Star.
London, England, 1829-05-16 00:00:00

grounds he bad mentioned the Court would allow the I
case to undergo further'consideration.
The COURT, after some hesitation, granted a rule to
show cause bit the two last points—we. the-description
of the bankrupts in the commission, and the act of bank-
ruptcy by MI. Chambers, junior. With respect to the
trading, they were of opinion that the fact of the poz-
zalani business having been continued down to the time
of the date of the commission; had been fully established,
and that conseqoently there was a sufficient trading to
support the commission.
ROTHSCHILD IN HENNING&
Counsel were heard at considerable length in .thit
case, which came before the Coon on a writ of error
from the Common Pleas.
The COURT postponed giving judgment.
U PARTE THE EXECUTORS OP JANIS HARNETT!
Mr. WHITE applied to enlarpe the time for the return
of the writ of Habeas Corpus which the Court had
granted yesterday, to bring up the body of Emily Mary:
Harnett, a child between seven 'and eight years of age.
The Learned Counsel stated that the ground of his ap-
plication was, that the affidavits contained a charge of
adultery against the mother of the child, and she wished
to have time to answer it, as she was prepared to ex•.
culpate herself.
The COURT observed, that the writ had not been
granted on account of the alleged adultery of the
mother, but that the executors, as the testamentary
guardians of the child, bad a legal right to the custody
•of it.
Mr. BROUGHAM, on the part of the guardians, had
no objection to the return being enlarged, if the attorney
who iustructed his Learned Friend, Mr. White, would
himself undertake chat the child (who was now at Pad-
dington) sbould be forthcoming as soon as the affidavits
had been answered. He could not consent to delay on
any other terms, great difficulty having already arisen
from the fraud, and force used to get the child.out of
the custody of her schoolmistress.
Mr. Waive said the attorney was not present. and
therefore he could give no answer to Mr. Brougham's

. -
proposal.
Lord TENTERDEN—Then we can't give you time,
and the writ must be obeyed.
THE KING V. HENRY ZEAL AND WIFE.
The defendants were brought up to plead to an in-
•dictment, charging them with having assaulted one J.
Harper. They pleaded " guilty,' and then put in an
affidavit, stating that Haper had moulted the.female
defendant, by stabbing her in the breaSt, and tharhe
had been tried and convicted of the assault at the Lon-
don Sessions ; that he had subsequently preferred tWo
indictments against the defendants for an assault, on
both of which they bad been acquitted ; and now, in
pursuance of a threat which be had made to ruin the
defendants by the expense of law proceedings, he had
preferred the present indictment. ,
The Comm-upon this statement, sentenced the de.
fendant to the payment of only a fine of 6d. They
expressed their inability to pay the fine, and were then
1 discharged. PARRY v. ASERDEIK.
This was an action on a policy of insurance on goods
by the ship Isabel. The plaintiff bad obtained a verdict
for 1551. In a former Term a point of law, Which had
been raised at the trial, was argued on a special case.
We gave the particulars at the time.
The Court now gave judgment in favour of plaintiff.
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Mae 15.
BRITTEN V. HUGHES.
• The plaintiff in this case signed a deed of composi.
tion for 10s. in the pound, in common with the rest of
the defendant's creditors, and entered the amount of
his debt opposite his name. He afterwards brought this'
action to recover the amount of an additional sum dna
upon a Bill of Exchange previously to his. signing the
deed. and which he reserved from the amount of the
debt entered in that instrument. The cause was tried
before Lord Chief Justice Best. who nonsuited the
plaintiff. In a former term a rule was obtained to show
cause why that nonsuit should not be set aside, and
cause having h-en this day shown.
The Court (dis. Mr. Justice Gasman) decided, that
a reservation of this kind was i deception upon the other
creditors who signed the deed, and was therefore void.
And that, moreover, from the terms of the deed itself,
divested of every .other consideration, it operated as a
general release tothe debtor from all debts due at the,
time to thbse creditors who executed it. Their Lord-
ships, therefore, discharged the rule. •
AsHTON V. PINCOTT.
This was an action tried as an undefended cause be-.
fore Lord Chief Justice Ben at the London Sittings
after last Term. The Jury found a verdict for the
plaintiff for 100/. damages.
• Mr. Sergeant WILDE, on a former day, obtained a
tole to show cause why the verdict should not be set
'aside, and a new trial granted, on the ground that the
defendant, who had a good defence to the action, had
not been prepared with his witnesses for the Tuesday on
which the cause was called on, owing to a aristakensal-
Culation of his attorney. who supposed that it was too
far down in the piper to come on bet ore. the Thursday,
and consequently the witnesses, who ie.ided at Wool-
wich, were instructed..to attend on that day.
Mr. Serge* JONES DO* showed cause, and read an
affidavit in reply, to show that the defendant's attorney
was aware on Monday that the cause stood in the paper
for Tuesday. He contended that the defendant had
shown no grounds upon v hich he was entitled to dik
curb the verdict. If his attorney had miscondocted him-
self, he must seek his remedy against him; but the
plaintiff, ought not to suffer from that misconduct.
~Mr. Sergeant Witna• staled, that on this °ceasing'. Ile
was n..t instrticted by the Gentleman employed op to
the time of the trial, the delendatst hiving since changed
his attorney.
In consequence of a suggestion front Mr. Sergeant
Jcirixs, some discittiaen here took place as to the terms
on which a nevi trial might be granted.
The COURT ultimately decided that a new trial might
had on 'Condition either that the defendant brought
e 1001. into Court, and paid the plaintiff's costs, as
between party and party ; or that defendant's fortner
attorney paid all the plaintiff's costs, as between at-
torney and client.
Mr. Sergeant WILDE said he had no love for the
loriner attorney, Who had neglected to instruct him in
time— (a laugh)—and he would therefore elect the latter
alier native.— Rule for a new trial granted accordingly.
PRRIttSGATIVE COURT. MAY 15.
SIMPSON AGAINST CHOPPIN.
This was an' illegation propounding a paper, dated
in Ifir, alleged to be the will of M _i• S. F. Schwitser,
of Chandos street, who died in Nov. 114, leaving pto-
perry to the amount of
.nearly 46011. tke"wholdbf
which was, by this instrument, bequeathed to Elisabeth
llnggins. daughter of George Huggins, to the exclu-
sion of his riot
.of lon, The 'alleged testator left a
brother, since deceased, and a sl4er,Franies
one of the par ties to the suit, the other being the execu-
tor tinder the alleged will. He left also foul nephews
and nieces, The piper Was opposed on the ground that
the deceased was of nnsonna pluck the period of its
date, and long previous thereto; and the allegation,