Star.
London, England, 1828-06-19 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, Jura 18.
EDWARDS W. LOW.
This was an action brought to recover the sum 01
1981. 1 Is. being the amount of a bill of exchange
driven by the defendant, and discounted by the plain-
tiff. The case was tried at Guildhall, and a verdict re-
turned for the plaintiff—subsequently the defendant
applied for a rule to show cause why that verdict
should not be set aside,.and a new trial granted, on the
ground of the inadmissibility of the plaintiff's principal
witness.
Mr. Campeau. this day appeared to show cause against the rule.
The Coe av, however, made the rule absolute on payment of care.'
POWEL V. SCOTT.
This was a rule obtained by Mr. BROUGHAM against
Mr. Scott, a physician, residing at Winchelsea, to show
cause why a criminal information should not be granted
against him, for assaulting Mr. Powel, an Alderman of
Winchelsea, at a vestry meeting. It was alleged, that
Mr. Scott called Mr. Powel a liar, a scandaler, and
a scoundrel," and held up his hand to him with an in-
tention of pulling his nose.
Sir JAMES SCARLETT DOW appeared to show cause
against the rule. He said the facts of the case were really
trifling. Mr. Powel, upon being asked for some money;
excused himself by saying. that he would pay it when
Mr. Scott paid him 1001. which he owed him. The.
fact was, that Mr. Scott did in t at this time owe Mr.
Powel a farthing ; but the report coming to some Ladies
ears, it did not rest there, but it reached Mr. Scott, who
wrote to Mr. Powel to ask him to etplain what induced
him to circulate the report that he (Mr. Scott) was his
debtor. Mr. Powel never answered this letter, and Mr.
Scott told him that the next time they met in company
he would state his opinion of Mr. Powel. They met
at a parish vestry, and Mr. Scott applied the words
"liar and scoundrel" to Mr. Powel ; but as to the as-
sault that was impossible, as there was a cable between
them,
The Coney ordered the rule to be discharged on payment of costs.
BRIGS, ASSIGNEE OF COLLIER, V. FELLO*ES.
This was an action tried at the Sittings at Guildhall,
by the assignee ot Collier, a bankrupt. for money ad-
vanced by him on a bill of exchange to Feliowes and
Tatock, who carried on business as co-partners, under
circumstances whicb, under the Bankrupt Laws, made
the money advanced to these partners the money of the
assignees. The bill was for 5501. of which Collier had
paid 1511. and deposited goods as a security for the
payment of the rest. The defence was, that the money
and the goods had been advanced to Tatlock alone, and
that in the course of the payments, which were by it
stalments, the partnership between Tatlock and the de-
fendant had been dissolved. A verdict was found for
the plaintiff for 1541.
Mr. DENMAN moved for, and obtained a rule to show
cause why there should not be a new trial; and Sir J.
SCARLETT showed cause against it.
The COURT was of opinion that the defendant was
liable, as the surviving partner, tor the money paid by
Collier on the bill ; and also liable in an action ot tro-
ver for the value of the goods which the bankrupt had
deposited with Tatlock.—Rule discharged.
Lord TIINTISDIM rose at Twelve o'Clock, to try causes at Ni.:
Prigs in Loudon.
COURT OF ARCHES, Jim is.
HAWKE V. HAWKE.
This was a suit brought by the husband, Major
Hawke, far a separation from his wife on the ground
of adultery. While the husband was in India on duty.
Mrs. Hawke was delivered of two children in Bristol •
and as the evidence of her identity and of the birth of
the children was fully made out, and the wife made no
opposition to the suit, Sir lam Marina. pronounced
for the divorce.