Star.
London, England, 1819-05-28 00:00:00

L4o' INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF CHANCERY.
THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL, ON THE RELATION 01
IiODGEs V. JOHNSON AND THE CITY Or LONDON.
Mr. WETHERELL stated, that he was now to move
(or an injunction, at the instance of his Majesty's
Attorney-General, against the defendants, to restrain
them from committing certain nuisances on the
banks of the Thames, at Milbank-row. The case
was yesterday before the Vice Chancellor, but, with-
out hearing the merits of the case, his Honour re-
fused it, as an ex-parte application. the Vice Chan-
cellor had contended, that more mischief was occa-
sioned by erparte hearings than by anything else.
The practice of this Court was, however, quite diffe-
rent from what was stated elsewhere. The merits of
the case were shortly these :—ln the front of Mil-
bank-row there was a kind of curve, forming a bay
of 30 or 40 feet deep. On the right hand side of
this there was a row of houses ; and by this street
there was an approach to the Penitentiary. The Mayor
and Corporation of London were the Conservators of
the River Thames ; and they, along with Mr. John-
son, a builder, and Earl Grosvenor, were about to
build a bank there, and to erect wharfs. The Attor-
ney-General opposed this being done :—in the first
place, on the ground of the City having no right to
do so ; and, secondly, from the soil not belonging to
any of the parties. The bay was formed by the end
of the street and the remains of Lord Grosvenor's old
garden wall ; and the current in the middle of the
River being there very strong, it afforded a comfort-
able shelter to lightermen and beats in going up and
down the River In stormy weather. This alteration
would now tend to deprive them of that shelter,
which was so agreeable, and the place become a re-
ceptacle for night soil. The plaintiff was, therefore,
quite justified in coming forward ; for while the
Corporation of London were Curators of the River,
to prevent nuisances, they ought ro be restrained from
receiving money for such property as was not their
own. An indictment was presented against them last
year, and a true Bill was found by the Middlesex
Grand Jury, on which the work was stopped ; but
it had been begun again in the last month, and was
now carrying on with increased energy. Notice of
trial was given, and the case would be tried before
the Lord Chief Justice Abbott en the 3I st instant, but
in the mean time all the mischief might he don:.
The Loan CHANCELLOR said, that this was a mo-
tion which he felt to be of the first public import-
ance. He agreed with the Vice Chancellor, that
much mischief arose from ex-torte hearings ; but
then this Court was to judge whether inure mischief
was not occasioned by refusing the injunction. The
Attorney-General had, on the part of the Crown, a
right to s:!.e that no nuisance was made to the public
injury. There were few cases of F. siinil it nature
ever heard in this Court, as many of them had beer:
taken to the Court of Exchequer and some by him.
self when he was Attorney-General. He knew the
spot wheye the pretended improvement was going
on, and ha was astoni,hed why the Vice Chancellor
shnuld have refused the injunction. He looked on
the case as one of the greatest public importance :
and viewing it in that li;ght, he, without a moment's
hesitation, granted the injunction.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, MAY 22.
tVIIIT OF LEVARI FACIAS.

Mr. P. Pot LOOK applied to the Court on behalf of
Moseley Woolf,' for a rule to hew cause why two
writs of levarifacias, which had been issued against
the property of Mr. Woolf, should not be set aside.
He made this application on affidavits, which stated,
that all the property of Mr. Woolf in London and
Middlesex had been taken under these writs. He,
Mr. Pollock, had searched the books with the utmost
care, and could find but one case which could at all
be construed into an authority for this proceeding:
that was a case reported in Shower, 166, under the
title of the King and Webb ; in Sir J. Jones, p. 185,
under the title of the King and Wade; and in Skin-
ner's Abridgment, p. 12, under the same title; and
this was a case of levy under a levaripcins, in which
the party really interested, namely, the persons to
whom the property taken belonged, did not object to
the proceeding. This case occurred 140 years ago,
and had never been acted on since ; and he trusted
all the King's subjects were not to be bound by such
an authority as this, unsupported by any other.
The Clf II:F JUSTICE.—Haw unsupported, Mr. Pol-
lock ? It is the daily practice, that the King may
take body, land, and goods.
Mr. PoLLocK.—My Lord, I can find no such au-
thority. _ _

Mr. Justice BAYLEY.—.I will tell you one, Mr.
Pollock. Baron Gilbert says, " there is a writ called
a long one, by which the Crown can take body, land,
and goods." I believe that is the writ of extent.
Mr. Pott.octc.—Yes, my Lord ; but I can find no
case in which, a defendant having been sentenced to
fine and imprisonment, a writ orlevarifacios issued
immediately to enforce payment of the fine. If these
writs were allowed, here would be a pi oceeding on,
the part of a subject whicli interfered with the exer-
cise of the prerogative of me: :y on the part of the
Crown. The Crown might see good ground to remit
the fine altogether at some future period, and to par-
don the defendant.

