Star.
London, England, 1828-01-26 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF CHANORRY, J•a. es.
The Court was occupied in partly bearing the argu-
menu of Counsel in appeal cases, until half•past two
o'clock, when it row.

STEVENS AND GUPPY.
Mr. ROMILLY applied, at the rising of the Court, to
request that the Lord Chancellor would give judgment
in this case. He was instructed to say, that great dis-
tress and agony of mind had been endured by the par-
ties. owing to the delay which bad hitherrolaken place,
and its express his clients' hopes that his Lordship, by
a prompt decision, would relieve them from the misery
of their situation.
His LORDSHIP promised judgment at a very early
day.

VICE CHANCELLOR'S COURT, Jas. 25.
ACE SL L D. THOMPSON.
In this case the plaintiff is the publisher of a Sunday
newspaper called the Jehw Bull, and the defendant is
an artist. In the last exhibition at Somerset House, the
defendant exhibited a fall length portrait of the King.
Ars article. appeared in. the, John Bull newspaper, in
which. this portrait was- severely criticised, and Mr.
Thompson charged with deceit and misconduct. The
article complained of was not read; bui, from what we
could gather, it appeared that Mr. Thompson, having
obtained permission to sketch the bust of the King, in
order to put. it among other figures in an historical
picturetthe subject of which was the " King's Landing'
stkircland,* was charged in the plaintiff's newspaper
wt having added the- remainder of the figure, and,
painting a separate portrait, with having deceived the
publiciato an opinion that he had obtained his Ma-
lesty's,permission.to paint his portrait in this manner.
Mr. Thompson brought an action against the plaintiff
in consequence of this article; and the plaintiff, in-
tending to justify, filed a bill of discovery against Mr.
Thompson in this Court, in order to obtain evidence in
support of his justification. Under these circumstances,
Ms. WAKEFIELD : now moved for an injunction to
restrain Mr: Thompson from proceeding in his action
at law until be had put in his answer to the bill filed
by the plaintiff.
• The VICE CHANCELLOR having understood that notice
of this application. had been given to the other side,,
granted the injunction. .
COURT OF KING'S BENCH, Wansmnis, JAN. 25.
This being the Anniversary of the Converson of St.
Paul...the Judges appeared in their scarlet robes. Lord
Teynharn. sat on the Bench. by the side of Mr. Justice
Dimas during the greater part of the day.

• MANDAMUS&
The COMMON SINOSANT applied to the Court for a
rule tashevecause why a oraNdennsis should not be issued,
directed.•to the Bishop of Rochester, to institute the
Rev: Walter King to a prebend in that Cathedral.—
The• Learned Counsel stated that the See of Rochester

had:been incorporated, by. charter, in the reign of Henry
VilLand Mr. King had been appointed archdeacon of
the .diocese during the lifetime of his father, the late
Bishop. • The prebend. was appurtenant to the Atch-
deaconry, a union having been made, by letters patent,
in the yesr 1637. After the decease of the late Bishop,
the Lord Chance;'or, under a supposition that the pre-
.bend was vacant, had presented to it a Gentleman con-
vected, witb the University of Cambridge.
• Lord Tietreanets suggested whether the matter mighi
• cot be tried by lucre impedit.
-The Common SEKGRANT thought it could not. The
-right of patronage was now claimed by the Crown, and
the Lord Chancellor,,acting fur his Majesty, had made
a. presentation to the Prebend, which it was now,sought
io vacate, on the ground that since the union of the
•Prebend with the Atchdeaconry, the Crown bad no

right of reientaticar. •
lamd.Testrattsparr inquired .whether the title could
ito!.bp tried by some form of real action?
I:he COMAION SEarkgva said be thought nor. The
p..trt blet• t had been tomtit*. considered, and no remedy
but that which was now sought could be devised. for
restoring things to their former footing..
51,r. Justice( BAYLEY suggested whether the archdea-
con snight.am,preserst binasilf to the prebend.
. The Cameos+ Bsitoaawr said, it bad been found that
the archdeacon had no power to present either himself
orany' other pascal—
Lord TtaTERDin obstkved, that a mandamus wad
Tatter in-unusual remedy for such a put pole as this.
The COMMON SERGEANT said there was a precedent
for kin one .instance with reapect to ibis very Cathe-
dral. The Learned Counsel traen rtferred to a caie in
Barnardiston, in which a mandamus had been issued to`
compel institution to a prebend. He said an examina-
hacl been made with a view to see whither any
ftnm of teal action would furnish a remedy in this case,
but as. here the Crown was a parry against the Crown,
flambee mode than a mandamus could be devised:
The Couttr at length granted the rule.
BRENT V. FISHER. •

