Star.
London, England, 1829-11-11 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, Nov. 10.
DON DIUL. MUM= V. SUMMILD.
This was an action of ejectment, brought to try the right of the
Plaintiff to considerable landed property. situated in the county of
York, which had been left to him by will. This cue was tried at
the last Anises for that county, before Mr. Justice Bazzyr. and
the Plaintiff was nonsulted.

The Asvesuat-Guaam. now applied foe a rale to 'bow cause
why the verdict shOuld not be set aside, and a new trial granted.
The ground on which be moved to set aside the nonstdt was,
that the witnesses called for the Defendant, to prove the manner
the will was made, had since the trial stated circumstances quite at
variance with the testimony they had previously given. He held
several aflidavits, proving various instances in which the subse-
quent statements of the Defendant's witnesses contradicted the evi-
dence they had given on the trial.—Rule granted.
NOAKES P. wictaig.

This was an action of slander. in which the plaintiff was non-
suited, owing to the absence of the witness who beard the slander-
ous words spoken. The slander eoushted of a charge that the
plaintiff was an uncertificated bankrupt.
The ArroaNsv-Gmleast. applied for a rule to show cause why
the wank should not be set aside and a new trial granted, on the
ground of the absence of the witness who was to have proved the
plaintiff's case. He bad affidavits of the facts, both from the wit-
ness alluded to and the attorney of the plaintiff.
The Cocas, however, refused to grant the rule, as it did not ap-
pear that the defendant was connected with the absence of the ma-
terial witness.

COTTON u. JAMMU
This was an action brought to recover damages from tbe defend-
ant for suing out a Commission of Bankrupt without probable
cause of an act of bankruptcy, and was tried at the last sittings for
Middlesex, when the Jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff, da-
mages afflso.
Mr. Potiocx now applied, on the part of the defendant, for a
rule to show cause why a nonsalt should not be entered, on the
ground of an action for want of probable cause could not be main-
tained after the Commissioners of Bankrupt had made an adjudl-

cation of an act of bankruptcy.
Lord Tarreansic said, that the law on this question was in a very
unsettled state, and it would be desirable to decide the question.
The Court would therefore take the case into consideration.

Maur V. SOWTZIL.
Mr. Hoer moved to set aside the month in this cause, on the

ground that evidence which should have gone to the Jury bad
been rejected. The cause was tried before Lord Tenterden. at
Guildhall. London. some time since. It was an action for

several libels published by the defendant in the Manchester
Courier of which the defendant appeared to be editor and propri-
etor. The declaration charged him with printing and publishing
the alleged libels; and in order to prove that fact they produced
the affidavit made at the Stamp Office, in which the defendant said
he was printer and proprietor of the Manchester Courier. and that
the said paper was printed at his house No. I, Red Lien-street,
St. Anne's-square, Manchester. Upon reading the paper con-
taining the libels, it appeared to be printed at No. I, St. Anne's-
square, without the words, Red Lion-street.
Mr. Guauzv objected to the discrepancy, and contended that the
plaintiff was bound to prove that the paper was published in the
place mentioned in the affidavit.
The Loan Cesar hums was of opinion that the place of pub-
lication must be the same as that stated in the affidavit, and the

plaintiff was nonsulted.
Counsel for the plaintiff were prepared with an affidavit made by
the defendant in another cause, in which be described himself to
be printer and proprietor of the paper in questioa ; but the discre-
pancy noticed by Mr. Gurney was fatal.
Mr. lima now submitted that the supplemental evidence should
have been left to the Jury.
Lord Tannazism—Have you now an affidavit that he was pub-
lisher of the Manchester Courier ?

Mr. Hoar said they had.
The Court thee panted a Rule'Nui.
LUOGAGI OX 110.111 D STZI lIXSIELA.,-111411C1/1 e. TAOXTOX.

Mr. Serjeant Loewy, Moved to set aside the verdict in this case,
and enter a nonsult. The action was brought against the pro-
prietor of a steam-packet running between Swansea and Bristol,
to recover the value of luggage lost by a passenger. The cause
was tried at Hereford, and a verdict given for the Plaintiff. It ap-
peared that the son of the Plaintiff, a boy, was put on board the
Defendant's vessel at Swansea, to be conveyed to Bristol,
where he went to school ; half-price was paid for his passage,
being but a child, and nothing taken for his luggage, which
was a trunk containing his clothes, and money to pay the
schoolmaster. The sum of #l5 was also placed in the trunk, to
pay the master for another boy named Griffith. In navigating
the Channel, between Swansea and Bristol, them Is generally
some confusion in taking the passengers on board the steam boat
and putting them on shore. Every one is analogs to secure his
luggage, and the boy's portmanteau, when they arrived at Bristol,
could not be found. The Jury, upon a view of all the facts, gave
the plaintiff the valise of the boy's clothes, and his proportion of the
school money in the trunk, but refused to allow 415 claimed for
the boy Griffith. The Learned Sergeant now submitted that the
defendants were net liable for the lOU of luggage on board their
steam boat ; but assuming their liability, no passenger could re-
cover, he said, money lost in a trunk unless the same bad been
specially fissured. It would be hard, in his view of the question,
to snake proprietors of steam packets answerable to a person paying
15s. for his passage for large snots lost in tricks ear luggage over
which they had no control.
Lord Tiorname—They make no entry of goods?
Sergeant Loatow—No.
Did they put the goods in a proper place 1--Thet were pet down
_ _

