Star.
London, England, 1827-11-22 00:00:00

Y

Court was, that. he be c 'quad in •Ltrcaster gaol
three months, and then 4,0 fsard secltilvr h.s good
behaviour for three years, himself in •and Livaa_suse-
ties in.lol.
.- • . • TIM ICING V. JOHN STAT. •
The defendant, John Byat,..was brought np to re
ceitte judgment, having been found guilty of holding
out a light as a guide to atnngglers; but in consequence
of the Judge's report not.containingitordirect evidence,
4.f the individual being the person taken in the act;
judgment was defused until ff!e Court could commu-
nicate with Mr... Justice Best, before whom the case was
tried.
_ _

THE KING O..TIeOMAS 110 RD.
Thomas Ford was brought tip for lodgment, having
been .fnund guilty, under the Turnpike Road Act, of
:committing a nuisance. by suffering a number of steps
'to project into the public toad, to the great endanger-
ism of the persons of passengers.
The defendant put in an affidavit in mitigation, which
,was read. It occupied considerable space, and ,wynt
.into a variety of irrelevant detail, but stated, among
:other particelars, that the steps had been standing- for
37 years, and on a road'of nearly 100 feet in width.
Mr. Justice BATLEY observed, that the Court could
,sot but issue a writ for the•rernoval of the nuisance,
rand recommended that some persaqr should be fixed
upon to arrange the matter. - • ..
The defendant stated that bewoold not submit to
,any arrangement except an older of the Court.
An affidavit in aggravation was then-put in and read.
'lt stated that the defendant not only, abeulutely se
fused to remove the nuisance, but since the vial had
placed beside it a board, containing caricatures, of the
Rector of the parish and the Magistrates; thereby I;brb
ling all the parties against tGlions he was opposed.
Mr. Jo:vice BATLEY, addeessing the defendant, oh
served, there could be no doubt 'that a nuisance bad
been committed. A Jury had so decided ; and the
parishioners, had therefore a right td expect its fecnova
He regretted to see, on the part- of defendant, a very
improper spirit manifested. A wilt de 'warmed° ono.
vest& must issue, and the defendant must enter into
recognizance, for his good behaviour for three years,
himseff in 1001. and two sureties in WI. each. The
recrgnizinces might, however, lie over for the resent,
in order that an opportunity might be given for the re-
moval of the nuisance, as, perhaps, the defendant
'might do it in a less injusie9s way than it could be done
by others.
. • via Xll4O O. DROWN, RsQ.

Mr. Atnenson said that in this ease, In teltith Mr.
BrOughamliad some days sr obtaiumi rule to she*
[cause why a criminal isforon.stiun should not issue
.gainst the defendant, he had to move for an enlarge.
went of the rule until next term.
It will. be 'recollected that the rule was obtained by
Mr. Brotighain,.to sheer cause why-a criminal infortna-
(ion should not be filed against Mr. Brown, 11t.n.for
Elle county of Mayo;-for a libel-itgalAst Mr W. !Stabs.
son, Shenff of that county, purporting Co be contained
in a speech, delivered by Mr. Brown. in the House of
Commons. •

Mr. ALosassis grounded his application to the Coot
on the fact that the Sole was only Seised oit*Mr., Brows
nn Satuiday Itst ; and chit it WAS sftvetirli, for bias to
procure several afirdasits from persons, all of *Men
re-ided in the kingdaorrillrelanc.. *-
Mr. Just;ce-13-Armer lilt-edit Blowy/ere any objection
to the applicatiOn on-StrePart.o. Mr. Brougham?'
Mr.Auntasotatelievedshat-Mr. Brougham bad none.
Mt. Justice BX•I'LEY directed the rate to be enlarged
till the first day of next Term, but added, that if Mr.
Brougham bad any objection be. Would state it when
next he came into C•.att. •- ' • ' *