-This leis an action against- several inhabitants of the
town if Cambridge, to try the question whether the
Gptpssvasioe of Cambrifige have a tight to certain tolls
4:l4ivised by theift? The cause was tried at the sittings
aker Lot Michaelmas Term, before Lord Tenterdee,
whew ta-verdict u as found for the plaintiff, establishing
thwright- Of the. Corporation to the tolls in question.
- rite ATTOINEY.6ISNERAL now applied for a rule to
-slum cause why the verdict should not be set aside, and
a.mreetttithad.,.rm the ground that the verdict was
against4he weight of evidence, and the Learned Judge
4seal.tort one point hais4irected the Jury. The Learned
Omostl at/vetted shortly to the principal facts given in
revidessce on the triali.a.full detail of which we gave at'
the tune, and. be contended that the evidence against
41.14;4 set up by the corporation preponderated in
lattoor ui the slefenslatrs, .
word TOFtgiants aaid.tbere was certainly sufficient
sgroundsto induce the Court to wish that the matter should
r der go furife r ni granted.
TON ICING V. TH MAYOR AND CORPORATION OP

, , •. , DOKASTER. .
'ibis Will rult,, calling upon the Mayor and Car
potation at nisicittor -to stew cause wit, a writ of wee-
,ainends should;-notissue, directing them to admit as a
fret**, of. that borough a person of the name of
Bucklartd, who xlaimed his freedoms from having been
articled for seven years w a Gentleman of the name of
Mason, au attorney, in the town of auscasterd •
The.bructroa Gewrent. (with whom.was Mr. PAT"
KESOS) stow appearei to sheetwse against the rule.
fk oh.errecl • that . the only question, was, whether a
custom, which existed in. the .booktikh of Doncaster,
entitling any person who had served.an apptenticeship
co seven years to a trade, tu be idethted so the freedom
at the borough, crania. be. eatended. to the raise of 4 clerk
articled-to an attorney for seven years? Us applicant,
in the raw* case,.who bad served a regular de/kith+
p Doncaster, had been vefused admission to the free..
Om of the bproegh, on the ground that he heti .not
heenapprenticed to a trade, but to a.profeision, which
Ancona', %tidos the custom of the borough. He
has not sheen any instinces in which a person articled
to an attorney or aoy other profession bad been ad-

