Star.
London, England, 1811-06-27 00:00:00

LAW Jtv7ELLIGENGE.

EXCHEQUER CHAMBERS.
Yesterday the Judges of the Common Pleas, and.
Barons of the Exchequer, sat In the Exchequer Cham:
ber, and heard arguments in a case tram the Court of
King's Bench, is which the pmts.:di:lgs of the Mavoe
and Corporation of Worcester, for the rec Jvc•r' of
t 11, which they claim by prescription f,r all corn
brought to their market, were stated to be in emir.,
The Court took time to consider the case, which
has already been seven years in dependence.
COURT OF KING'S BENCH, JUNE 44146
THE KING V. JOHN MACDONALD,
This defendant, found guilty upon two inlictmente
fora prose and a poetic libel upon t re Rev. William
Ireland, a Magistrate of the county of Somerset, was
brought up for judgment.
The libels were printed in London, by the defen-
dant, and originated from disputes between the prose-
cutor and Mr. Champaess, a brother Magistrate, re.,
I lative to the appointment of the sexton of Frome ;
they charged the prosecutor with dereliction of his
Magisterial and Clerical duties, and also, with perjury;
and they went farther, and made indecent attacks
upon his wife. The defendant now swore by affida-
vit that he printed only thirty copies of.each libel,
that none were sold, that he was ignorant to %%horn
the initials in them referred, and also of the author of
the libel, and that he went down to Frome to atone
to the prosecutor.
Mr. GARROW, in mitigation of punishment, urged
the defendant's ignorance of the libels, which Keten-
ded to learning and Greek ; and his innocent inten-
tions, he being unacquainted with all the parties im-
plicated. .
The ATTORNEY GENERAL supported the prosecu.
, tion. The prosecutor did not know who was the au-
thor of the libels, except that the defendant
.was de-
fended by Mr. Champness's attorney. It was bey
cause the defendant would not name the author, that
he was now brought up.
Mr. BURROUGH and Mr. Moons followed.
The defendant was sentenced to three calender
months' imprisonment in the Marshalsea, upon each
indictment, and to enter into a recognizance in £lOO
for his good behaviour for three years afterwards.
TILE KING V. CHARLES DUNNE.
This defendant now appeared for judgment, for
an assault upon Mr. Strongitharm. *was agreed
to refer the case to the Master. It was erroneously
,stated in yesterday's paper, that the defendant had
disappeared from the Court, and that his recognizance
,had been estreated.
THE KING V. WITHERS, MUM, AND ANOTHER.
These defendants, found guilty of breaking into a i
house, for the purpose of executing the Sheriff's pro- 1
cess, were brought up for judgment. This case also I
was agreed to be referred to the Master.
THE KING V. CHARLES COOKE.
This defendant, a constable of Hatton Garden,
who was found guilty, at the last Middlesex Sittings,
of an assault upon Robert Ekius, was brought up for
judgment.
Our Readers will recollect that there was much
contradictory evidence, and that Lord Ellenborough
and the Jury were of opinion, that the defence was
supported by perjury. The defendant was sentenced
to one month's imprisonment in the Marshalsea.
THE KING V. LAWLESS, ESQ.
Mr. GARROW obtained leave till next Monday, to
shew cause against this criminal information against
Captain Lawless, for insulting and provoking to a
breach of the peace a Rev. Magistrate at Plymouth.

A gang of thieves attacked the cottage of Mr. CAlt.f
RAT, About two miles on the road from Heston to I
Hayes, on Tuesday night 1 tst, and, atter obtaining
money and plate to the amount of 076, they broke
open the cellar door, and regaled themselves with
wine and.btandy for about an hour, and decamped.'
The house stands alone, and only Mrs. Garret and al
man and maid set vent were at home. The thieves
were five in number. Mr. Garrat had fortunately
taken £3OO to London on Monday.