Star.
London, England, 1828-06-20 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

• •
COUft OF KING'S BRNCH, Werrstniseta, Sum 19.
arTINOS Of BANCO.
Mr. CLINTON moved for a rule to show cause why
an'attorney. of the name of Edwin, Cockayne, residing
at Derby, should not be stmek of the rolls of the
Court, he having, at the last Sessions for the borough
of Derby, been convicted on an indictment for felony,
and being now under sentence.of transportation upon
that conviction.—Rule granted.

SIAGRANS v. WHITS.
This was a question upon the construction of the
Act cif the 58d George llf. c. 71. By the 7th section
of that Act it is enacted, that in all cases where any
question shall arise as to the amount of the reasonable
costs, expenses, or fees, due or payable to any witness
summoned on the hearing of any petition to set
aside the election of a Member cif Parliament, the
Speaker of the House of Commons shall, on applica-
tion made for that purpose, direct the same to be
tailed, and the person taxing shall report the amount
to the Speaker, who shall be at liberty tl certify
the same as evidence of the demand ; and by the
13th section it was enacted, that in any action for
costs, expenses, or fees, which shall have been so certi-
6ed, the Court may, on the application of the plaintiff..
order judgment to be entered up for the sum adjudged
to be due ageing the defendant, in like manner as upon
a warrant of attorney. The plaintiff, in this case, had
been summoned as a witness on the trial of the Dublin
election petition before a CoMmittee of the House of
Commons. He attended on the part of the defendant,
Lieutenant-Colonel Henry White, the sitting member
for Dublin, end his costs having been taxed and certi-
fite in the manner prescribed by Melia., application was
now andel° the Court on his behalf by Mt. Stanxtz,
for a rule to enter up judgment for the sum found to
be due to him.
'Mr. ADAC and Mr. LA*, for the defendant, opposed
the application, and contended, that the Act in question
had. reference only to the costs of persons attending as
witnesses in support of the petition, and not on the part
of the sitting member. They objected also that it' had
tint been ascertained, as it ought to have been, that the
plaintiff was summoned on the part of the defendant.—
T-lie Speaker, in granting his certificate, had assumed
that as a fact, without any inquiry having been made oa
.tffe Subject:
..:TheCottar decided against both the objections, and
gamed the rule for entering up the judgment.
Tilt KM% 17..3. T. B. IIeAVITOTrr, ESQ.
Istwas expected chat the judgment ofthe Court would
h**e been pronounced to-day on the defendant,. Mr.
Barber Beaumont, who was found guilty a few months
Ate; upon an inforinatioh tiled by the ArtorneyGeneral,
sending a libellous lectern) Lord Wallace, with in-
tipe to provoke his Lordship to a breach of the peace.
' The defendant appeared in Court this morning, ac-
ehinpirnied by Earl Ferrets, !Lord North wick, Sir John
litatington, Bart. Sir George Dluekett, Bart. and several
MHO, Directors of the County Fire Office.
The Arrooxsigtmaia. and the other Counsel for
the prosecution were in attendance; but the Court haw-
ing eppoioted to hear the arguments of Counsel in the
Vintry Ward election case to-day, •
-Lord Terriminest meld it would be more convenient
to take Mr. Beauinont's case nell week.
. It was then arranged that the cateshobld be taken
.on Monday next.

TEL KING V JAME& WOODALL.
The jurfgoient (*the Court was prououncedupon this
iefen•dant, a ileadborough of Hadleigh, for assaulting
a farmer of the name of Posed, residing at Enfield.—
Hti was fined 6s..Bd..and ordered to enter into his own
recognisance to keep the peace for one s.eat.•
• 7 , • REX V. DROWN. . .
Mr. Qtlaarr had obtained a rule to show .eausewhy
Itt.bttithment should n' t issue against Mr. Richard, or
. Relltert Thornton Brown, for a contempt a Court, in
aitesiding to give, his evidence at a trial at Guild-
hall. peirsuatit to his lubicena. The. rule had been ob-
lineclon the affidavit of a clerk of the plaintiffs actin-
' hey, who served the deteosiant wish the stibprena at the
Royal Exchange, on the day.before the trial, and de
Mai to attend the next day at ten o'clock. The
•'.4efetidast did 'not attend, in consequence of which the
plaintiff in the action Vas riciasuited.
.I. Sbeiwinot do* showed eameagainst the rule,
, ow the affidavit of Mr. Bowe, who adrintted the service
if the subpeena on hum onseliange, when the bells were
vAlinging for the shutting of the Exchange, and there was
rest confusion. He recollected that the clerk told
• lltirtt that the trial 'eras- to cOrrie on the next day, bet that
:+ flare were six or seven. causes before it. He did not
••lhear the clesk mention ten o'clock. On the next day
are came to town from his country house, and went to
• Guildhall at a quarter past eleven o'clock, and found
*lathe trial nec ooet. No denied any contempt of
,Otairt, and said. besides, that he was subpoenaed by the
Wane of Ember% 'whereas. his real name was Richard.
• Mr. C!cratutv said that the%defendant was known by
lune of Robert; and as to the mins, of the case,
that hear of Moe. o'clock was mentioned in the sts'apce,a
• -hildf; and the clerk had distinctly estate that he had
tuesniurted tire hosts of ten 'o'clock. It was sworn that
• it.was owing to the absence of the defendant that the
frfahrtiff was nonsnited; and there was a role now pend-
ing for setting the summit aside/ of.which Browti ought
to be made to pay the costs.
The COURT directed Oat the .matter should stand
.over until the rule for the new trial should be disposed
.of; and then, if the, new trial should be granted, Mr.
Brown to pay the costs of the application, or the attach-
orient to issue; bat- if the new tied should be refuted,
Alien this in-e to be discharged.
.COUWI' OP C 03911019 PLEAS, Warranwele, Jues 19.
'fist argements in theca*, of Henley against the Mayor
and Burgesses of lay me Regis, which occupied the atten-
tion of the Court for the whole r f yesterday,svere resumed
and corieluded thin momrog. The action had been
brought to teenier compesivatinn ifs damages for the in-
jury which theplaintiff had smeared by the 'eruption of
theses into the plaintiff's land*, througkdre defect of
certain sea fencer, which+ the plaletiff allegesiltattllede-
fendants ate bound to repast. The action erne onto ba
tried at the last Assizes fur the snooty of Dorset; and
after the trial bad proceeded to a considerfabic evellier
the parties agreed that a vesclict should go for. ski
plaintiff, subject to a motion esr the deLisdAub' 101,6 kr'
' the Court here id aired Of the jinfecierre. The
of the defendants to repair the walls Ad iffeeitod %Ohs
:the holy subject reserved-tor the eensiderlaion of tifd
-.Clam; and this poi Wm. ageskat greatlecipht fry din
~7,Ceunsel on both sialll Ifitrieher the fatils.nni urgurnenti
....):irierttef a *tore intittlitt4ot th the tirdifit‘ CIRV oi iititr
•
..44.1iCnabesibeat *.es produced by ale readihg-t'if thole
ngs. whietveahibsted softie-6 061(4
a ah-urditrofewpressions peaddead bribe
• fiwttts of -pleading, at that the otaietsff-wfas ph
ar a &es,. to wit, tweet,. Bouses-,"'ette, udivett,
'4,a Mk bulky sea shores,'" iii the borough of
*an.si wps, them, see shores," was re-
r •
poke* seedy dieth..ftr. tOit; *view hence.", within no
great sontrlis upee The Mort decided