mitted to the treed Ons of- the borough, and no by-law
was found to exist which gave the right to such admix.
lion. In many of the old corporations which were
instituted for the purposes of trade, mention was made
of several fraternities-or guilds of trade, but there was,
no mention of a guild or fraternity of attorneys; and
the records of the borough of Doncaster spewed many.
instances in which persons had been refused the freedom
of the borough, because they had not been.apprenticed
to a trade. The short question therefore was, whether
an attorney was to be considered as a person in trade,
according to the general meaning of that term?
After a few words from the ATTORNEY GENERAL in'
support of the rule, . ,
Lord TENTERDEN said, it was quite Clear that this'
could not be considered as an aporeaticeship to a trade.
In some cases it would be difficult to say what was and
what was not a trade, but there could be no difficulty
in saying that an attorney was not a trader.
Buie discharged with costs.
THE KING V. JAMES BROWN, RSQ.
The ATTORNEY GENERAL (with whom was Mr. At.-
Daimon) appeared to show cause against a quje
.ob-
tained last Term, at the instance of Sir Wm. Brabazon,
High Sheriff of the county of Mayo, calving upon the
defendant to shew cause why a criminal information
should not be filed against him, for the publication of
a libel. The Learned Counsetiobservad, that the alleged
libel was in the form of a speech, purporting to have
been delivered by Mr. Brown, in his place in Parlia-
ment. A considerable portion of the affidavits filed on ,
applying for the rule, consisted in details, for the pur-
pose of shewing that Mr. Brown was the author of the,
alleged libellous speech. He, however, would at once
„Admit Mr. Brown to be the author of the matter corn-
plained of, and would avow also that itlr. Brown had
sent it for publication to a London paper; and having
done so, be would now proceed to shew that Air.
Brown was fully 'justified- in making the statements
contained in his speech, ur, at all events, that,. Sir
William Brabazon was not entitled to the extra
ordinary interposition of the Court, which, by the
present rule, he sought to obtain, but must be left
to the ordinary remedy of action or indictment.—
The Learned Counsel then proceeded to read the
speech from a Morning Paper which he held in his
hand; it was of considerable length, and commenced by
observing that men invested with low power should
be prevented from inflicting on society the greatest
crime known to the law, and that there were men now
at large who had entered into a conspiracy to commit
such a crime.• It then went on to state, in substance,
that at the election for the county of Mayo in June last,
Lord Bingham and the defendant were candidates;
that the• defendant, for the purpose of preventing a
tumult taking place after the election, hid declined
being chaired, but that, as he and some of his friends
'were proceeding opt of the town of Castlebar, where
the election took place, a body of men, aimed with
stones, suddenly sprang upon a wall near the highway.
and assailed his carriage by throwing stones in great
numbers at it.; that the horses were stunned, and
altimately knocked .down;, that one person was
Wed on the spot, several were wounded,. and every
Gentleman in the carriage severely wkaded—the
defendant himself having several of his ribs fractured
that a public inquiry was instituted into the outrages,
the result of which had shown that Sir Wm. Brabazon
had received direct and repeated information frOm the
chid constable of police,. that a scheme of murder had
been long before organized, and was to be put in exe,
cution on the day of the election, in erderito.give it the
colour of a snob tumult; that Sir Wm. Brabazon, nes
glected or interfere to prevent the outrages, and refused
the assistance of the officers of the police to allay them;
The-speech, after'atating a variety of minor particulars,
concluded by laying, that if su:h a proceeding were.
to be allowed to pass unpunished, the only inference
to be drawn from. it would be. that the Sheriff and
several listless wretches could enter into a conspiracy
to render the civil office unavailing, and that he'
could do that with impunity in virtue of his office,
for which any other man in the empire would be
hanged. The Learned Counsel then adverted to
the affidavit of Sir William Brabazon, filed in sup-
port of the rule, which negatived many of the allega-
tions made by Mr. Brown, and explained many of the
cit cumstanses which he had brought for ward in support
of his statement in the House of Commons. The At-
torney General then detailed at great length the contents
of the affidavits filed in opposition to the rule op.she
par— •t.qf Mr. Brown.. They were the affidavits of the
Inspector General of the Police, and the Chief Constable
at Castlebar, and of Lieuts. Higgin, Brown, and several
other persons. Tbey stated, that Sir W. Brabazon, pre-
. •
emus to the election,had notice o' the premiditated attack
which was afterwards made by the mob: that Major
Warburton 48pliBki SO bigi to know what number of men
he would requorl,b) Fumy. the peace, and offered
to furiiiish hies walk. any force that he might think ne-
cessar,y;.that.before it was known that there would not
be a contest, bmegvested to have 360 men, but after-
wards stated that SO would be sufficient; that on the
morning of the 24th of June, when the election took
place, a great number of persons in the interest of Lord
Bingham (who had previously declared their intention
to riot)Assembled in the Court House, having broken
open the doors; that on their coming into the town,
they shouted for Lord Bingham, and denounced ven-
geance on the Brown patty ; that they had armed
themselves with bludgeons and boughs of trees, and
went about crying out, " Diwn with the Browns;'!,
some of them swearing that they would kick the Brown
party out of the town; that previous to the actual
outrages taking place, Sir William Brabazon was aware
that there was every indication of a tumult being about
to commence, having heard many of the expressions that
were by he mob; notwithstanding which he
went to..the barracks, and left word that none of the
men should go out until he gave them tacky ; and that
on coming from the barracks, he retired to the com-
mittee room of Lord Bingham, of .whom he was a Ciend
and partisan; that in consequence of this the police
remained locked up in the barracks doting the greater
part of the time chat the riot was going on; that
Sir William Brabazon refused to interteie to quell the
tumult; and on being applied to after cries of murder
were heard, he coolly said " Never mind it, it does not
signify,' and immediately sat down in Lord Bingbam's
Committee Room to take refresmepts. The affidavits
then went on to state in detail the various acts of out-
rage committed, and the injury done to many indivi-
duals. Two, persons, it appeared, had been killed, and
many. others severely wounded. Tlaettffidasia of Sir W.
Brabazon, we have already observed, contained a de-
nial if many of the statements made on,the part of Mr.
Brown. The Attorney-General commented at vat
length op die ifiadoua details, and. observed, that it the
Sheriff had taken the proper prycautiocts Ac might have
enced any riot taking place 4 and sailOss aka, after
kotimatiou givers tp him that uruzder„was.,being
nrimirted, have prevented away, of, 141., totes that
SOksaegoently took place. POMO „Crow; fire
nesse or some other cause, •har,l, beeitluilty of a dere,
heck)* of his duty as a peace officer, and that was what

