Star.
London, England, 1829-11-26 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF CHANCERY, Nov. 25.
DI RR BRIONILL. A LOWATSC.
When this matter came regularly before the Court, on the last
lunatic petition day, Counsel did nee appear to support the petition.
sod the Lord CHascu.soa having himself read the affidavits which
principally regarded the conduit of the medical gentleman (Dr.
Routh) attending the lunatic, ordered the petition to be :dismissed,
the charges brought against that'gentleman having been, in his opi-
nion, totally without foundation. Subsequently the Solicitor-Ge-
neral applied to have the petition restored. on the ground that the
petitioners had been taken by surprise. This was resisted, and to
day was appointed for the point, on notice of motion having been
d to that effect, whether or not the petition should be restored
to the paper for the purpose of being reheard. When it was brought
on this morning by the Solicitor-General.
31r. Holum consented to the petition being again beard upon all
the affidavits that bad been heard before the Court on the former
petition day.
The Soucerea-Gssasas contended that he had a right to file
additional affidavits in answer to some that bad been filed and not
replied to.
Mr. Holten opposed this proposition.
The Loan CnaecaeLos considered that as the Solicitor-General
came here to have the petition restored, as a matter of favour. in
an ordinary case the petition ought to be heard upon the aMdavits,
as they were before the Court on the preceding day ; but, as a
lunatic's comfort was concerned, he regarded it to be his duty to
read all the affidavits that might be deemed necessary to be filed on
either side before the petition came on to he finally heard. The
petition was ordered, under these circumstances, to come on the
nest petition day.
ennui' v. nitwit.
This is a question of legitimacy, the particulars of which have
been very often before the public. The present application was
for a new trial. The Solicitor-General was speaking the whole
morning. Mr. Denman, Mr. Pollock, and other Gentlemen of the
common law bar, are retained. The arguments will probably oc-
cupy several days.
COURT OF KING'S BENCH, Nov. 25.
consumes? imams Tel GAMS LAW.
DDASDALR V. CLARK.
This was an action for false imprisonment. The plaintiff was
convicted of offences against the Game Laws, namely, sporting
without qualification or licence, and committed by the defendant,
a Lancashire Justice, on non-payment of the penalty, to the House
of Correction. The warrant of commitment was defective, in as
much as it did not state that the offence was committed within the
jurisdiction of the defendant, and other matter consistent with the
conviction. At the trial a verdict was found for the plaintiff with
liberty to the defendant to move for a noasuit.
Mr. Sergeant Caoss accordingly brought the subject before the
Court, and contended that it was not necessary the Justice should
state in a warrant that the offence was committed within his juris-
diction. He submitted that errors in the warrant could not be
made ground for an action against a Justice, and finally obtained a
rule for a nonsuit.
Mr.BROUGUAII this day showed cause against the rule,and argued,
that as the warrant did not justify the imprisonment, the plaintiff
was entitled to sustain his action.
The Coves took time to deliver judgment. •
CAUSES STRUCK ore TIER TAPIR.
Lord Triturates:to, adverting to the state of the business before
the Court, said, " There have been several applications to the
Court to restore special causes which have been struck out of the
paper by reason of the non-attendance of persons during the sittings
under the last Judge's warrant. Some were struck out in conse-
quence of mistakes, and they are to be restored. As to others
struck out by the parties being absent, we think we ought to allow
the same—not to be restored to the former position, but to be re
entered at the bottom of the list. We wish it to be understood
that this is the last time we shall be disposed to give indulgence of
this kind. It is necessary that suitors do not treat the High Court,
acting under the warrant and authority of his Majesty, with in-
difference."