Star.
London, England, 1828-02-02 00:00:00

-----•—___
Lti W IN fELLIGENcE.

COURT OF CHANCERY, Fxsatmar 1.
CONBT V. HARRIS.
'Mr. Jetiteb stated to the Court, that the parties were
extremely anxious that judgment should be given on
the motion made in this cause.
The LORD CHANCELLOR promised to give judgment
at an early day.

MORRIS V. DAVIS.
Mr. &MICR said, that in this case, which had been
frequently before the Court, and in which three issues
bad been already tried, it was intended to move for a
new trial. From the length to which the discussion
would rim, it was extremely desirable that a day should

be appointed.
The LORD CHANCELLOR said it did not appear to
him that the verdict was contrary to the opinion which
the Judge who tried the cause had expressed. The Jury
had expressed their disbelief of the evidence of one ai
the witnesses. He would, however, appoint Thursday

next for the argument.
IN RE PoLKES, A BANKRUPT.
The LORD CHANCELLOR SAID he had received a very
lting letter from Mr. Smith, the bankrupt's solicitor,
stating facts which had not come nut in evidence. He
bad already given the case his deliberate attention, and
he would not hear it again, having once decided it.

IN RE OWEN, A BANKRUPT.
Mr. Alexander Isaacs was brought up on a habeas
corpus from Newgate, to which place he had been com-
mitted by the commi►sioners of the fourteenth list, for
having given them unsatisfactory answers to their exa--

Mr. tisticar moved that he should be discharged,
be:ause the answers he had given were as satisfactory
as the case admitted of. The prisoner was the ship's
hus'sarid of the Exmouth, of which vessel the bankrupt
was Captain. A Jamaica merchant, of the name of
Leon, hid a claim on the ship for 7,0001. and Mrisaacs
was Mr. Leon's accredited agent. It had been found
expedient by the commissioners to examine him, and
particularly respecting an entry in his books. To this
examination his answers had been thought unsatisfac-
tory. The questions and answers were then read through•
out, and the Counsel insisted that they had all been
as satisfactorily answered as Mr. Isaacs's knowledge of
the circumstances enabled him.
Mr. Rose and Mr.Waicur insisted that the commit-
tal Was justifiable, and required by the answers.
The Lows CHANCELLOR was of opinina that the an-
swers were not satisfactory, nor the best that Mr. Isaacs
might have given. He therefore ordered him to be sent
back to Newgate, at the same time recommending the
Commissioners to give him an immediate opportunity

of rectifying his answers.
Mr. Rosa said that might be done to-morrow, as was
the constant course.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, W
Fn. I.
CERTIORARI.
The SOLICITOR GENERAL appeared to oppose a rule
obtained by Mr. Alderson, calling upon certain Magis-
trates of the town of Liverpool to show cause why se-
veral bills of indictment which were about to be pre-
ferred against two individuals, might not be removed
by certiorari from the Liverpool Sessions, for trial at
Lancaster, or some other place. The application was
founded on an affidavit of the accused parties, stating
their belief that they could not have a fair trial at the
place where the indictments were to be preferred. in
consequence of certain reports which had been circa.
Wed in the neighbourhood to their prejudice. They
stated amongst other things, that one of the Magistrates
had been heard to say that he was glad they were
caught, and that he would take care to punish them
with the utmost rigour of the law. The affidavits of
the Town Clerk of Liverpool, and of another person,
made in opposition to the rule, stated that the indivi-
duals in question had been apprehended under a charge
of receiving stolen goods, and that it would be produc-
tive of great inconvenience ar:d expense to carry the
indictments for trial to Laocw ter. The two pets, ns
who were charged with stealing the goods had been also
apprehended, and it appeared—
Mx. Justice BAYLET—Ate all four' committed for