Mr. Brown ha] charged him with. He did not mean
to say that he and the other persons had conspired to
commit murder ; but that by shining his eyes to the
outrages that were going on, he had connived at them,
and was therefore fairly subject to all the observations
that had been made.
Mr. ALDERSON folio wed on the same side.
Mr. BROUGHAM rose to support the rule, but was
interrupted by
Lord TENTERDEN, who said it was too late to go on
with the case today.
The further arguments were then postponed till to-
morrow (this day).
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS,u .!Immtsayrft, JAN. ?A
DEARY V. BROAPBELT.

Ti.is was an action for a breach of promise of mar.
riage. , It was tried at Westminster; before Mr. Justice
(laselee, during the sittings after last Michaelmas
Term, when a verdict was found for the plaintiff. da-
mages 5001. It appeared at the tri.il that the plaintiff
some titne since assisted her uncle, as bar-maid, in a
public-house belonging to him on the Chelmsford-road,
and it was at this house tlra: the defendant. who is also
a publican, carrying on business in the Whitechapel-
road, first became acquainted with her, but he paid her
no particular attention until the summer of last year,
when she came on a visit to her aunt, Mrs. Nutt, who
lived in Brick-lane, Whitechapel. Here he had frequent
opportunities of seeing her, and in a short time paid his
addresses to her regularly as a suitor. These attentions,
however, lasted only for three weeks, when, without as-
signing any reason whatever, he deserted her and married
another woman, who had a fortune of 1,0001. and whom
the defendant had told the plaintiff-he could at any time•
marry, but that he would rather marry her (the plaintiff)
without a farthing, than the other with all her property.
These being the tacts of the case, the Learned Judge,
in leaving it to the Jury, told them that he thought it
was not a case calling for great or aggravated damages,
nor one in which very small damages should be given.
It appeared to him to be one in which a middle course
would be advisable.—the Jury, however, having re-
tired for some time, returned a verdict for the amount',
before nientioned.
Mr. Sergeant ANDREWS now moved for a rule to shew
cause why that verdict should not be set aside, and a new
trial granted, on the ground of excessive damages. The
Learned Sergeant having read througtrie whole of the
evidence given at the trial, contended that it was not
sufficient to warrant the verdict that had been returneJ,
which was for the full amount at which the damages
were laid in the-declaratioe.
Mr. Justice PACK observed, that this' was the Aria;
time he had ever heard of the Special Pleader's• dish
being given by a Jury. • 2
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE said. thatobe damages
certainly appeared to be •eicessive, and.psiipOsed that
the case should stand over for a few• dayS, that the
attornies might see each other, when probably the plain-
tiff would be content to take something less. . .

Mr. Sergeant ANDREWS assented In this proposal, and
said if the matter should not -be sirranged by Monday
nest, he would on that dal retie* hifipPlication.
INSOLVENT DEBTORS' COURT,'ILi. .25.
James Holbrook, an °Meer connected with the'
Blockade t2ervice, was brndght up for further hearing,
when he was declared to be entitled to his discharge,
an ineffectual opposition having been raised against him
on a previous day.
Mr. Warwick thefi•addteised the Court and said;that
he was a creditor tolhenmoiintliff 2COI. for cloth sold
to the 'insolvent in the year* 1818, since which title he!
had lost sight'of (witileies)'claitin was -ex.'
'ended from the schedule, and hi should have, been
ignorant of insolvent'siappereittioll'ibut for Seeing a
notice 'of it in a liestripipet,, • ' -
The insolvent waft- hereupon oe:timed. upon this
matter, when it appeared tlfin formet4he.ssas a Black-
weSl Hall-factor, andlid 6:inflicted-debts fix cloth-to,
a considerable amount, 'but as to had beeodeprived of
his books by an execution, lie-hacr iiot inserted these,
debts in his sc! cattle, not knowing the amounts or the
residence of the polies.
Mr. Commissioner HAEntiriaid, that the loss of boo Es.
was no excu,e for excluding debts from the schedule,
and it was quite clear that the most important points
connected with that doeuntent had been studiously
concealed from the view oT the-Court. -
,The insolvent was then remanded to saktdreitize, and'
to give notice to Mf."Wirifick and the:Other opposing'
creditors ; and ordered to amend his schedule brin-
setting all a editor 4 connecied with. the iltith trade,