Star.
London, England, 1829-12-01 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE

Seals, Re-bearings, Appeals, and Petitions, before the Loan
Cuoseau.on, after Michaelmas Term, 1829.
First Seal—Friday December 4th.
Re-hearings and Appeals—fistardal
Bth, Wednesday 9th.
Second Seal—Thursday 10th.
Re-bearings and Appeals—Friday 11th. Saturday 12th.
Third Seal—Monday 14th.
Re-hearings and Appeals—Tuesday 19th, Wednesday 16th,
Thursday 17tb.
Fourth Seal—Friday 18th.
Petitions—Saturday 19th.
Seals, Exceptions, further Directions, and Petitions, before the
Vacs Catancetwa. after Michaelmas Term, 1829.
Bankrupt Petitions—Monday, November 30th, Tuesday, De-
cember Ist, Wednesday 2d, Thursday 3d.
First Seal—Friday 4th.
Exceptions and Further Directions—Sat
Tut sdaj Btb, Wednesday 9th.
Second Seal—Thursday 10th.
Exceptions and Further Directions—Friday 11th, Saturday 12th.
Third Seal—Monday 14th.
Exceptions and Further Directions—Tuesday 15th, Wednesday
16th, Thursday 17th.
Fourth Seal—Friday 18th.
Petitions—Saturday 19th.
VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT, Nov. 30.
'limax V. UAL

sth, Monday 7th, Tuesday

6th, Monday 7th.

The LOAD CMAIOCILLO; havisigtanSattirday, on the application
of Mr. Charles Kemble, granted an Injunction to restrain Mr.
Kean from performing at Drury-lane Theatre, upon the un-
derstanding that, should his Lordship nut sit to-day, the
parties were to be at liberty to apply to the Vice-Chaucellor to
dissolve it : the Court at an early hour was crowded with threw'.

cal performers.
On his Honour taking his seat, Mr. Kitson said he understood
the Court had given permission for him to make a very pressing
motion in the cue of Kembie v. Kean, and that his Honour had
appointed to bear it in private at twelve o'clock.
The Vics-Cluncetwa said he had certainly, on the motion
being represented to him as being of a most urgent and pressing
nature, given his permission that it should be made In private, but
on reflection he did not see any reason fee privacy, or why it should
net be made in public.
The conversation here dropped. Shortly afterwards, however,
Mr. KNIGHT received a communication, when the Learned Coun-
sel again addressed the Court, and said be understood that some
arrangement bad been entered into between the parties, which
would render it unnecessary for him to move to dissolve the in-
junct;on at twelve o'clock to-day, but if his Honour would grant
him permission, should it be necessary, be would make it at the
sitting of the Court to-morrow morning.
The Vics-Cstascuwa said he should be quite willing to hear it
at that time. The nature of the arrangement between the parties
did not transpire.
The Court was afterwards occupied in hearing petitions in bank-
ruptcy of no public interest.
ROLLS' COURT, Nov. 30.
No fewer than 140 solicitors were sworn in this morning before
his Honour the M f the Rum, so that there will be no
need, on account of s scarcity of legal practitioners, that one soli-
citor should act for both plaintiff and defendant, which frequently
happens, and which usually gives rise to the most culpable delay
and irregularity, as his Honour took occasion to observe in the
course of the morning.
COURT OF KING'S BENCH, Nov. 30._ _

'dings after' Michaelmas Term, in Westminster Hall, before
Lord Tiarraanam and Common Dulles
a TIM REAL TRIIIIDADA ri.-1110011011 V. VOULXII2.
_ _ _

The plaintiff, an eminent tobacconist in Oxford-street,. brought
this action to recover £55, due as the balance of an account amount-
ing to 415 for prime or Spanish cigars. The defendmt, a dashing
young man of fashion, and a great professor of smoking, was at-
tracted by the odorous qualities of the plaintiff's shop, and, without
objection to prices, ordered several boxes of cigars of the real Tri-
nidad& fragrance. They consisted of cigars from the Havannah,
and a peculiarly rich sort called the King of Spain's cigars, which
sold at upwards of £2O per box. The defendant ordered a quantity
of other Spanish cigars, at £9 a box, and for one-quarter box of
the best be was to pay dim
The defence rested on a complaint of the high price at which
the cigars were sold.
A Tobacconist, called to reduce the Plaintiffs charges, stated
that Mr. Hudson kept a fashionable shop in a fashionable part of
the town, and no doubt obtained good prices for his articles. Not
having been in a similar way of business himself, he could not say
whether the plaintiff's charges were unreasonable.
Lord TINTBILDEN said it did not follow that a tradesman living
in a particular part of the town was entitled to demand more than
the fair value for his goods. The Jury were to give him the
value and no more.
The Jury found a verdict for the plaintiff—Damages 250,
costs, 40s.