.
in the cabin.
Going by steam can make no difference with 'tweet to the
duties of a carrier ?—Yes. it makes some difference; the diffi-
culties under which steam vessels are navigated make it impossible
to leek after luggage.
Beery man's portmanteau is of some value?
Mr. Catania. said, the Captains of Margate steam boats gave a
card, stating that they would not be answerable for luggage.
Lord Tasnanzu—lt is impossible to say the verditt is wrong.
You have got rid of .115 of the demand by throwing off the Mosey
sent for Griffith. We cannot distinguish this steam conveyance
from ordinary conveyance by a common carrier. If be will not
be answerable for goods of value, he must give notice to that effect.
The Court concurred in his Lordship'sjudgmente—Rule refused.
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS---Toessav, Nov. 10.
11111041 V. MUM%

Mr. Sergeant SUM= said be was instructed in this case to
apply to the Court for a week's further time to complete a bill of
exceptions. Their Lordships would recollect that it was an actios
brought by the Plaintiff, Mr. Charles Kemble, against Mr. Forret!,
the celebrated actor, fur a breach of agreement, when the Jury re-
turned a verdict for the Plaintiff, with 4750 damages. A bill of
exceptions was at the time tendered, and the present application
was for time to complete these ezeeptions.-31etion granted.

1111111111110 pus MERU, 1. TMI 31511107 or coutza.

In this case, which was an action tried at Lancaster, before Mr.
Justice Litdedale, and related to the right of presentation to the
Chapelry of Greybridge, a rule was granted to show cause why the
verdict, which was in favour of the Plaintiff, should not be set
aside, and a mem& entered.
COURT OF EXCHEQUER, Nev. 10.

111101111111 111.
Mr. CLaue moved for a rule to show cause why the verdict in
this case should not be set aside. It was an action for libel, tried at
the last Assizes for Leicester, before the Chief Baron, when a ver-
dict was tetanal fur the plaintiff with .42,000 damages, the Whole
amount stated in the declaration. The ground on which be moved
was, that sufficient evidence of the noble defendant being the author
of the letter in which the libel was founded had net been adduced.
It would also be necessary for bim (Mr. C.) to detail a few of the
facts. The plaintiff was vicar of Bucknassier,where bean-kept as'
Academy. The defendant was lard of the Maser of that-parish,
and many unfortunate disputes arose between them, which led to
a letter being sent to the yeasts of one of the plaintirsiupils, in
abaft the writer stigmatised Mr. ?timelier as a tartott totally un-
fit to superintend the education of youth. The Jur! presented
that this letter was writtenity the defendant, from the facto' his
Away before sending a massager to the plaintiff's haw. and
telling hat " his --- boys should not fire any more pistols, or be
(Lord H.) would drive them ail from the parish."' Now Lard
Hundagtotar was a very °ergotism's, and the progesatioslse-re-
saved from the paintirs pip* was amnia: When ha-used to'
go out in the carriage they would assemble round it, and annoy
:Mtn In every way by hissing and bating. On one occasion they
opened the cacriage door, and searal of them called .out, '''oll, so
yam lave sentageasege a sir the boys shalt* *dote Why,
what iio you mesnityou --e.-oiriseonadrar.-4Leughea.)- it was
oleo proved that the plaintiff had frequently , " there would be
so rreln the parish, while an old wretch Mit the &redline was'
In
'h.!'
'was 'ague great
Parke. You reemashaithe pound that Lord Hmelegeuuw.uratiul
idol,. to the plaintira base, and the harible-dlagatogieesesthit,
ware every day eibibited, to..such a degrie 'Ali fespiectibre
tenon could have lived near ler •
Mr. Coate—l adatkitight MtftertigeerfOins terra& but the
entioyenee he stnetadewsk beyenet hairissiti lieyeattemla Wirt
piste* can to the basaileistle, vitd .liontleisiliesthe and sinesit•
whenever be madb his
• The emit BeitsinZre,sstile. Clan :WWI 41.1%1Z *eat laid at 5.000 i. notwithstanding the provoestiarffilib
would b.ve recovered to the fuU extent. We are, however, of

opinion you are entitled to a rule, on the ground of there not being
sufficient that the Defendant was the author of the letter ;
but should It torn out that we grant a oew trial, we could not do
the injustice not to allow the Plaintiff to increase his damages in
the declaration.—Rule to show cause granted.
CONSISTORY COURT, Nov. to.
This morning the first session in Michaelmas Term was opened
before Dr. LAIIIIUNGTON. There were very few caws on the paper.
MUSDOC& P. 1011111041 k.
This was an action for a divorce by reason of cruelty to the
wife. It was stated that in consequence of the husband being con-
fined for debt, he could not enter upon the necessary proceedings ,
but that he intended to apply to his creditors for his release under
the Insolvent Act.
The case was ordered to stand over.
WPM /1411110111 IP. LADY lataXl2oll.
In this case a proxy was exhibited, signed by Lord Brandon, to
stay any further proceedings against her Ladyship, and the Court
was prayed to that effect.
Some cobvenadon arose relative to the costs, and
Dr. Lasanrason decided that Lord Brandon should pay all costs
of the snit after they bad been taxed.
There was no other case of interest before the Court, and it then
adjourned.