Star.
London, England, 1821-05-28 00:00:00

-LAITY INTEL LiGika.-1--

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, MAY 26.
THE KING V. rurtsme.
This was a case of considerable importance to a
certain ,class of individuals. The defendant was ad
aactioneer, and had been convicted in the penalty of
EN, by the Magistrates at Session, under the Act of
the 50,h of the King, common]) called the Hawkers
and Pedlars Act, for having sold goods, with which
he travelled from place to place, nothaving a hawker's
'licence.—An application was now made to the Court
to set this conviction aside, on the grounds that the
defendant was not a trader within the meaning of the
Hawkers and Pedlars' Act, inasmuch as he was an
agent only, selling for others ; and further, that he
was not,. as the Hawkers and Pedlars' Act stated, a
person travelling with goods for sale with horse and
cart from town to town. The defendant was a mem- I
ber of a higher class of persons. He certainly tra-
yelled and sold at different places, but he always tra- I
-veiled by the mail.
• The Comer, however, held, that it was pos-ible for
an auctioneer to descend from his pulpit, put off his
dignit), and bring himself to.a level with a pedlar.
'the alefeiidant had, in fact, done so in the present
'case, and wits liable to the penalty. The conviction
Of the Magistrates was affirmed by their Lordships.
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, DUBLIN, MAY 22.
C.4ITHEERT V. BKOWIiii.
TALL RIECOADIENDATION OF A LADY TO TOL TLAIDTIFT.,.AII A 1•17,2.
'At the Sitting of the Court the argument in thisi
turious cause was resumed.
Mr. lixAcaisuaNE, for the defendant, commenced.
lie said, it would be impossible, upon any principles
of blown law, to sustain an action of this kind. All
the authorities were against it. This plaintiff com-
plained of the charges. he had been put to for the ac-
cowilipat7o of hi s wife and the support of the child; but
therCiant could not listenlto such a complaint. Sup-
pine the case of marriage with a v, idow, upon whose
44-virtue" not the slightest imputation had been cast,
and that she gave birth to a child within six months
after the marriage with the second husband, and nine
after the death of the first, would any Court, in such
a case, bastardixi the child, and destrny its legal
rights, under pretext of relieving the man Who the
law said was its father? Clearly not: The child in
the present.cale was regularly born in wedlock, and
the Court would not suffer any person to bastardize
it. • If there were a tide, and an estate in question,
that child must inevitably succeed to the inheritance
of both. The Learned Couri-el cited a great number
of apposite authorities, and concluded with stating,
that if an action of this kind was tolerated in a Court
of Justice, all the first, and firmest, and soundest
principles of law must be overturned, and all the most
valuable principles. of civil society unsettled.
Lord Noitaunt.—lF you sanction this, You will en-
courage unptincipled men to endeavour to get rid of
contracts'solemnly entered upon.
Mr. llot.w au. WALSHE. appeared on behalf of the
plaintiff to reply to Mr. Blackburne; but the further
argument in this case was adjourned till Friday, being
taw argument day, when it will be resumed.

LORD ERSKINE.