THE KING, AT THE IriCSRUUTIOII or In WAIN OONIZT,
D. JOHN 1400NR, lEEZOE, Jour moor', JUNIOR, ♦ND

THOMAS MOORS.
Mr. CLARK, OM moved the judgment of the Court
on the defendants, who had been Pound guilty at the
late Warwick Assizes of stopping up a public way, ind
,also upon three several indictments, charging them with
assaulting the prosecutor, who is churchwarden of
(Lucy, in the county of Warwick:
Mr. GOULDURN, in mitigation of punishment, stated
that this was a case of oppression,- which strrngly
proved the'manner in which the law might be applied
to effect the purpo.el of had *and unjust feelings. The
defendants, it appeared, tpd blocked up a path which
led through their, field; but had placed a stile in one
'particulat part of 1:; and the prosecutor, on a Sunday,
while the belli were ringing for chnich,,had gone with
an axe, and, attendejl by h.s family, and in a violent
passion, had cut down an opening in the hedge. The
defendants had assaulted him and taiteis„the axe out of
his hand. For this offence the father and his two suns
were indicted on four separate indictments—thtee for
the assiult, and one f r sopping the iii. They had
been found guilty t
Mr. Justice BayLity, in delivering the judgment of
the Court, observed that the Aeteutiaoo were; it 'pat
peared, all present at the tine.of tlie assattiOnd it was
remarkable that one indictment,k.lbe. .11114.401'
been preferred instead of three. :Jay,abisraltallida ef risco-
ceeding the defendants had been pus to glen's expire,
a circumstance which the Cousceocid nut overlatek.--
With respect to the tigl.t.pf Irv; jildgment 011,01ikpro•
secution would he tinged; (usther inquiry-had. been
made as to the propriety of placing a more convenient
stile upon the spot claimed at a public toad. • With lea
locate to the indictments for the assault, the judgment
of the Court was, that Moore, the eider, should pay a
fine of 6,. Bd. and give security to 'keep the peace for',
une year, and that Moore, son. ard Thomas Monte;
should each pay a fine of Is. anl be discharged.

COVILT OF CONIMON PLEAS, Nov. 21.
WRIT** V. DA 11113.

In this case Mr. Stsgeant MaaawitTasa.mored for
a rule to show. cause wby all ,proceedings should not
be stayed until payment. of- the costa; of the se oral
actions. in which the p.esent pl4inttff had been nonsuired.

. -
He had been plaintiff, it,appeared, in an apston tried
at Salisbury, so far back as the year 1449. tried before
the present Chief Justice of tbeCopimcni Vieas..andin
which Mr. Justice G Jselee, then at Ahehar,.lla4.boatt hi-
Counsel. The object of theattirms.sem, to establish hi*
title to certain lands in Oa tomktotpf—w,iisp. In this
action he was nonsuitesl. Lie brought Ihittecu ether
actions for the same yurpo..a, in the . Courts of King's
:Bench and Cominon Pleas, in MI of which newas on-
successlul, and the defendant became eiltitled to tOitsli
against NT,
.4ut diva: ,bey ueier fox sic
took advantage tif insoroont Act, ittcloded.tltosei
costs as debts lts •bis teltande. The -moment he'
found himself st 9 ty, he cornmeneod foniteen.fresh
actions With tki:e purpoo. 'llle'rzliccE, .0( ibe jp4i-1
scut Seottiou.,Siqiir Ao.ll%kteilk.a, role 40 .ASK satt-e Avlel
all prneeediar akotsisi not 4se :sal* until tiese.ensis
were paid. ;The -Court. said Iliellearened Me_rsvapy
would' 'observe, that in .0 1411 400 •opike4-1
twenty actions.
Sr. justice PA/W.-p-Take a rule tO. Skew cause. •'
The Court rose at one o'clock, fr.
terwarJs Mr. Junks Park sat it Nisi. and 41.90 .91
only one defended cause,which was of no pubht interest.