trial?
Ttle SOLICITOR GENERAL—Yes, my Lord.
Mr: Justice BAYLEY—Then you may include them
all in one indictment.
The SOLICITOR GENERAL said his clients would do
so; and as they were not in a situation at present to
answer the affidavits on the other side, the rule for the
certiorari might be made absolute.
IN THE MATTER OF ROBERT GOURLAY.
Mr. CAMPBELL applied to have the rule he had ob-
tained in this case, for an habeas corpus, made absolute.
Since yesterday, he had communicated with the corn-
mating Magistrate, Mr. Halls, on the subject of his
application, and that Gentleman had informed him that
he did not intend to oppose tie rule being made abso:
lute, which he (Mr. C.) iupposed would now be done.
Lard TENTEBDEN—No; what we have now to do is
to see whether, in oar opinion, the warrant be valid. It
is to that point you must apply yourself.
Mr. CAMPBELL said, that that was certainly the'
course to be pursued, and he would now tefer their
Lordships to some Outborities he had found in the
books, which he thought bore strongly upon the point.
All the =Rhoades laid it down, [bat the committing
warrant, to he geed, must most particularly describe
for what the party was committed, which had not been
done in this case. The first case, to' shich he referred'
their Lordships, where this doctrine was held, was
in 2d Vesey, p. 122. The -39th and 40th Geo. 111.
expres•ly stated, that the cause of comm talent should be
clearly stated in the warrant, and that it was not suffi-
cient barely to state, as was done in the present instance,
that the party was committed for an ass mit and breach
of the peace; but it was necessary also to state upon
whom the assault was committed, with every other
particular. Commitments in execution he held to be
something analagous to the present, and the books
contained numerous cases, giving examples of the
peat strictness that was required in stating the cause of
the commitment in the warrant. The Case of •• The
King o. Cooper," is 6th Tom Reports, p. 509.
was one of these; as was that of •• The King v,
Rhodes," and that of The King'v. Brown," in
Stir Term Rei.orts, p. 26. The Act under which Mr.
Gouda), was committed, required that it should be
stated is' the warrant, that at the time of his apprehen•
gun he was deranged; no such thing was sworn to
the Magistrate, nor was it so stated in the war-
cases of commitment by the Commissioners
for the bankrupt not satisfactorily afia-
lawful questions of the Conamisakeers-
atoty to the Commissioners to state in
not only that the pasty had refused
their lawful questions, but to state the
themselves with the answers given to them.
was this? In order that' the Court,
party was brought by Ilabeu Corpus,
judge as to whether the questions of the
tern were lawful, and whether the answers
were such as ougllt,to base been satisfactory.

The SAME rule, he submitted, applied to thepresent case.
The cause of the commitmencwas not stated with RA-
'ficient fullness, for there was nothing in the warrant to
enable the Court to say, whe:her the party was justly
committed or not.—After the Judges had consulted
together for some length of time,
Lord TENTS/10EN said, commitments under this Act-
of Parliament (5 Geo. 111.) are of Leery peculiar nature.
They are not commitments for safe cost adytill the party
be brought to trial; nor are they commitments in exe-
cution for any offence against the laws ; but they are in
order to secure the persons and property of his Majesty',
subjects generally, and also, that the unhappy individual
who may come under the operation of the Act, may be
duly taken care of, to prevent hill doing himself any mis-
chief. That being the object of the Legislature, we must
not give that construction to commitments under this
Act that we should were they under any other. Mr.
Campbell contends, that the warrant alleging an assault
and breach of the peace, ought to state the name of the
person who it was suppo,ed the individual committed
intended actually to assault. But there may be many in-
stances in which such a course would be absolutely im-
practicable. Suppose, for instance, a man of the charac-
ter contemplated in this Act were to be seen rushing out
of a house with a dagger in his hand threatening to stab
some person, or ruining through the streets with a torch,
threatening to set fire to some house; in such cases it
would be impassible to say, what person he meant to
stab or what hotre he meant to set fire to ; but any
body steing he had the power to do what he threa•eaed,
might justifiably apprehend him and get him com-
mitted. If, therefore, we were to require commitment,
under this Act of I'.Pllll/itlit to be so strictly drawn ap
as others, the Act would, in mos: tales, be nugatory, and
Idle object A tire Legislature thus ch,fe.rieJ. It hai been
said, I believe, when welreard o'.tl;is matter before, that
nothing stated in the warrant was laid before the Magis-
trate on eath. That statement is correct, hut the Ml-
- does not say in the was rant, as is in other cases
usual, that he has ben informed so and so, but posi-
tively states the fact-4, Witte eas Robert Goutlay t i!th
been apprehended under circumstances that show a
deranged state of mind," bringing hiin within the
mearring and operation of the Act of Parliament,
ilnd is, .s the warrant goes 0., to state, controlled.
The Act says, •' that a party being brought before
a Justice, and suspected of being insane, may be
committed, that alone being stated in the warrant."
Tire Act further .says, " that a party shall not be li-
berated on bail by less than two Justices of the Peace, of
whom the Committing Magisttate must be one." The
warrant alleges that it appears to him (the Justice) that
he ought to issue a warrant to commit the said Robert
Gourlay as a dangerous person, suspected to be de-
ranged. This (Mr. Campbell) is according to the words
of the Act of Parliament. The warrant is for a purpose
entirely different from those ordinarily made by Magis-
trates for safe custody, and we do not think it reqtaisite
that the Magistrate should specify the cause of coin-,
mitment in the same manner. We shall. cwt therefore
inter pose our authority to distutb the commitment; the
applicant must seek his remedy under the other provi-

Fn. 1.

