Star.
London, England, 1821-08-01 00:00:00

LAW' INTELLIGENCE,

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, DUBLIN, JULY 05. '
BREACH OF PROMISE.-CALLA M'NAMARA.
This cause, which has occupied so much of the
time of this Court, and excited so much public in-
terest, came on again in the form of an action for
breach of promise, before Lord NOR/WRY and a

Special Jury.
It will be in the recollection of the Reader, that
this cause was tried, and a verdict obtained for the
plaintiff, with £2OOO damages, in December last, and
on one of the motion days m last Trinity Term, ap-
plication was made to set that verdict aside, on the
ground of misdirection of the Noble Judge who tried
the cause, and the Court, after full discussion, were
pleased to grant a Rule for a new trial.
Mr. DOGIIERTY stated the plaintiff's case, in sup-
port of which he called several witnesses.
The trial was then adjourned till to-morrow.
JULY 26 (SECOND DAY).
Mr. Serjeant Joy stated the defendant's case, and
witnesses were called in its suppOrt.
Mr. HALLOWELL WALSHE spoke to evidence, and
the Jury, at half-past seven o'clock, brought in a
verdict—Damages £2OOO, and costs.
The dziendant's Counsel took a bill of exceptions to
the verdict.

COURT OF CHANCERY, JULY nt.

HON. N. FELLOWES V. THE EARL OF PORTSNIOUTIL

This application for a receiver of the estates of the
defendant, the Earl of Portsmouth, in consequence
of the disunion of the trustees under a certain trust
settlement executed by the Noble Earl in the year
1799, was resumed this day before the LORD CHAN•
CELLOR, in his Lordship's private room, when, after
Counsel were finally heard, his Lordship read through
the deed in question at great length, and after making
a variety of comments on the extent and nature of
the powers vested in the trustees by the said iced,
his Lordship concluded by stating, that until it was
rendered invalid by a decree, he was hound to con-
sider it a good and valid instrument for all its pur-
poses, to be executed by all the trustees jointly ; and
his Lordship was also of opinion that the validity of.
the deed being put in issue by the suits, it was ex-
tremely material that that question should be decided.
lie would, therefore, suspend his determination on
the present application till Saturday next, when his
Lordship, on hearing from the parties as to the pro-
bable period when the causes could be heard, would
then inform them what he should do with it.

A Notice was posted this day in the Court, stating
" That his Lordship could not possibly continue the
present Sittings after Saturday, the 25th of August."

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, JULY 51.

rIPPErr HERNE.

This was an action of assault and false imprison.
meat, the declaration stating that the defendant mali-
ciously charged the plaintiff with felony, and caused
him to be carried before Mr. Alderman Atkins, and
detained for the space of four hours. The defendant
pleaded—l. The general issue, Not Guilty ; and,
2. That the plaintiff had feloniously taken and car-
ried away a box of lace, wherefore the defendant
laid hold of him, and gave him in custody of a con-
stable,.to be discharged by due course of law. Repli-
cation de ijarin, and issue thereon.
The plaintiffs case was this—lle was described
to be a young man residing in Somersetshire, carry-
ing on business in the lace trade as a factor and
commissioner. Being informed by a rerson named
White, that the latter had a quantity of lace, worth
60 or 1:70, deposited in the hands of the defendant,
who keeps the King's Arms I*, Snow-hill, on ac-
count of a,person named Strange, a lace-manalac.
curer, at Whaddon, in Bucks, it was agreed that the
plaintiff might have it for CIO. The plaintiff not
havinrthe immeliate command of so much money,
he communicated the Circumstance to a Mr. Bridges,
laceman and hosier, in Wood-street, Cheapside, and
the latter agreed to advance the money to redeem
the lace. having obtained a written order Ire=
White upon the defendant to see the article, the plain-
tiff and Bridges went to the defendant's house and
asked to see the lace. It was shewn to them, and
Bridges being satisfied that it was worth £lO, paid
down the money, the defendant agreeing to deliver
up the lace for that sum. The defendant took up
the money, and said he must have 7s. more. Upon
this there was some altercation, and at length Mr.
Bridges gave the remaining money. As soon as the
defendant got the money. he put the lace aside, and
throwing down a sealed letter, said, " that is all you
are to have for your £40." Mr. 13i idges insisted upon
having the lace, or the money back, but the defend-
ant refused both. Upon which the former snatched
at the money, said he was not going to be robbed,
and, after a considerable struggle, got it back. The
defendant, in his tut n, struggled to re-posses himself
of it ; but Mr. Bridges dashed his hand through a
pane or glass, and gave it to a porter who was in
waiting to carry the box of lace, and desired him to
take it home. The defendant then detained both the
plaintiff and Bridges, sent for a constable, and had
them taken to the Compter, where they were detained
for two hours, and in about two hours afterwards,
upon an investigation of the transaction before Mr.
Alderman Atkins, they were discharged. To prove
the case, Mr. Bridges, Mr. Thomas White, and Mr.
Payne, the Magistratres' clerk, were called. Mr.
Bridges did not know where the plaintiff lived, nor
did he know anybody who did. Mr. White described
hiniself to be a general broker, living at No. 6,
Market-street, St. George's Market. He had had
transactions in flour, hams, Yorkshire cloth, and one
or two in lace. At the time of this transaction he
had an office at No. 25, St. Swithin's-lane. About
seven years since he returned from Hamburgh, and
then had an office at No. 7, Lilliput-lane. He was,
now a prisoner in the King's Bench prison, and had
lodged within the Rules for the last seven years, but '
had not been a prisoner all that time. He had never
gone by the Christian name either of Marmaduke
or Bartholomew.
To prove the defendant's justification, Richard
Strange, the lace-manufacturer, of Whaddon, Sarah
Waldock, a servant of the defendant, and John Short,l
the defendant's waiter, were called. The first proved
that White purchased £7O worth of lace, and had
given him £SO in cash, and a bill for the remainder
which had been dishonoured. Being desirous of
having some more lace, he agreed to let White have
the box of lace in question for £4O 7s. and deposited
it iu the Undo of the defendant, but with accret in-

