Star.
London, England, 1828-06-26 00:00:00

Tni XING V. IDWARD NOLTE, IOHN DAVY, AND lit1:11Y

NOSTH.
Ati iliplikatints was made in this case for a rule to
show' cans* wily I tiiminal information should slot be
filed against the defendants, who, as Magistrates, con.
victed a perso*of *the name of Cole for an offence un-
der the Game Laws, and for neglecting to deliver a
copy of the information in time to appeal'to the Quar-
ter Sessions.
Cause having been shown against the rule,
Lord TENTERDEN this day gave judgment. Ws
Lordship slated that the Court, upon reading the afEd.-
vits, were of opinion that there *as not enough disclosed
to warrant them in making the rule absolotez, hut as
there were grounds of suspicion that lone dishonest
practices had taken place, the Court iroalcf.do in thi
case as they had heteicfore doile in similar. eases; 'dis-
charge the rule upon payment of Costs by the parties
against whom it was obtained.—Rule discharged. •
THE KING V. JOSEPH Colin! AND-ESTHER KOMI.

• This was an indictment against the defendants. a
Jew and Jewess, for a violent•assAult upon a servant
girl of the name of Lucy Saunders, in Petticoat-lane,
which was committed some time ago, by first show iog
•the prosecutrix an earthenware image of Black Billy
Waters, and telling her that was her likeness. The
female ptisoner then struck the prosecutrix a violent
' blow with the image, and the mdi defepdant held her
down by the hair of the head, whilst the female defen-
dant repeated her blows.
Mr. ADOLPHUS urged, in mitigation of punishment,
that the cause had-been moved morn this Court unneces-
sarily, which would be an immense expense to the de-
•fendants; and
The COURT, under all the circumstances, sentenced
each of them to 14 slays imprisonment in the House of
Correction, and to find sureties for their good behaviour
.for•two years. • •
• • REX V. BROOKES AND OTHERS.

Sir J. SCARLETT applied to. have the rule for an at-
Ault meat against these unfortunate Corporator s of Wells
'discharged. This he did upon an affidavit.of 'he de-
fendants, that they had attended at the election of the
16th cf this rnonthrand that a Mayor was now elected ;
. but they swore that their reason for not attending on the
previous occasion was, that they believed it would be a.
corrupt election,..on account of -the bribe which they
understood Nanning to have offered to -Lovell and.
therefore, they hoped that the.Coutt would not. make
them pay the costs of the rule fos an attachment, unless
1-lAnneng..made.an .affii4svity denying that he had made
any such offer. They swore that they believed OW
Mr. Hawing and Mr. Edwards were the persons who
had.almost. caused the destruction of the Corporation
of Wells.. .
Mr. TAutrrotr—Those who applied for the rule. bad.
no objection to relieve the defendants from the at-
tachment, but they certainly ought to pay the Cogs of
the application, which hadbeen.rendered pecessary by
their own misconduct.
Lord TEN TkiIDEN:•-••ThlriilleloYillE.. attachment will
be discharged, but the defendants 0)1176 pay the costs of
the application.

EZ4AITE DATESON:
Mr. Baonottast. moved for i•rule absolute, hi the
first instance, for a mandamus, commanding the Mayor
and Aldermen of Beverley to admit and swear in
Thomas Bateson to the office of Capital Burgess of
that borough. The Charter required that the Mayor
should-present 26 burgesses to the Comniistialiyi,
were to choose 1.8 of them .as Capital Burgesses for
the-year. In case of death, the vacancy was to be
supplied within a month, from one of the 13 .*lro•had
not been originally elected. The present applicant had
been so eircied, but the Mayor favouring another
pei son, who, hqwever, had not one voteafthe election,
refuse.' to swear him in. The election- took .place on
the 16th of this month, and if the rule were not made'
absolute in the first instance, the period within which
the election must be made would elapse..
• Lord Tairraanast—We must hear the other side.
You have only•sbown enough to have a rule to show
CAUSE, which you may have.
Thisheing.thelast chiroltrinity.Term, the Court
did.not rise tilt half-past seven.. .
100101 STORY COURT, ;Yuma
•
BLAKE (FALSELY CALLED HAYDON) AGAINST-HAYDON.
This was a cause of -nullity of Marriage brought by
Louisa Maria Blake, spinitei, against Walter Thomas
Haidon;under the following eircirmatances.:-Mr.Wal-
ter Thomas kaydoo, the defendant, intermarried in the
year-1817 with Emily Foster Barham, spinster, both
parties being then resident at Exeter. In consequence
of the usual legal pi oceedings instituted in such cases in
he month of Jan. 1822, a Sentence of• divorce, by reason
of adultery, was obtained by Mr. Haydon against his
wife, whis had engaged in a clitninal intercourse With
a paiiy in' iliac cause proceeded against by name.—
This sentence ran in the usual form of separation a
arena et Moro; but did' not of course dissolve the
matrimonial vineahtes. In the month of July, 1826,
however,,'Mr.• Haydons, Without having obtained 'the
authority of any Act Of. Parlianient tor such purpose,
and'representing himself to be a-widower, married the
plaintiff in this case at Cheltenham. She now proceeded
on the ground of fAlie description, amounting to ille-
gality or frauil. ,
• ...• .
The Cour immediately .foued. for•theporty
neat; declared the pretended marriage -to be null and
void, and condemned Mr. Hayden in' the costs of this
. .
proceeding. ,