sio"ns of the Act.
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, W
GULLEY V. TILE 111Stior OF kAETEK.
This was an action to deter mine the validity of a deed
The plaintiff claimed a right to a certain advowson
within the diocese of the Bishop of Exeter, who is only
the nominal defendant in this action, and he grounded
his claim upon a deed which he contended was granted
by the original possessor to his ancestors, bearing date
1672. The defendant, on the contrary, contendel that
the same person had grante.: a deed to his ancestors,
whicn was clAted in 1692, and he insisted, upon the1
strength of this deed, that i.e alone had a right to the ad-
Towson. He adulate !, leuwesct, that if the alleged deed
of 1672 co aid be extblished as perfectly valid, his claim
would fall to the pound. The action was tried about
two years since before Nll. Justice Pat k, at Exeter, when
the plaintiff was non sLited on some technical objection.
Determined, however, to prosecute his claim, he had
commeaced another action, to which the defendant
pleaded an almost innumerable number of pleas, which
appeared to the plaintiff to he irrelevant to the real merits
of the case, and he theteiore applied to Mr. JuLtice
Gaselce at Chambers to strike out the greater part of
them. That Learned Judge did strike out a considerable
number, but fearirg to go too far, recommended an
application to the Coui t.
Mr. Sergeant WILDE, accordingly, on th.e day of the
last to m, applied fi r and obtained a rule, calling on
the delviidarit to show cause why all the pleas upon the
record should not to struck out, exc •pt those n hick
related to the deed beating date 1672, or why the plain-
tiff should not be at libel ty to amend the declaration.
Mr. S±rgeant NERE.WETIIEIt now appe.ted to s!.ow
cause against the ;We, ao:d contended, that tie sole
cause for the multiplicity of pleas Was the frequent
amendments which had been made by the plaintiff.
The LORD CHII F JUSTICE, in the course of the argil.
ment, said he had heard of the thirtieth and fortieth
plea; he begged to know how many there were?
Mr. Sergeant Eft ZWETHER replied, there were 43.
Mr. Justice Panic (addres,ing I irm elf to the ri st of
the Bench)—Must of you know the extent of the public
dining room at Exeter. I do assure yon that the re-
cord, when enrolled, 'extended from one end to the
other of it.
Mr. Sergeant ManzweTiren, in continuation of his
argument, complained mach of the repeated amend-
ments which had been made in the declaration.
The Lord CHIEF JUSTICE, interrupting him, said—
I, When I hear of special Pleas to the number of 43, I
should feel inclined to allow a plaintiff to amend to the
day of judgment.
Mr. Sergeant WILDE proceeded partially in his ar-
gument in support of the rule, when, the suggestion
of the Court, he consented to an enlargement of the
rule, it bring understod that he should be allowed to
repeat the application in a different form.
PREROGATIVE COURT, Fas. 1.

HARFOLID JONES BIaDGES, HERETOFORE JONES, BART
V. KING.

The argument in this case, which was partly heard
last Court day, was resumed. The facts were reported
in the STAR of January 25. It was a suit to fly the
validity of a codicil executed by Mr,. Mary Brydges,
of Winierbourne, near Bristol, whereby the sum of
10,0001. was left ro a Miss King. besides smaller sums
to other individuals, to the prejudice of Sir fiat lord
Jones Brydges, the cousin of ate deceased, next of kin,'
and residuary legatee. The validity of the codicil was
disputed on the ground of fraud and collu►ion.
Dr. Jesse ADDAMS, who was on the same side as
IDr. Lossituntou, concluded his argument in support of
the codicil.
Dr. JIINNRR was on the other side. He contended
that the evidence in the cause she wed the utter improba•
bility of this codicil being the legal act of the testatrix.
She had been confined to her bed from November,
1825, to the period of her death in January, 1826;
and the nature of her disorder was such, that not
only was her bodily strength exhausted, hue she wa.,
in a state of torpor and lethaigy, froth which it,

was difficult to rouse her. All the persons alive wh •
were able to speak- as•to•the capacity-of the dece se l
v►heh the codicil was executed, were legate!, and there-
fore incapacitated from giving evidence. The instru-
ment had not been drawn• np by a professionalipel son,
but by Mr. Ja mes King, the brother of Miss King. After
gcing tflrengli theevidence atgreat length,betiontei.dvd,
that the contradictory testimony °Vibe witnesses, in re.
End to the circunattarrces attending the signing of a
draught by the testatrix. prior to ihe execution- of the
codicil, tended materially to weaken their credit in te•
sl.ect in the fathom of the instillment.; and submitted
'hit the codicil could not be sustained. The Court ad-
j•iurned the ca-e till nett Courtiday.

beranfotre tit M
he
nasta!
of Bankrupts,
swering the h
it was obligat
the Warrant,
to answer tin
questions them
—And why I
when the pal
•
fight itself Jut
C,mmatissionen
of the luny we