The CHIEF Jus-rtcs said, the present application
complained of no particular act, but grounded itself
on the legality of the proceeding of the law. The
Court•entertained no doubt, if any fact should arise
out of it injurious to Mr. Woolf, the present decision
of the Court would not shut 'him out from his futere
remedy. It had been said, that the authority for this
proceeding was not to be received because it occur-
red under the reign of the house of Stuart ; he could
recognize nu such doctrine. This would be to un-
settle and discredit all the decisions of the Judges of
those days—a most extraordinary proposition. But
the question did not rest o• this authority : by the
common law, the King could take body, lands, and
goods ; and there was no doubt he might do se in
this case also.

The rest of the Court agreed in this opinion, and
the application was refused.

- -
MAY 27.—HOLLINGSWORTH V. VINCIEL
This was an action to recover the value of a horse,
lent by the plaintiff to the defendant. Both parties
lived at Whitechapel. Some time in April, 1818, the
defendant having occasion to go to Walthamstow,
borrowed a poney from the plaintiff to make the
journey with. He rode very hard, and upon his
reaching Walthamstow, though the animal was in a

great heat, he was suffered to chink a great quantity
of cold water, and had but a small allowance of
oats. This treatment was soon followed by the na-
tural consequences, for on the defendant's return
home, the horse became so ill with the gripes, that
he lay down on the road, and was unable to proceed
farther. A farrier, who was on the spot, was called
upon, and he gave an opinion that it would be ne-
cessary to leave the horse in his care for a day at
least, for bleeding, and some other remedies, before
he would be able to leave the place. With this pro-
position the defendant declined complying, and only
applied some gin as a temporary remedy, suggested
by the farrier. The rider proceeded, but as he reached
town the horse, exhausted by sufferings, dropped dead
under kim. The plaintiff now sought to recover the
price of him.
The defence was, that it was from a disease con-
tracted before, and not from the effects of recent ill
usage, that the animal had died.
The Jury, however, thought otherwise, and found
for the plaintiff—Damages £l4.

GLOSSOP V. THE DRURY-LANE COMMITTEE.
This was on action on a special contract, and for
work and labour, and goods sold and delivered, in
lighting the Theatre for a certain time.—Mr. Scan-
LETT appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. GWRNEY for
the defendants.—The Jury gave a verdict for the
plaintiff on the first count, being the special. contract,
for £649. ss. and on the 2d, 3d. 4th, and sth counts,
for work and labour, and goods sold and delivered,
for £490. 13s. 4d. making together £1,130. ISs. 4d.
SECONDARIES' OFFICE, Coutg.N-state:, MAT 22.
OLYMPIC THEATRE.-..-GREENWOOD V. ELLISTON.
This was an action brought to recover a sum of
'£.175, for scenery, materials, &c. furnished for the
use of the Olympic 'theatre. The defendant had
suffered judgment to go by default, and a Jury as-
sembled to assess the damages.
Mr. Twtss appeared to support the plaintiff's claim.
Mr. ADOLPHUS, for the defendant, contended at
great length against the claim. The whole, he said,
was an overcharge beyond precedent, and ought to
be greatly reduced. Mr. Elliston did not dispute
that the plaintiff was entitled to a certain sum, but
he disputed the charge solely on the ground of its
exorbitaney. In the course of his observations, he
adverted particularly to the charge made on 1628
square yards of canvas, and on what was termed
extra charges. Ile concluded by calling on the Jury
to give such Oamages as the plaintiff was in strict
justice entitled to.
After an able summing up, the Jury found for the
defendant so far as the reduction of £5O on the extra
charges, and one-eighth of the aggregate amount on
the 16'26 yards of canvas.