amnions to the latter to take the money if it came
to satisfy the dishonoured bill of £4O, and not to
deliver up the lace. It was in obedience to these in-
structions that the defendant had acted in endeavour-
ing to keep the money and detain the box. The other
witness proved, that after Mr. Bridges had dashed
his hand through the window with the £4O in it, the
plaintiff seized the box of lace, and was endeavour-
ing to make off with it. He held the defendant's
wife with one arm, and with the box in the hand of
the other, he held it over his head in a direction
towards the passage leading from the bar. This was
the only evidence to prove the animus fitrandi.
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE said; there was no pre-
tence for calling this a felony. It was no more than
a struggle for the possession of the property. If a
person having even a colour of title to property takes
it, that is not felony; but fiis Lordship, in charging
the Jury, told them, that they ought to award
damages to the plaintiff with that temper and mode-
ration which befitted a calm review of all the cir-
cumstances of the case.

The Jury found their verdict for plaintiff—
Damages £3O.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER

On the last day of the Sitting of the Court of Ex-
chequer, Mr. Parkins (the late Sheriff) stated, that in
May last an assault was sworn against him by Daniel
Price, and that he (Mr. Parkins) had entered into his
own recognizances, in the sum of twenty pounds, to
appear to take his trial at the ensuing Sessions for
Middlesex ; that he accordingly attended; but when
the cause was called on for trial, the prosecutor did
not attend, and he was acquitted. He had since
applied to the Officers of the Session Court fir a
certificate of his acquittal, which was necessary to
prevent his recognizance being estreated ; but the
Officer refused without the production of the con lit,
and he found lie could only compel him by making
an application to the Magistrates, at the next Ses ion;
and in the meantime he had reason to app.-ehend
that his recognizances would be cheated, unless
the Court should interfere for his protection.—
The Chief Baron asked Mr. Parkins if lie had male
an affidavit of the facts he had stated ?—Mr. Parkins
replied in the negative. Baron Garrow I think,
Mr. Parkins, your experience in this Court might
have taught you that we can only act by affidavit;
but you can make o>..e in a few minutes."—Mr. Par-
kins—" Thank you, my Lord ; I will make the affi-
davit." The Chief Baron—" I hope, Mr. Parkins,
you will forgive me for offering you one word of ad.
vice, which it may be worth your while to reflect on
during the long vacation—that is, never be your
own Lawyer."—Mr. Parkins," No, my Lord ; but
I'll be my own Counsel." Chief Baron—" Well, Mr.
Parkins, you know what sort of a client you have got."
Mr. Parkins soon after presented his affidavit, and
the time for producing the certificate was enlarged.