Star.
London, England, 1827-11-17 00:00:00

a case in which the role ought to be spas absolute. It-
was an important consideration for the Jury, tbe cir-
cumstances under which the transfer was Made, namely,
at the instance of Riley, in favour of his joint account
with Rankin. This point did not appear to him to have
been sufficiently put to the Jury.
' Mr. Justice Bvirt.re thought that Riley had an un-
doubted right to insist on the transfer being made, and
that Rankin, as his agent, was boand to see it done.
If the banker had refused so to do, Riley would have
been justified in sending for a writ by that post; and if
it wets not certain that an act of banktuptcy was to
have been committed, this would have been fatal. He
thought that the'Rule ought to be made absolute.
Mr. Justice HOLIOYD agreed in this opinion.

Rule made absolute.
The ATTOMM GMINItAL moved for a Rule to thew
cause why a writ of Mandamus should not be issued,
directing the Corporation of the borough of Doncaster
to admit John Buckland to the freedom of that borough.
The affidavits stated that the ancient and invariable
custom of the borough of Doncaster had been to idmit
to the freedom of the borough all persons who had
served an apprenticeship of seven years to a freeman,
and this without any distinction of airy particular trade
or profession. John Buckland having served his term
of seven years to Mr. Mason, an attorney of Doncaster,
sought, on the expiratiod of the term, to be admitted
to his freedom, and accordingly made application to
the Corporation for admission. The Corporation for
some time discussed and considered his claim, but
acting, as it was believed, under the advice of the
town clerk, Mr. Fisher, at length refused to admit him.
Mr. Justice BAILIII asked ton, the affidavits stated
the custom .to be?
The AriOMM GINIBAL stated that an investigation
had been made, and that no exception had been found;
the privilege having been extended to all persons alike,',
who bad served a term of seven years apprenticeship to'
a freeman. The ground on which they refused the
claim of Mr. Buctland was, that an attorney's was a
profession, and not a trade. But it was certain that
they had admitted persons who had served their ap-
prenticeship to coal-merchants and timber. merchants,
apprenticeship to a freeman being the only ground of
admission. And one of the corporation had admitted
that he bad served his term of apprenticeship to an ar•
chitect. In some corporations the right was limited to
certain guilds of fraternity, but such was not the case
in this.

...
Justice BYALET asked if there were any instances
of attornies being admitted tq the freedom of de bo-
tbllgh?
The ATTORNsit MINERAL replied, that the affidavits
stated no particular instance, but that it had bees vett
commonly done.
Mr. Justice BAYLEY stated that a clerk was appren-
ticed to an attorney for the purpose of learning, and
therefore came within the original meaning of the word
n apprentice."
The ATTORNIT GaItERAL observed, that although
the Act only required an attorney to serve for five years,
Mr. Buckland had been apprenticed for seven, to qua-
lify him to claim his freedom. The corporation, it
appeared, had entertained great doubts on the point
themselves, as they had been a year deliberating before
they refused Mr. Bncklind's claim. It was wished to
try the question, and therefore this application was made.
Mr. justice BAYLEY—Take a rule to show cause.—
Rule granted.

" THE RING V. DR ROCHA.

The Common SaIGEANT appeared for thedefendant
in this case, to show cause against a rule obtained on
a former day, by Mr. Brougham, why a•criminal in-
fo: mation should not be filed against the defendant, for
a libel contained in a periodical publication, entitled El
Poifugues, of which he was the author, and reflecting on
the character of the Marquis Palmella, the Portuguese
Ambassador. The Learned Sergeant stated, that as it
was understood the object of the Marquis was, to put
upon the files of the Court affidavits distinctly denying
the charges, which he understood to be imputed to
him ; be (the Common Sergeant) had only to present to
the Ct tart two short affidavits signed by Mr. De Rocha,
and another Portuguese Gentleman, both disclaiming
all improper motives in the publication, and both stating
that the words made use of had been misconceived and i
misinterpreted. The defendant was an object of great
compassion, and was now in prima, in consequence, as
he understood, of pecuniary embarrassment. He hoped, '
therefor a, it would not be considered necessary to pro-
ceed any further against him.
Mr. Baoueuess said, as to the defendant's being io
prison, that was in consequence of the costs attendant
on a sentence pronounced against him in this Court
for a libel on the Marquis, who had thought it
right to have him confined, as his mind seemed much.
alienated. But this had produced no effect, for since
his imprisonment he had %written and published another
libel, which was now under consideration. His affidavit
stated, that the words did not mean what was the con-
struction put upon them, but if they did not, they meant
nothing. It was quite clear that the rule must be made
Osolute ; whether further proceedings would betaken,
would depend on the defendant's own conduct. Some
security against the public.ation of these libels. was abso-
lutely necessary. It was no security to say they did not
mean what it was evident they did. He would not
trouble the Court by reading the passages containing
the detestable imputations against the Marquis, but there
was another libel, charging him with ordinary offences.
Ms. Justice Batrurst.—The rule must be made ab-
solute.

Mr. Bitououasi stated, that it would depend on the
defendant himself, whether further proceedings were
taken against him.—Rule made absolute.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER, Novas= 16.
PALKENER V. STAMM/MD.

Mr. JIRVIS moved to set aside the attachment which
had been issued against the defendant, acd all the sub-
sequent pr,,ceedings in this case, on the ground of irre-
gularity. It appeared upon affidavit, that a subyana
horn this Court bad been served at the defendant's
house; and he not having appeared, an attachment
issued, anJ he was held to bail. Now the Learned
Counsel contended, that as under the Act of the 7th
and Bth of Geo. IV. commonly called the Solicitor-
General's Act, on person could be held to special bail'
upon mesne process for a debt under 201. (which was
above the amount of the debt here), the present pro.
ceeciing was illegal. This vatute extended to all actions
and suits at law whatsoever, leaving suits in eqtrity
untouched.

Mr. Baron Mr Loci( observed, that this attachment
had issued against the defendant for not appearing, and
the question was, whether or not a statute passed diverse
ban itu extended to process compelling a party's ap-
pearance ?
Mr. 'slum said, that the words of the statute were
most comprehensive and general, and included all cases
of arrest on mesne process, aold the present was the case
of such an arrest.
Mr. Baron HULLOCK said this species of proceeding
was certainly °tie of great bar &hip. It was sufficient