Star.
London, England, 1816-11-13 00:00:00

•Lir lAITLAIGRATIt

• . .
• . COttirr.tiv leorme. .
. .
The Chancellor of the Eichisiner, the lant4 Chan.
tlie•Earl of itirrawbr,.the Earl of *Liverpool,
Viscount FiJmoutb, Lard Ellenbritugh, SirV. Gibbs,
Mr. B.ron Thouirsne, 'and the rest of the /oar's,
tot* their ce.its at two o'clock in this Court, to no-

. ~„

ruiftste Sheriffs for the several counties in the year

ensuing.
• C6tUR"' O KINO'i BENCH. NOVEMBER Is.
Pu es 11';11 were granted for new trials in the fol.
Irwo;nr clses : • •

EIPVAR73 v. KELLAM AND OTHICR9.-.--All action for
goods sold and (layered, tried before Mr. Justice
Holrnyd on the Western Circuit.
Ftsnza v. 1 lona.trs.—An action for work and
1-tbour done, tried before Mr. Justice Abbott, at
Monmouth.

Musonave V GsErt:.—An action for money had
and rimeivrd, treed upon the Northern Circuit before
Mr. Joi.tice R miley.
In the tollowing cases Itu!es for new trials were
refuced:—

CLAlttle v. Barratt..4-An action upon a promissory
note, tried at C4rlisle before Mr. Justice 134iley.
POTTS V. JACOB.—An action Cie goods sold and
delivered, tried. boffiry Mr. B4ronWood at Newcastle.

DOE 40. WARWICK.--.AII action of ejectment tried
before Mr. Baron Wood at Car

IItILUDAYS.-BY-PARTS wmTurut..

This was a motion fora Rule, calling upon the
Sealer of Writs of this Curt; to shew cause why he
refused to sign an attachment of privilege on the sth
of November (Gunpowder Plot) without an extra
fee.
.The affidavit stated, that Mr. Faithful, an At.
torney of this Court, applied on the sth of Novem-
ber at the Office of the Sealer of the Writs. for the
purpose of obtaining the signature of that Officer, to
a *rit of privilege, when he was told that it could
not be signed without an extra fee, upon an allega-
tion that the sth of November was a holiday, and
that the practice of the Office was, not to take the
ordinary fee on that day. Mr. Faithful said, he
should certainly pay the fee, but under a protest, in-
timating that he should apply to the Court upon the
subject. Upon which the Officer said, he should not
sign the orit at all. • The present application was
therefore made, on the authority of two cases in Sir
William Blackstone's Reports, another in the Term
Reports, and a third, namely, the case of 4, Twee-
dale v. Fennel," decided in last Term.
Mr. Justice BAILKY, who sat alone when the motion
was made, said that the cases alluded to, had refe-
rence to holidays its Tem. The holiday in question
was alter the essoign day, and that might make a
difference. However, Is it was important to have
some fixed rule foe future regulation as to the pay-
ment of extra fees demanded in holiday', it might
be as well to grant a. Rule to shew cause.—Rule to
shew cause granted.

. nr.lssoN ANDItAhlt.
This was an acti‘n tor money had and received by
the plaintiff, to the nse of the defendant. At the trial
before Lord ELLesnoßclUtili in the London Sittings
after last Trin.t) T
erm, the plaintiff 'as nonsuitecr.
Mr. iicatti.err now matived for a Rule nisi' to set
aside the mtnsuit, and obtain a new trial. The case'
was this; the d4entlant had been made assignee of a
person engaged in business at Lloyd's Ciffee.house.
who had lost a considerable sum of money to the
plaintiff. the defendant,, and other peroLs, upon a
wager policy, and in order to ear his losses, as far as
his means world afford; he deposited an hundred
pounds in the hands of the defendant, for the purpose
of being distributed among the claimants upon him
in the particular wager transaction. The plaintiff
applied to the defendant for his share of the aeloo,
but the latter refused to pay him, saying, that as
there were other claimants upon the deposit, he could
not dispose of the money until the whole of the de.
mandants made their appearance, and gave him a
discharge tor their respective portions of the sum in
question. In consequence of which the present action
was brought, to compel payment of the plaintiff's
share; but it appearing at the trial that there were
other cl aimairs. whose debts were not then ascertained,
Lord ELLeriamiouori ruled, that the action was
not Maintainable, until the defendant had adjudicated
upon ail the debtors' claims, and ascertained what
was due to each. The plaintiff was therefore non.
suited. Atter bearing the circumstances of the case
in detail, the Court were at opinion, that there was
no ground for disturbing the decision at Nisi Prius,
and therefore refused the Rule.
DAVIS S. HARDY.
This was was an action against the defendant as
printer of the rea .fferaid, tbr publishing a libel of
and concerning the plaintiff. At the trial before
Lord Etd.emeoantioti in the Middlesex Sittings after
last Trinity Term, the Jury gave the plaintiff a Far.
thing damages. ' ;-• ' -
Mr. &altt er? now moved for a Rule to show
cause why the judgment should not be arrested. It
will be recollected that the ease was in substance this's
The plaintiff being indebted to the parish where he
resided in Scarborough for three quitters of a year's
assessed eases. which amounted to upwards of 4(h.
at length paid the money to Mr. Hutchinson the col-
lector, from whom he obtained tin unstamped re.
ceipt for the aggregate sum, a stamp being unne-
cessary had a. receipt been made out for cash guar-
, ter's assessment. In eonseqnence of this irregularity,
the plaintiff instituted proceedings in the Exchstquer
against the collector; which were determined by the
collector's being adjudged to pay costs, without fine.
A parochial meeting was afterwards held at.Scarbo.
'rough, at which resolutions were passed upon. the
conduct of the plaintiff, and in commendation of the
collettor. The libel in question, which was published-
in the defendant's paper, purported to contain an ac-
count of this transaction as it occurred ; and con-
eluded by a general statement, " that such conduct
was unneighbourly, vexatious; and litigious." The
.Learned Counsel now contended, in support of hit
motion for_arresting the.judgmenr, that as there was
nn io'mands in the declaration, alleging that the libelous
matter was' " of and toncerning" the plaintiff, the,
verdite for .2 farthing damage 4 small as it was,
• Could not stand.'
The Coati granted a Rate to chew cause.
sit4tiwaw 1. ALIEXANDISR AND FOX,
' Mr. Gummy moved for a Rule to,sheW *h the
award in *this case itioutd-not be set aside. Ti. cir
weliniaaniesortlti casewast in siseet this t-41essii.