Star.
London, England, 1819-02-11 00:00:00

LAIV INTELLIGENCE.

NORTHERN CIRCUIT.
Before the LORD Cater BAHCON and Mr. Baron WOOD.
CITY AP.D COUNTY OF THE CM' OF YORE —SaturiLly, March 6,

at the Guildhall of York.
County or Yoast—Same day, at York Castle.
LaNeastuar--4aturday, Alarch 20, at the Castle of Lancaster.

NORFOLK CIRCUIT.
Before the Lord Chief Justice Assort, of the King's Bench,

and Mr. Baron GRAHAM.
BRClLlNCHAerunkr—Thursday, March 4, at Aylesbury.
IlsuroitosuißE—Wednesday, March 10, at Bedford.
licstisiosiommtas—Saturday, March 13, at Huntingdon.
Causauscrutmr—Tuesday, March IG, at CaMbridge.
Noaroz.x—Saturday, March 20, at.Thetford.
Sr rrouc—Frlday, March 26, at Bury St. Edmund's.
VICE CHANCELLOR'S COURT, FEBRUARY 5.
THE DUKE OF NORFOLK V. MYERS AND OTHERS.
The VICE CHANCELLOR gave his judgment this
morning in this case, which he considered one of
great importance as to landlords and tenants. A
bill had been` filed by the Noble plaintiff against
some tenants of his, and an injunction was prayed
for, to restrain them from grinding their corn at any
mill but the one which he had built, and kept in re-
pair, on his estate for the purpose. It had been said
that tenants were oblige/ to send their corn to the
mill belonging to the Lord of the Manor, and two
cases were cited in which the Court of Exchequer
had decided the question in favour of the landlord.
He thought these decisions sufficient to authorize him
in granting the injunction, but there were two other
questions which could only, in his opinion, be decis
ded by the verdict of a Jury. The first was, whether
the removing of two water-mills, and substituting
one worked by steam, did not so deteriorate the
compact, on the part of the landlord, as to do away
with the right of custom ? And the second was;
whether the crushing of corn could be considered as
grinding it? He would grant an issue on these, but
in the mean time would consult with the Lord Chan-
cellot as to the terms in which the issue should be
expressed.—lnjunction granted.
COURT OF KINU'S BENCH, FEBRUARY so.
TILE KING V. THE COMMISSIONERS OF MARGATE PIER.
On a former day Mr. GURNEY had obtained a Rule
calling on the defendants to chew cause why a Man-
damus should not be issued, to compel them to pay
a certain sum to the Poor's-rate.
Mr. MARRYAT now slimed cause. He stated, that
the Commissioners had granted a lease of the tolls to
Mr. Chancellor, their clerk, and that, as the rate
was not made till the day after the letting, the lessee
and occupier, and not the Commissioners, ought to
pay the rate. He contended, that there was no in-
stance in which a Mandamus bad been issued to
compel a Corporation to pay a Poors'-rate.
Mr. GURNEY urged that, in this case, there was no
other remedy, as there was nothing to levy upon ;
and that the lease was made to the clerk for the pur-
pose of evading the rate.
The COURT, after hearing the affidavits on both
sides, said, that they did not think it necessary to
give any opinion at present, whether ai Mandamus
would lie against a Corporation, to compel them to
pay a Poor s-rate ; but, as it was obvious that there
had been some trick in this case, they thought it
right to give the Parith Officers an opportunity of
bringing the question of law before the Court ; with
this viestrthey directed that a Mandamus should be
issued, and if the Company made a false return, it
st-otill remain for the Parish Officers to act as they
might be advised, and the Court would then consi-
der the question. •
THE KING MORCAN AND STANLEY.
This was an indictment against tile defendants for
an assault on Mr. Darby. The case was tried before
Lord Ellenborough, and the Jury returned a verdict

of guilty.
JUstice BAYLEY, in delivering the sentence of the
Court, said, that the only wiuiess called on the trial
had deposed, that he did not know whether Darby, at
the time of the assault, was drunk or not. If the
Court had seen that the prosecutor was perfectly free
from blame, they would have treated this matter in
a very different way ; but, under the circumstances
now before them, they awarded that the defendants
should pay a fine of 6s. 81 each, and be discharged.

The two Executioners of the law in St. Petersburgh,l
having died, the Municipal authority vainly offered
their places to others, but no Russian could be found
Ito accept them. The Senate has resolved that they
shall be given to culprits cut:Jou:zed to the knout.