Star.
London, England, 1829-10-27 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, OCT. 26.
Adjourned Sittings at Guildhall—Special Juries.
wan* v. Lawson.

When this action (which was brought by the plaintiff, the
Editor of one of the Annuals, against the defendant, the pub-
lisher of the Times Newspaper, for a libel published in that
paper) was called on, the attorney said be was instructed, on
the part of the defendant, to apply to the Court upon an affidavit
which stated that a material witness was absent ; and on that
account the defendant could not safely proceed to trial. There
was a plea of justification, which this witness, whose name was
Phillips, would prove. He was the servant of a person named
I.cvi, whose name appeared on the face of the alleged libel.—
The defendant's Attorney had been some time looking for this
person. He was at last discoverd to be at the house of Levi ;
but when application was made to see him, Levi said that the boy
had hurt his leg, and was confined, therefore he could not be seen.
An application was again made, but Levi said he had left the
house, and Defendant's attorney did not discover where he had
gone to until last Saturday, when he found that be had gone to
his father's house. A messenger was sent there, but it was dis-
covered he had departed for Portsmouth, for the benefit of his
health, but the father refused to give his direction, being afraid
that he would be subpoenaed to give his evidence at this trial, and
that the journey would be detrimental to his health. The affidavit
stated that the Defendant expected to be enabled to obtain the
attendance of this witness at the Sitting after Term, and there-
fore he (the Attorney-General) hoped his Lordship would think
this sufficient reason to postpone the trial of this cause until that
time.

Mr. Du lAll said he was taken by surprise at this step, as be
had not received any intimation of this application.
The Arraattay-Gassam. replied that he was not aware of it
himself until be came into Court.

Mr. DENMAN said the case had already stood over twice for
witnesses. _ _

...... .
The Arroutu-Gusast observed that the defendant could not
help it, for those witnesses belonged to the plaintiff, and therefore
his client had not previously prevented the trial.
Lord Terraanatt said he thought sufficient reason bad been shown
for the postponement of this trial, but if the publication was dis-
puted, he thought the defendant ought to make some admissions.
The Artoansv-Gusaau. said that the defendant admitted that,
but he had no objection to examine the witnesses on interrogatories.
Mr. Dumas observed that it would be the most convenient
method, u Colonel Stanhope and Mr. Emmerson, the two wit-
nesses for whom the cause had been previously postponed, were
now in England, and were anxious to leave the country again on
business. He hoped his Lordship would allow the Plaintiff the
cuts of the day.
This wu granted ; the action, therefore, will not be tried until
the sittings after the ensuing Term.

NIITCUILL •ND OVUM V. manta AND OTNIRS.

This was an action on a bill of exchange drawn by Leroy and
Co. in America, upon Messrs. Crowther, of Liverpool, made pay-
able in London. It appeared that when the bill was presented for
acceptance, the drawers bad failed; the holders then wrote to the
defendants, who were the correspondents of the drawers, to re-
quest them to accept it ; the defendants accepted it for the honour
of hi . Leroy and Co. if regularly protested and refused when
due. At the time the bill became due it was presented for pay-
ment and refused, and it was accordingly protested at LiverpooL
For the defence it was urged that protesting it at Liverpool was
irregular, as it ought to have been protested at the place where it
was made payable.
Lord Tongan's left it to the Jury to say whether or not this
was the proper course to pursue ; and if it was not, whether the
conditional acceptance did not oblige the Plaintifs to protest it at
Liverpool?
The Jury, after some hesitation, found a verdict for the Plain-
tiffs—Damages, 4781.
Lord TtirrtllDl24 thanked the Jury for the attention they had
shown in the discharge of their duties to the public, and the Court
adjourned.

WARWICKSHIRE SESSIONS.