Star.
London, England, 1820-02-02 00:00:00

LAW IIYTELLIGfNCE.

COURT•OF KING'S BENCH, FEBRUARY 1.
Their. Lordships (with the exception of Mr. Justice
BAYLEY, who was yesterday sworn) and those olthe
King's Counsel present, took, in open Court, the
oaths of supremacy, abjuration, and allegiance to
his Majesty King George the Fourth, Mr. DEALTRYI
the Officer of the Court, administering them.
PERJURY..•••-.TALE KING D. WRITEHORN.
Hannah Whitehorn was brought up to plead to an
indictment found by the Grind Jury against her, for
wilful and corrupt peijury at a trial at the Old Bai-
ley. It will be recollected, that at the September
Sessions, the defendant charged Captain Mills with
an attempted violation of her person, whilst a servant
in his house, but failing in the proof, the defendant.,
was acquitted. Amongst other things in support of
the prosecution, this girl swore, that from the 29th
of. July, when the act was committed, up to the 12th
of August following, she had no opportunity of let-
ting her mother know her situation, or taking any
steps to extricate herself from it. This allegation
was denied, and the fact itself traversed. The ac-
cused thought himself injured by
a trial for felony
on a groundless charge, and upon this representation
the Grand dui y found a true Bill against the prose-
cutrix for perjury. The Information having been
read over to her, the defendant pleaded Not Guilty,
and she was given to understand, by Mr. DEALTRY,
the Officer, that her trial would come on in the Sit-
tings after Term.

HABEAS CORPUS.
John James, of the City Larder, Old Bailey, a
isrisonet in Nesegate, brought himself up by Habeas
Corp:.:, to have an inquiry made into the legality of
his commitment.
Mr. CURWOOII appeared as his Counsel. It was
by warrant from the a:ommissioners of Bankrupt that
Fe was committed, under a charge of equivocation
and perktry„ as a witness in the examination of
Clarke, of Leicester-square, a Bankrupt. This, he
c:;ntended, was an overstretch of their authority.—.
The question here was, not whether the defendant
was or was not aiding the Bankrupt in defrauding
his creditors (for that could not he denied), but whe-
ther his answers %vele in themselves satisfactory
ehough? At his first examination, he laboured under
mental derangement ; but at a subxquent one, he
was mere explanatory. True, the Commissioners
had large powers, but if they do not-cause to take
the defendant's explanations, his incarceration must
last for life. The charge against him.was,ethat he
had-secreted some papers; and though he refused to
give answers concerning them at first, yet he after-
wards answered, though it eliminated hiinself.
Mr. VC/LDP., oh the other hand, argued, that there
WaS enough on the face of the warrant to justify the
Commissioners in the commitment ; -with regard to
the plea of derangement, it appears that it rose from
intoxication, and the Affidavits he held is his Land,
Wen: to the long tit of say inn, that that drunken-
ness was merely wanten. IL submitted that this
Was an aggravated case. The papers destroyed be-
ing bills of lading, were absolutely necessary to the
Assignees, to obtain posscssion of the Bankrupt's
property, who had absconded, with the assistance of
the defendant.
I.pon these grounds the Court ordered the defendant
to be Temanded. With regard to the answers given,
• their Lordships did not thiak the answers satisfactory,
taking all his answcis together. At the same time,
he would be at liberty to•coma up at ,ineeser time,
svhcn he had better evidence to offer. The prisoner
was therefore remanded.
LIGEL.—EDN4UNDS P. WALTER ANT) BELL.
This was an action brought by the plaintiff, who
• occasionally furnishes accounts of the pi oceedings of
the Police Offices, ;leeriest the Proprietor and Printer
of The Times Newspaper, in which the plaintiff oc-
• casionally contributed intelligence of the nature
stated, for publishing in that Newspaper a paragraph,
charging the plaintiff with sending to the Printer
false intelligence from the Police-Office of Union-
Hall, Soutawaik, falsely purporting to be written, or
sanctioned by Mr. Reeves of that office, with a view
• to obtain money therefore, under such false and
fraudulent pretence.
The defendants had put in their plea in answer to
the Declaration, and Mr. CHI iery now demurred to
, the delendanea plea as wholly defective in form, and
' support of the Declaration.
le- Jr, PLATT very shortly replied, bat -the Court
was pleased to allow bum to amend his plea on the
usual terms, namely, th it the defendants defray the
,;• costs of the past pioceedings.
. (mats V. POOLE.
In this case, the plaitaiff deposited an Exchequer
bill of £lOO, with Panccy and Eaton, stock-brokers,
for the purpose of buying Stock, who pleeged aad
.
4, passed it awayao the defendant, without accounting
to him for the proceeds. They became insolvent
subsequently, and the question now was, wilether as
:re against the defendant, who was the holder of the bill,
an action in borer was maintainabk?
Sir \Vietnam OWEN contended that it was. He
observed that an Exchequer bill was not that sort
of security which was ncgoci.tble, and that the stock
brokers had no right to pass it.
Mr. CHITTY, on the other hand, insisted that an
Exchequer bill should be considered in every respect
as any bill of exchange. He cited several cases in
support of this position.
The Court thinking this a point of some come-
. queace, declined giving any opinion at present.
COMPLAINT AGAINST ATTORNIES.
Mr.GUItN moved for a Rule to spew cause, why
• •three attornics, whom he named, should not pay the
costs of an execution, and answer other matter in the
affidavits which lie held in his hand. It appeared
• that the persons traded under the firm of Park,
Phipps, and Cross, Law-Agency Office, Fleet-court,
V,- and had. been employ.ed.for the plaintiff, who was
or
a
• poor woman, in a suit in which they obtained f
her a eerdictetgainst the defendant; but it was set-
-+ tied by an arbitrator, who awarded that the defend-
• ant should pay by instalments, one of which they,
received, but did not account for. The plaintiff
afterwards noticed to them, that she herself would
receive the next instalment, and did so actually, but
after it was paid they laid on the execution, without
her knowledge, for the debt.—Rule granted.
THE SING V. TUE REV. •-•—••• ikpip. • .
Mr. NOLAN moved to make the Ru:a•absointe in
this case.. ,
• *Mr. GURNEY said, that it was a Rule for. a