Star.
London, England, 1821-05-22 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, MAY 21.
LORD BRUDENELL U. WEBSTER.
This was an action upon the warranty of a horse,
tried at the last Assizes for the county of Leicester:
the Jury found a verdict for the plaintiff. Mr. CLARK
a few days since obtained a Rule Nisi for a new trial,
upon the ground that Lewin, a witness of Lord Bru-
denell's, had misdescribed himself at the trial. The
circumstances appeared in the STAR of the 15th inst.
Mr. DENMAN now, for the plaintiff, *requested that
the case might be argued in the present Term: Lord
Brudenell conceived that opinions unfavourable to
his character might be produced by the statement
which kad gone forth to the Public. Mr. Denman
added, that Lewin, the groom, might at the trial
have been mistaken for a farmer, but that he had
never so de,cribed himself.
Mr. MORGAN, for the defendant, said that his notes,
were at variance with Mr. Denman's statements.
The Cover ordered that notice should be given to
Mr. CLARK, and the matter come on forthwith.
THE KING D. BENBOW.
This defendant pleaded not guilty to two indict-
silents for libel. The prosecutors are the persons who
style themselves " The Constitutional Association."
THE KING V. WILLIAM STEAR.
This was a penal proceeding under the statute 4th
Geo. 111. The defendant, a member of the Kings-
bridge Yeomanry, was convicted before one of the
Magistrates for the county of Devon, of refusal, upon
discharge from the service, to give in his accoutrements.
Mr. TYRRELL applied for a certiorari, removing,
the conviction into the Court of King's Bench. The
defendant's affidavit, upon which the motion was
grounded, went into much length, and into variety
of circumstance. It appeared that the defendant,
who was a trumpeter in the Kingsbridge Yeomanry,
and who had laboured in that vocation for nine years
--a a long lease to the clinking of pewter !"—at-
tended in February last a meeting of his corps. On
presenting himself at the place of rendezvous, lie wa.
informed that the meeting had been called princi-
pally on his account, and requested to quit the room ;
he was recalled ; told—that trumpet, in the Kings-
bridge Yeomanry, he should blow no more ; and
turned neck and shoulders out of the house. Never
doubting that there was good cause for the attention'
which had been paid him—though quite at a loss to
what cause to attribute it-the defendant took his,
way home, and was soon after visited, with a de.l
mand of his accoutrements, by a private Yeoman,
named John Thomas. Part of the warlike gear he
forthwith surrendered; but some of the articles, par-
ticularly a saddle, upon which he had ridden for 14
years, were a trifle hors de combat, and they were to
be delivered as soon as they had undergone needful
repair. This delay, however, cf full surrender, what-
ever the excuse, was displeasing to the Authorities of
the Kingsbridge Yeomanry, and in a few days, the
articles which defendant had given to Thomas came
back, accompanied by a summons from a Justice of
Peace. After stating that, in consequence of such
summons, defendant did appear before the Magistrate,
the affidavit went on to describe the conversation that
took place between the parties—
Justice—A So, you are here, Sir. How could you be such a
fool as to comer
Defendant—" I came in obedience to your Wonldis order."
Justice—" You must be a great fool. How could you let
anybody persuade you to come?"
Defendant—" I did not need to be persuade],
Justice—" Hold your tongue, Sir; not a word from you. Do
you know that you might be tried by a Court-Martial, and ded
up to the halberts, eh ?—You might; and I should like to have
the *Mingo( you !"
It was scarcely necessary to add, Mr. TYRRELL
said, that the defendant was convicted ; but, as the
other side had been some time apprized of the pre-
sent motion, he trusted their Lordships would make
the Rule absolute in the first instance.
Mr. Wane said, that the Magistrates were, of
course, quite ready to meet the case; but, unfortu-
nately, there had been an informality in the swearing
of their affidavit : the error should be rectified, and
cause shewn at a very early day.—Rule ma granted.
THE KING D. JOHNSON.
This is a matter rather of a novel description. In
the year 1813, a man named Wm. Johnson was in-
dicted for some breach of the Revenue Laws, and
convicted, at Salisbury. By the conviction becoming
liable to a penalty and to certain costs, Wm. John-
son absconded; and, in February last, a man named
Joseph Murray Johnson, who has, as it seems upon
every view of this intricate transaction, a brother
named William Johnson, was taken in execution for
the debt. Joseph Murray Johnson now applies to be
discharged, saying that the indictment at Salisbury
was against his brother, Wm. Johnson ; the prosecu-
tion maintains that, although the name in the indict-
ment is Wm. Johnson, yet the man now in custody
is the man really convicted, and who really did of-
fend. It appears to be generally admitted that there
are two brothers, who strongly resemble each other,
and it now becomes a question as to which is the real
Simon Pure.
Mr. GURNEY spewed cause against the discharge
of. Joseph Murray Johnson. The affidavits on which
his discharge was demanded were two—the one from
himself, stating that he (deponent) was not the con-
victed party ; the other from his brother, stating that
he (deponent) was. Joseph Murray Johnson's affida-
vit further stated, that he had been laid hold of five
years since on the present claim, and released with
an apology for the mistake: William Johnson's affi-
davit concluded by complaining that he was not in
custody. In opposition to these documents, Mr.
Gurney produced the affidavit of Mr. Clark, the at-
torney who conducted the proceedings at Salisbury,
in 1813, swearing that the man now called Joseph
Murray Johnson, came to him (Clark) in 1818: call-
ing himself Charles Johnson, and offering—still,
however, as he said, from his brother William John-
son—eighteenpence in the pound upon the debt now
in question. The Learned Counsel relied less, how-
ever, upon the proof which he adduced than upon
the proof which the applicant failed to adduce. There
were two main questions—who had actually been
served with process? and who had substantially de-
fended the cause at Salisbury ? Now, upon the first
of those points the affidavits were equivocal; and as
to the second—which might have been clearly proved
by the Attorney employed to conduct the defence—
there was no affidavit at all.

Mr. Sc..tuizir submitted that the affidavit of W.

1.-