Star.
London, England, 1829-02-09 00:00:00

'subject. and they endeavoured to make out a emu
aga;nst him by transposing thedateis. As to the,aptp.
logy, the defendant could not have engaged to 'mime
the license on any such ground, as the matter rieprndeil
on the other Magistrates. Now, be did not think that
a Magistrate could be said •tu' have acted improperli,
although he himself had voted for the refusal of the
license on grounds which 'had .come within .his:oa
,knowledge. He bad not voted, however ; but he was
bound to inform his brother Magistrates of what be
himself had beard and seen. The Learned Counsel
sabmitted, therefore, that the tole ought to be dis-
charged with costs.
Mr. Ranuount. in support of the rule, observed
that the defendant did not deny that be had called Mr,.
Higgs a lying and that he bad written to My.
rel that these two men were to be convicted on the fol.,
lowing day for stealing a gate; and the patties on the
other side swore to his having conducted himself in a
violent and improper manner at Higgs's house: that
conduct was the more improper hoot has being a Clergy-
man.

• Lord TENTIRDIK—Upon the whole.of the case, as k.
has come before us. we see nothing to entitle us to eon•
clude that the defendant acted from corrupt motives,
and therefore we cannot make this rule absolute. Bit
then the defendant does appear to have acted hostile in
the first instance. He said to Mrs. Higgs that she was
A lying b.—, which were improper terms for him to
use; and then he had written to the owner of Higgs''s
house on the 28th September, that two men, Priest an#
Savage, were to be convicted on the following day for
stealing a gate—a thing which it was far from being
creditable in a Magistrate to do. We are, therefore, eif
opinion that the rule ought to be discharged, but with.
out costs on either side.

S.r J. SCARLITT—The defendant was on intbWati
terms with blurrel, and never thought that that letter
would have been made public.—Rule discharged with-.
out costs on either side.

SIPrASTZ INGLIS AND RAMIS, TRUSTERS Or TUE

CVIDITOAS OF LAW AMU cloy/acme.
The Arroanrc GLNIRAL was this day heard in op-i
position to a rule obtained by Sir J. Scarlett, in Hilary,
nr Easter Term last, for a mandamus to compel the
French Compensation Fund Commissioners in hear the.
applicants on the subject of their claims to compensa-
tion. Those entitled to compensation consisted of two
classes. The one was the class of British subjects whis
had sustained losses by the confiscation of British pro-
perty in France in 1793; the other was the class of
British subjects who had sustained losses by confisca-
tions out of the territory of France. Separate funds
we;e appropriated to the payment of each of the classe..
Those belonging to the first class bad been paid in full,
and a considerable surplus remained. Those of the second
class had only been paid 53 per cent. when their fund
was eabanste.i, and the question was, whether, under
the Act Of the 59th of the late King, applicable to this
subject, the claimants of the second class were not en-
titled to resort to the surplus of the fund of the first
class? The Attorney General argued that they were
nor, and Sir James Scarlett that they were, or at least
that they were entitled to be beard before the Commis.
sioners on that point.
The Costar took time to consider before pronouncing
juigmew.
•
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, FZUVART 7. . I
MILLs V. stavarr.

Mr. Sergeant WILDS moved fur a rule to show cause
why a new trial should not be granted in this case, on'
thse ground that the Learned Judge ( Holroyd) who tried
the cause, had, in his address to the Jury, taken an ins.
proper view of the case. Sergearts StNits and Kai-
ad argued at considerable. length against the rule,
which was replied to by Mr. Sergeant Wilde withgo eat
ingenuity, contending, that as the defendant had signed
a deed while a prisoaer in the King's Bench, which had
.eont.ined certain blanks to be filled.up subsequentlyourd
had cot, on their being filled up, re-delivered the deed,
it bad, in fact, become a new instrument, and the the;
defendant was not bound by it. This objection was
overruled by the Laid Chief Justice, who held that a
deed signed and delivered by a party with the know.
ledge of these blanks being left for the purpose of brinp
thereafter filled up, and, after such blanks had been
filled, acknowledging the correctness of the sums and
matters so introduced, was, to all intents and purposes,
the same deed, and did net theref Ire require a new de.
,livery. With this opinion Mr. Justice thistle. and Mr.
Justice Bur rough agreed.— Rule refused.

COURT OF EXCHRQUER, Fn. 7.
THE RING V. MART SWINTON.

The defendant in this case claimed a right of tom
mon in Wooliner Forest, by reason of her residence
within its precincts, that during the late war his Ma.
jetty's Government found it necessary to protect certain
parts of the finest, for the growth of timber, by abridg-
ing the range of common right usually belonging to
those who elsimed that Erivilege ; but, in order to make
up for that deprivation, it was enacted that the per;
sons possessing the tight of common should still enjoy,
that right over .the uninclosed part of tte forest,
without being subject to the payment of any fee what-.
sourer to the Warden, Keepers, &c. end that they should
be at liberty to cut and carry away whatever quantity
of toil or peat they might think proper. This suit was'
'instituted on the past of the Crown against the deltn.
dant fur a uespass, inasmuch as she had cut aNd car-
ried away turf and peat for sale, and to an relent not
warranted by the Act of Parliament. The plea set op
for the defendant was, that having a tight of tomnion,
she had, under dye Act, a right to cut and carry away
whatever quantity of turf or peat she thougist
The Cuter BARON delivered his opinion to the effect
that he did not consider the plea put in as one which
could be received in justification, as it was first Ando-
lately necessary that the defendant should rho* her
tight of common, which not hating been done, the plea
now offered could not be received by the Court, anti
that therefore. the verdict should go for the Crown. •
The other Learned Batons agreed with the Odell
Baron id the view he took of the case; and Mr. Baron
Vaughan added to that opinion his conviction of the de-
fendant having ountepped the meaning of the Ait, as
it could only be imagined to coniedtplate a surlily ut
this article to the event required for the personal use
of those possessing a right of common, as ihe commis
itself could not furnish a supply ad issirnkstns, if any
pets if having the tight of common should think pro-
. Ter to cut and carry away peat to the event attributed
. to the defendant.

A few weeks ago, a stocking weaver, of the village
of An Leicestes shire, sold his w ife for t few shillings.
The wife sett home yids her purchaser very cheer I
folly ; and last Wednesday, as her husband was passing
the hew, homier her at work in a stocking frame, ap-,
paraudy tar contexte..lly. He became maddened with
jealousy, and rtncuteJ a loaded gun, came back, and
was in the act et taki: g aim at her through the window,
when he was seised by a man in the meet, which pro.,
Isaidy saved the wile ('pm being mut dered. The husband,
has been committed to. prison, notlang able to (Aid'
sureties to keep the'prace: