Star.
London, England, 1821-07-12 00:00:00

IAW INTELLIGENCE. 1.

COURT OF CHANCERY, JULY it.
NOME D. ALDERMAN WOOD AND OTHERS.
MT; HEALD made an application to the Court to
be permitted to take a month's further time, in an-
swering the bill filed by the plaintiff. He stated that
gnat time and attention had been bestowed on the
drawing of the answer, but from the great number of
circumstances that- were reverted to, the immense
length of the bill, and the desire of the defendants to
give a most full and perfect answer to every part of
it, the answer had not yet been completed, and he
.vas, therefore, compelled to ask the further indul-
gence of the Court.
-Mr. MART opposed the application, which he said
was made merely for the purpose of delay. He called
his Lordship's attention to the fact that the Court had
tefore extended its indulgence to the defendants, and
he stibmitted that sufficient time had been afforded,
them if they had been desirous of using due dili-
gence in filing their answer.
The LORD CHANCELLOR.—The defendants ought
to make an affidavit, that the time they now require
is really essential for the requisite completion of their
answer, and that this application is not made to the
Court from an improper motive.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, JULY to.
RICH. MARTIN, ESQ. M.P. v. HAWKIN AND ANOTHER.
Mr. ABRAHAM moved for a. Rule to shew cause
why two, Attornies of this Court should not answer
the matters of the affidavits ; and why they should
not refund to Mr. Martin two several sums of £3OO
and £5OO, under the following circumstances:—
Some years since Mr. Martin, in consequence of an
advertisement, offering an advance of £6,000 on
mortgage, was introduced to the advertiser, and by
him referred to the Attornies alluded to, who were
tonegociate the loan by way of annuity. The deeds
were prepared, and the money at length advanced ;•
upon which the money broker claimed a sum of £3OO
as his commission on the transaction, and the• Atto-
rney said he must have £5OO for his charges in pre-
paring the deeds and negotiating the affair, which
sums ssere•respectively paid.
JULY 11.—Mr. SCARLETT requested time, in this
case, to answer the affidavits filed by the plaintiff.
The fact was, that Mr. Martin having borrowed
£6,000 five years since (and never paid a shilling
' ei:her of interest or principal), suddenly discovered
that he had been cheated of £3OO out of it; but
against a Rule of only twenty hours old the parties
were not prepared to shew cause.
Mr.NoLari—" That is a neat way for the Learned
Gentleman's clients to get over an indictment for
conspiracy, which they richly deserve; but if the
case stands over, I trust we shall have leave to file
additional affidavits."
The COURT decided that the cause should be sheen
next, Term : the plaintiff being at liberty to file afli•
dav►ts within a week.

THE REV. DR. HAYES V. SHEPHERD.
Mr. CAMPBELL shewed cause against a Rule ob-
tained by Mr. Chitty on a former day, calling on the
Court to set aside a judgment of non pros. entered in
this case. The plaintiff is a Clergyman, and de-
fendant a bookseller and publisher. This was one of
several actions brought by the plaintiff against dif-
ferent persons, for selling a publication containing
certain libellous paragraphs, reflecting on the plain-
tiff. As soon as defendant understood there was
li-
bellous matter in the publication, he stopt the sale,
having only sold one or two copies of it. In another
of these actions, the plaintiff had obtained a verdict
for £5 ; and Mr. Campbell now contended, that to
set aside the non pros. in the present case, would
only be to open the way for a new action and new
costs. The defendant was ready to pay all the costs
up to this time.
The Count thought that no grounds had been
shewn for setting aside the non pros. and the Rule
was discharged.
STRIKING AN ATTORNEY OPP THE ROLL.
Mt. STOCKS, on a former day, obtained a Rule to
chew cause why an Attorney of the Court should not
anss er certain matters contained in an affidavit, and
pay the costs of the application, or be struck off the
Roll. The Learned Counsel then stated, that the
Attorney had obtained a sum of money (E 27) of a
client, to pay a debt, for which proceedings had
been commenced; instead of doing so, however, he
had applied the money to his own use, and his unfor-
tunate client had in consequence been taken in execu-
tion, and for want of this money, improperly retained
by the Attorney in question, was now in custody.
Mr. CAMPBELL now shewed cause against the Rule.
He did not attempt t') contradict the truth of this
statement; but, in exculpation, he urged the youth
and inexperience of the individual in question, who,
labouring himself under embarrassments, had im-
properly applied the money in question, to save him-
self from arrest. Under these circumstances, he trusted
their Lordships would treat him with lenity, and the
present would operate as a caution to him in future.
The COURT observed, they were bound to protect
the interests of the Public. They were now called on
to perform a painful duty ; but they were bound to
say, this individual was no longer worthy to remain
a Minister of the Court, and therefore the Rule for
striking him off the Roll must be made absolute.
• SALISBURY V. MORTON AND CAVANAGH.
This was an application by way of•petition, against
two Sheriffs' Officers, for extortion.
.The COURT, after hearing the plaintiff on his own
part, and Mr. SCARLETT on the part of the defend-
ants, ordered that Morton should pay ES to the plain-
tiff, and £lO to the King; and that Cavanagh should
pay £2 to the plaintiff, and £5 to the King.
SALISBURY V. GIBBON.

This was a similar proceeding against a Tipstaff:
of the King's Bepch Prison. The charge was, that
the defendant bad taken a fee of ten shillings and
sixpence, where, by a table of fees hung up in the
prison, he was only entitled to six shillings.
The defendant pleaded, that the fee of ten shillings
ar.cl sixpence had been taken by his predecessors in
office,The COURT not having
.the table of fees al-
luded to by the plaintiff befpre it upon affidavit, or-
dered that the matter should go over until next Term.

James addl. the mall-coachmen, who was committed fee man-
slaughter, in causing the deaths of the two Gentlemen who were
killed by the overturning of the coach at Sunderland Bridge,
has been admitted to ball.