Star.
London, England, 1810-06-23 00:00:00

THE COURT OF KING'S BENCIII

Were occupied a great part of the day in hearing
justification of bail. Mr. Campbell presented the
usual returns of the state nf health, &c. of the convicts
on board the hulks at the different stations.

An application was made by Mr. Serjeant Bien,
to hold an American Captain (whom he named) to
bail, under the following circtunstances, disclosed by ,
the affidavit of a Clerk to a Merchant in the City.—
The
ship of which this person was the Master, had
been chartered for Tonningen with a variety of goods,
all of which had been plundered, to the amount in I
value of £2OOO. The Cluain, as stated in the afli-
davit of the Clerk, from information he had received, ,
had participated in the emoluments arising from the
plunder ; and being now arrived from Tonningen,
and in the River, the application was made in order
that he might be answer:4bl' in a civil action. The.
Court, however, were of opinion, that as the affida-
vit- only disclosed informa.Lion given to the Clerk,
without any positive knowledge of his own as to the
facts stated by him, they could not comply with the
applications.—Rule refused.
Qt 0 WA RITANTO.
Mr. Serjeant LENS applied for a rule to shew cause
why a writ, in the form of a quo warrernte, should not
be directed to the Mayor and two Common Council-
men of Haverford West, calling upon them to an-
swer for irregularity in the election of the latter to the
offiee of Co:nmon Councilmen of that borough. By
the Act of Parliament, it is directed that no person
th xll be eligible to be elected a Common Councilman
who has not received the sacrament during the 12
_Months previous to the election ; and the Learned
Serjeant stated, from his affidavits, that a suspicion
existed that these persons were not qualified for the of-
fice in that respect; and during the poll the Mayor was
rAtiested to put the question to them ; this he refused
to do ; end when pot by any other person, they de-
dined answering. The pOl continued for two hours,
was then adjourned, although the business might
have been concluded that day ; and the Mayor, with
the persons in question, went to the house of the
Dowager Lady Kensington, where, from circumstan-
ces which followed, it was suspected the sacrament
was administered to the parties by a clergymaa who
is also a Common Councilman. If, however. the sacra-
ment had been so administered, he was ready to con-
tend, it would prove of no avail in law, as it was con-
trary to the established rules of the church, which
only admitted of -the sacrament being privately ad-
ministered in eases of sickness ; and here was a proof
Vial neither her Ladyship nor any of the parties were
_ _ _

Lord ELL-ENBOROLIGII" Brother Lens, what ate
the grounds of suspicion that the sacrament was ad- '
ministered in the manner you state ?"
Serjeant LENS—" My Lord, when the poll was re-
sumed the next day, the Mayor willingly put the .
question required—Whether they had received the
sacrament in the year last pest ? To which they an- 1
swered very glibly, Yes. But, when his Worship
was requested to ask, if they received it yesterday ?
he declined putting the question, and they declined
-to answer.
Lord ELLENBOROUGH" That is certainly a cir-
cumstante of suspicion. Take a rule to shew cause."
SLANDER.-•••••131:CKLE V. PARISI!.
This plaintiff was foreman to Mr. Gonndry, a
wheelwright (f c3nsiderable eminence. The deien•
dant is foreman to Mr. Godfrey, in the same line of
business, but employed in the Constitution Brew-
house.

The action was brought for the following words
- spoken by the defendant of the plaintiff, by which lie
was first removed from his station as foreman to Mr.
Goundry, and eventually from his service, viz.—
" Buckle is a thief, and I have got him discharged
from Mr. Godfrey's service in the Constitution brew-
house, because he is a thief." I'o this the defendant
pleaded the general issue, and he also pleaded a
tification, namely, that the words spoken were true.
.• Mr. PARKE, for the plaintiff, addressed the Jury,
and having mentioned, as above stated, the nature
•of the case, observed, that it was greatly aggravated
by the defendant daring to justify himself, by assert.
ing that the slander which he propagated was true,
when, in point of fact, there was not the slightest
grbund for the calumny.
'Witnesses were called, nho not only proved the
words spoken by the defendant, but also proved that
he was removed from his situation at Mr. Goundry's
in consequence of them. It also appeared, from
these people's testimony, that Buckle was .a hard-
working, honest, and industrious man, with a large

ELLENnoitoucrt, in charging the Jury, observ-
• ed, th-,it it lay entirely with the defendant to prove
that the words which he had spoken of the plaintiff
were ¶,;;e. In this, however, he tailed, and it was with
them to say what damages the plaintiff was entitled
u.---The Jury, after a short consultation, gave him
a verdict for £2O, with costs.

LiILL V. TAYLOR.

The Plaintiff is an Attorney, the Defendant is a
Gentleman well known as belonging to the Opera-
House. His bail, in this case, was opposed upon the i
ground, that pending a writ of outlawry which now
exists against him, his bail would not be permitted to
justify, and this the Attorney-General held to be, in
mixt ,cases, the practice, subject certainly to the dis-
cretion of the Court.
Mr. GARBOW, on behalf of the defendant, Taylor,
aged his right to justify bail, as that very justifica-
tion would go towards expediting the arrangement
that is now pending between the parties.
The Coutt allowed the justification, observing, how-
ever, that they would still have in reserve the power
of acting upon the outlawry, notwithstanding the bail
of the arrangement in question did not in the event
"eke place.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, JUNE es.
This being the first day of term, nothing was done
by she Court except justification of bail, and determi-
g a few uninteresting motions for new trials.