Star.
London, England, 1829-12-14 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF CHANCERY, D. it.
TB! 11101.1CITOI•011111111ML AND Sill C. WITIISIILL.
' Sir C. Waruaanz. took his seat at the bar before the Loao
CNANCELLOa entered the Court; soon afterwards the Solidtor-
General passed Sir Charles, and tooklis usual place, but the two
Learned Gentlemen took not the slightest notice of each other.
The Loan Cmascauns, after he bad delivered a judgment, said
I have read in one a the public Papers this morning something
that passed in Court, yesterday—certain expressions used at the
bar. I certainly did not bear those expressions—l mean the of
expressions—otherwise I should have thought it my duty

to have interfered at the time.
The Souciton-Gzattass,—lf your Lordship alludes to any thing
in which I Was a party, I can only say I have not seen a Paper, and
therefore I can make no timber observation.
The Loan Cuancamoa--Something was said in an under tone
that did not reach me. I 'think it my duty now to mention It.
because it would have been my imperative duty to have interfered
at the time, if those expressions had reached me.
The Sor.rctroa•Gmsaut. said nothing more.
Sir C. WITHIRELI. made no remark whatever, but listened at-
tentively to what fell from the Bench.
The trios- went through his avocations as If nothing
unpleasant had transpired.

SCOTT T. MANSON.
The LORD CHANCILLON said that in this appeal (arguments In
which were concluded,) there were two quesdons ; first, whether a
certain meadow had been fraudulently described in articles of sale
as a water-meadow ? And next, whether a good title bad been
otherwise made to the meadow? It was true that the owner had
not such uncontrolled power over a river that watered the meadow
as w enable him at all times completely to Irrigate It, yet he bad
undoubtedly the ability of watering it to a certain extent. The
meadow was to be regarded, therefore, as an imperfectly watered
meadow, but net as a non-watered meadow. For the last century
it had been known and passed by the name of a water meadow.—
It was not the owner, but the assignees of the bankrupt owner,
that had sold it. In the entries in the Court Rolls (three or four)
since the year 1718, the meadow had always been described as the
Mill Meadow, and containing six acres, althaigh in point of fact
it contained fourteen, acres. In the arguments it had been sug-
gested that part of the meadow might be freehold property. This'
was a possible, but not a probable circumstance ; so possible how-
ever, that the Vice-Chancellor had done right in directing it to go
back to the Master on a further inquiry, for the purpose of re-
moving this slight doubt. Tue Court, under these circumstances,
confirmed the judgment below, both as to the meadow being
a water-meadow, and the' propriety of referring it back to the
' charter.
The Sotachoa•GIUIZILAL applied for the cots on behalf of the
Respondent.
Mr. Vi'atowe opposed the application. His client had been kept
out of a good title for nineteen years, which he regarded as no very
trifling hardship.
The Limo Cnexestioa ordered the deposit to be returned, but
refused to give further costs.
COURT OF KING'S BENCH, Dsc. 12.
(Sittings at Nisi Frits, Westminster—Common Juries.)
NUM V. WALKS'S AND °THUM
This was an action brought by the plaintiff, Matilda Kerr, a
minor, for an assault and false imprisonment.
'the ATIORNET.GANZSAL stated that the plaintiff was a minor,
and assisted her mother Maria Kerr, and Pb.be Jones, who car-
ried on the business of ,dress-makers in the Strand, in making out
the accounts and keeping the books. The defendant Walker re-
sided-in the Commercial-road, and had drawn a bill of exchange for
£l5 on the firm of Kerr and Jones, which was accepted by the
plaintiff as their book-weeper, and he said that they owrd him A 5
more. The mother sent to Walker to ask him to let the bill stand
over, which he refused. When it became doe, not being paid, he
endow a writ in the Palace Court for twenty pounds against
Xerrand Jones, which was given to Driscol, the officer, to en-
force. The defendant Richards (Walker's clerk) went with
Driscol, and meeting the plaintiff on this side Temple-bar, told the
officer to take her, which be refused, as she was the wrong person.
Richards than said that be would indemnify him, and Driscoll then
took her to Glass's, a lock-up house. Richards, to intimidate the
plaintiffs told her at as the acceptance was in her writing it was
a forgery. During the time that Seett.ua Idend of the plaintiff,
was endeavouring to Ind bail, the defendant Walker came, and
said he did not cars, be would keep her as a screw upon the mo-
ther. The Learned Attorwereesseml went on to state that be un-
derstood that the defence 'weiribia she was known by the name of
Mutsu well as Matilda. •
Lord TIMMS= said that the plea put on the record did not
agree with the writ, but he would retire and take the opinion of the
Judges upon it.
Upon his Lordship's return, she As:otter GOMM. said that
they had determined to refer the case to some Gentleman at the
Bar.—The Jury accordingly found a verdict for the plaintiff, sub-
ject to a reference.
BOARD OF EXCISE, Dec. it
Ur. John Mealdsouse, a.whpleule spirit-dealer, in Fair-street,
Horsley:lows. was charged with retailing spirits without a license.
Thomas Metcalf stated, that on the 31st of July he went to die
defendant's house, and by representing that he came from St.
James's-place, was supplied by the defendant with a gallon of
brandy and another of gin, althoughthe defendant, who is a whole-
sale dealer, could not legally sell a less quantity than two gallons
of each kind. The defendant said 'at the time that he did a great
deal of business In that way.
The Consummates lined him ,212 10s. for the offence.
He was then charged on two other informations with having a
deficiency of 17 paws of spirits, on the List June • and also* do.
Magner of 11 gallons on the 24th' August, neither of which deli-
deuces was accounted for as having been sent out by permits. The
penalty is 20s. per gallon so unaccounted for.
The Conn Mod him ten shillings for every gallon deficient in
the stock.
Mr. Louis, landlord of a public house in Chancery-lane, was Mod
410 for having a bottle of mixture in his cellar, which is used for
colouring beer. The defendant said be did not know that the
mixture was in the cellar, and be supposed it was there when be
took the house.
. John Evans was fined £lOO for having in his possession 1071bs.
of soap, on which duty had not been paid.