the Proctors were responsible
for the proceedings. Mr. Wood's illness was not a suf-
ficient excuse for delay, and in the affidavits which had.
been filed, it had been asserted, and not answered by
him, that he was not labouring under the illness he
stated. The cause WAS, therefore, directed to proceed.

Mr. Goss, of the brig Perseverance, fell dead in the
Independent Chapel at Truro, Cornwall, last week, in
the act of praying.
Tuesday, a desperate battle was fought in Bideford
Ma' ket-place, between two females. Their caps, &c.
were literally torn to pieces and divided alll,)ng the
spectators, to be kept as memorials of this truly dis-
graceful scene.
THE LOGAN STONE.—Lieutenant GOLDSMITH has
nearly completed his great undertaking of replacing
the Logan Rock; it is now within a few inches of its
original situation.
Mon Jay morning, as Captain ACLAND and his Lady
were going to Exeter, horn Killei ton, in a gig drawn
by a fine horse belonging to Sir THOMAS ACLAND,
Bart. the animal sud.lenly raised its bead, and dropt
dead on the road.