Star.
London, England, 1820-12-15 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF CHANCERY, DECEMBER 14.

- -
The LORD CHANCELLOR, adverting .to the many
judgments in arrear, said he would, on Saturday,
state the respective days on which he would dispose
of the cases which stood over for that purpose. The
cause of his net having disposed of them before was,
that be had had of late two most painful duties to
perform, which had engrossed much of his time;
and when he said this, he felt confident that he had
satisfied every person concerned in the cases which
were in consequence thrown back. His Lordship
subsequently took occasion to notice the circum-
stance of motions, which might be made in the other
Courts, being now brought into that of his Lordship,
and cornplained of the increase of business that took
place in consequence. Motions, he observed, were
only heard on one day in the week by his Honour
the Vice-Chancellor; but, were the dine enlarged, it
would enable his Lordship to make a farther pro-
gress in the appeal causes which stood over. He
would, however, have a conversation with the Vice-
Chancellor on the subject, and at present he begged
to be understood as not attaching blame to any one.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, DECEMBER 14.

THE MARQUIS OF ANGLESEA U. SMLTH,

This was an action in which the noble plaintiff
sought to recover from the Hundreci.ti Ossnlston,
the amount of the damages done totis house by a
riotous and tumultuous mob, on the night of.the Bth
of June last. The Counsel for the plaintiff observed,
that cv7rybody must recollect the evening when" the'
Queen arrived in London, on her return from the
Continent, and the confusion which prevailed on the
occasion in several places at the west-end of the town
that night. He should spew, that this night a riotous
assemblage had surrounded the house of the Noble
Marquis, and broke great numbers of the windows,
the value of which he now sought to recover from
the Hundred. The Learned Counsel then called the
Collector of Taxes, and the Under Sheriff of Middle-
sex, to prove that the Parish of St. Ann's was in the
Hundred of Osseulston. .

J. Warren, a watchman, who had been stationed
near Burlington-gardens, on the night of the Bth of
June, said, that on that night, about 300 or 400 per-
sons came down Clifford-street ; that they came to
the Marquis of Angleseis house, facing Burlington-
gardens ; they hallooed out, " Lights for the Queen,"
broke windows in Lord Sidmouth's house, and also
in the house of Lord Anglesea. They never waited
to see if the lights would-be put up, but set to work,
as hard as they could. This was the night of the
Queen's arrival in London, and it happened about 11.

George Gill, the doorkeeper of the Marquis's
house, saw the people passing and repassing on the
night in question, and crying 4. Light up." He af-
terwards heard the windows on the south side broken.
On the morning of that day they were entire.

The glazier employed by Lord Anglesea to repair
the windows, said he had put in several panes of'
glass, sixteen of them were plate glass, and his bill
came to £45 16s. The charge was a reasonable one.

The Counsel for the Hundred contended, that the
assemblage in question was not such a riotous one as
came within the Act of Parliament. Several houses
were illuminated on the night in question; and it was
a common thing for a set of idle boys to go about on
such occasions, and throw stones at those windows
which had no lights in them. These, therefore, could
not be considered as a riotous assemblage. They
merely wished to do honour to their beloved Queen
on her arrival in England.

Mr. Justice BAYLEY, in his charge to the Jury,
said, the only question was, whether this was
such an assembly as was pointed out by the Act?
The watchman declared there were several hundred
persons collected together, making a great noise, and
throwing stones, &c. and it appeared the watchmen
were assaulted. Could any one doubt, then, that this
was a riotous or tumultuous assembly ?
Verdict for the plaintiff—Damages L'04.5 16s.
HOWES AND OTHERS V. COLLYEAR.

This was an action brought to recover the sum of
£135, being the amount of two bills which had been
accepted by the defendant, Mr. Collyear, commonly
called Lord Milsington, in consideration Of goods fur-
ni.hed to his Lordship by the plaintiff's, who were
linen-drapers. The first bill was for £99, the second
was for They were both accepted in July last ;
they were made payable at No. 11, New-square,l
Lincoln's Inn.—The shopman of the plaintiffs gave
evidence as to Lord Milsington having given the bill
for goods supplied is a Mr. Giles.
Verdict for the plaintiffs—Damages, including
interest, £156 17 s. Id.