Star.
London, England, 1827-06-25 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF CHANCERY, Jess el •
At .the opening of the Court, Mr. Buoy9nA4 111)•
paved sittio,nhehihd the Bar.
The Loicti:GniSilscer.Lea,orstaking his seat, adds-milli
the Learned tientleman, and informed him thay„.hits
Majesty had been graciously pleased to grant him a
Patent of Precedency, and he was thereby required to
take his seat 'within the Bar.
Mr. Bauuostast took his seat accordingly within the
Bar and being asked whether he had any motion to
imake? stated that he had a motion to make in the case
of Mr. Wellesley.
'The LORD. CRANCRLLOR expressed a wish that it
could be postponed till the Bankrupt Petitions should be
disposed o'. After a short conversation, the motion
was postponed to Monday.

IMPARTS BURGESS, IN RE BURGESS.
Mr. SIMMER, in support of a petition presented by
the bankrupt, praying that the commission issued
against him might be superseded, argued that the
bankrupt was aot a trader within the meaning of the
statute, having only made bricks from his own estate.
The fact was, the petitioning creditor having made love
to Miss Fanny Turner, the daughter-in-law of the bank-
rupt, a young Lady of fourteen, with a fortune of 8,0001.
and not being successful, issued a commission of bank-
rup:cy against her father-in-law.
Mr. Rosa and Mr. SwANSToN contended, that the
bankrupt was a trader within the words of the last Act
of Parliament, which included all persons engaged in
the "workmanship of goods and commodities."
The Loan CHANGIII.I.OII was satisfied that the words
in the last Act were not intended to have the operation
contended for; bth as it was a novel and an important
point, he would not give his decision till he had more
maturely considered the case.

VICIL-CHANCELLOWS COURT, JIM 23.

. - .
♦RIGNA YINING COYPAMIT.-NITCHINS V. CONCIREVZ

DROODILD, AND °THUM.
This was a suit instituted by the plaintiff, as well for
himself as others, the Shareholders in the Arigna
Mining Company, against the defendants, who were,
the Directors of it.
Mr. PANHERTON moved that the plaintiffs might be
at liberty to examine James Hinde before the Master,
de bent esse, he being now about to leave this country fur
the purpose of residing abtoad. The application was,
foundeJ on the affidavit of the plaintiff's solicitor, which
set forth that Hinde was a necessary witness, and that
he Understood from him, a short time since, that he
was abodt to proceed to the East Indies, with the inten-
tion of remaining these. Hinde at the same time in•
formed him that he was ready and willing to be now
examined. In answer to the application, an affidavit
was put in, stating that Hinde was himself a Share-
holder, and as such necessarily interested in the suit;
but this was an objection which the Learned Gentle
man thought could be removed by Hinde*s transferting
his share•.

Mr. l'irmustons said. that he appeared for James
Brogden, the Messrs. Clark, and one or two other de-
fendants, who had not demurred to the Bill ; other
defendants lad, however, put in demnrrers which were
not yet disposed of. The Learned Gentleman appre-
hended, that under these circumstances the application
could not be granted. The defendants, who had filed'
these demur lets, denied that the Plaintiffshid any eguitt,
and of course could not examine the witness. So that
Lis client would, by the order now prayed, beploced in
a situation different from those who had- precisely the
same interest with him. The Bill was tiled by the
cla;ming for himself and the other Share-
holder., the sum of 15,0001. which three individuals in-
sisted on retaining, under the impression that it belonged
to them, to the exclusion of the Shareholders.

• The VICE-CHANCELLOR thought the application one
SlNcli could not be refused.
WILKES V. LORD PALMERSTON AND OTHERS.

Mr. CUTNG applied to have the demurrer put into
the plaintiff's bill advanced to the head of his Honour's
paper. The bill was filed by Mr. Wilkes for the pur-
pose of enforcing a contract with the defendants, for
the sale of mines to the value of between seventy-six
and eighty thousand pounds. The defendants had
commenced an action at law against the plaintiff' in
respect of the matter which was in suit here ; and
it was, therefore, of the utmost importance to Mr.
Wilkes, that the demurrer should be disposed of, in
order that he might have the benefit of thi answer of
the defendants:

A junior Barrister said, that he was with Mr. Horne,
for the defendants, and assured his Honour that he was
not aware of the action at law, to which allusion had
been made. At all events, the action was not comi►►g
on so speedily as to warrant this application.
The Vice CHANCELLOM—It would appear, Mr.
Chyng, that your client is rather nervous (the imputa-
tion of nervousness to Mr. Wilkes excited considerable
merriment in Court).• His Honour refused the appli-
cation, observing, that there was nothing before him
which led him to think that the Court ought, in this
instance, to depart from the regular course of business.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, Just,.
slit 0. MOSELEY, emir. V. WALIEZR

This was an action on the case against the defendant,
for selling fish in his private shop, at Manchester, to
the prejudice of the plaintiff, as grantee of the mat ket
of that town. At the last Summer Amzes for Lanca.
shire, the plaintiff had a verdict for one shilling. A
Rule Nisi for a new trial having been granted in Mi-
chaelmas Term, cause was now shewn by the ATTOR•
NSF-GENERAL, Mr. STARKIZ, and Mr. WIGHTHAN.—
In-support of the flute, Mr. GURNEY was heard. Two
points were made ; first, whether the plaintiff's grant
extended to private shops in the town? and, second,
whether, supposing it did, the plaintiff bad left suffi-
cient space in the market for the defendant to vend his
goods?—The latter being a question of fact, was left
for the Jury, and they found for the plaintiff.
The•Couat were now of opinion that the grant to
tl c plaintiff, as Lord of the market, Wai co-extensive
ith the I.mits of the manor (within which the Men-
ri.tnt lived), and the Jury having found that there was
space enough fir the defendant's accommodation, the
verdict could not be disturbed.—Rule discharged.
GFIOUSE NO GAME.—DUXE OF DEVONSHIRE O. I,ODGE.
This was An action of trespass brought by the plain-
tiff against the defendant, who is a respectable Clergy-
man,. for shooting grouse on a warren belonging to his
Gtoce, which were alleged to be " birds of warren,"—
_ .

i.e. game. In the course of an elaborate aigument on
both sides, yesterday, much merriment occndred.
The Soucyron GENERAL laid it down as a broad
propositioo, that all wild animals fit for human food
must be taken as beasts or birds of warren; whereupon
—Mt. Justice BAYLEY *saved, that was too wide an

argument, because within his own knowledge there iris
a wild bird which m ode a very good puddivg, and let
no one would contend it was a bird of warren—be
meant a sparrow.
The Arrontier CZNERAL, in the course of his argu-
opsent, observed, " We northern men, my Lords, are
very much interested in protecting our grouse, because
we hold them in high estimation ;" whereupon
Lord Trwrannso said, " And we southern men,Mr.
AttorneyZeneral, esteem them equally high when we
can get them."
Lord TENTZRDICX pronounced the following ink.
went, deciding that grouse is not :game ;—" In this
case the principal question was, whether grouse is a
bird of warren? Now the franchise of warren is a very
great fianchise, and gives to the owner or prom ietor an
exclusive right over all wild animals, and over all the
grounds of the Lord—the grantee of the franchise may
go and claim all wild animals that are fed on the land
of another. Such being the nature of the franchise, we
think we cannot extend ir, by any intendment or argu-
ment, to any species of animal which we do not find,
by ancient documents or history, have been deemed
beasts or birds of warren. Now in no book of law is a
grouse mentioned as a bird of warren. Manwood
confines the birds of warren to two descriptions,
namely, pheasant and partridge, and he founds his
doctrine on the form of a writ in the Register, and va-
rious other writs to be found in old books, and in these
we find birds of warren and beasts of warren mentioned
generally ; but in the writ in the Register the !Oasts and
birds of warren are enumerated, hare, coney, pheasant,
and partridge; and in all other instasices we only find
some one or mare t•I these four ire mentioned. It is
not, perhaps, at this great distance of time, very easy ,
to say why one description of animal should be deemed;
a beast or bird of warren, and another not; but theie
may be some reason to suppose, that, according id. the
manner of hawking, or hunting, or taking birds of war-
ren, in very ancient times, before the hivent'on of guns
and powder, grouse was not a bit d that could be taken
by any of the ordinary modes of sporting. That may
be the reason of the omission. Another reason may be,
that though it is a bi4d very common, and in great
plenty in some parts of the country, in others it is alto.
gethew unknown. N.t fining it mentioned by any
writer as a bird of wan en, and thinking we ottAht not
to extend the Iranchise to any species of animal not
found in ancient authorities, we are of opinion that
grouse is not a laird of warren, and therefore a nonsuit
must be entered."