Star.
London, England, 1828-11-18 00:00:00

LA W INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OP CHANCERY, Nov. 17.
FREESIAS V. PAISLEY.
This was a case discussed before his Lordship while
Master of the Rolls, upon twentysfive exceptions taken
to the Master's Report. The arguments occupied a
great length of time, the documents being extremely
numerous and bulky. The important question regatded
the nature and tenure of lands held in Calcutta, and
upon which there had been very conflicting opinions
delivered by the Judges in India. His Lordship went
into a most elaborate detail of the charters and laws
governing the possession of lands in the East; in the
course of which he declared it to be his opinion that
lands in India were to be considered as held and treated
according to the English 14w. The particular loss of.
land that gave rise to the present question had been
conveyed by deeds of lease and release, and the Court
concurred entitely with the Master, that the real pro-
perty was to be regarded as freehold inheritance, de-
scendable to the heirs of the pmsessors, according to
British Legislation.
WYNNE V. JACKSON.
Mr. SUOMI, considered, when the case was called
on, that if he went into it he would only subject him-
self to the imputation of having occupied a great por-
tion of time needlessly. The papers hire were exceed-
ingly heavy. and to open the case would occupy nearly
the w hole cf the day. He appeared for the appellant,
an.] who had upon part of the case Lord EI lon's
opinion againtt him, and *span another pair that of the
Master of Vie Rolls. Under these circumstances be
felt it his duty to relinquish the appeal.
The petition was accordingly dismissed.
JUDGM ENT— FA RLIZ V. BONHAM.
The LORD CHANCELLOR delivered judgmeni in this
ease, en exceetitms taken to the Master's reporr., The
question related to the tenure of landsin Calcutta, and
Via., whether one S. Oldham had an estate of inherit-
ance it certain land th?re? Hi, Lordship said, it ap-
peared that the law of griglitnd e as established in this
settlement by the Articles of 1793, and that the Zemin-
dars and Felucars, or landed proplietcus, were the ab-
solute owners of the soil, s ibject only to the payment
of a tribute to the G svernmei.t. The tenant received
what was called a " Pottar," from the collector of the
tribute; but this was demanded as a matter of right,
and did not imply that the land teas held of the Soves
reign, being merely a dectiment issued to settle the
amount of the tiibute. These lands were originally
granted by the East India Company, and were conveyed
to Oldham by deed of lease and release ; it was therefore
to be considered as teat property descendable to the
heir. It had been objected, that the East India Corn
pany had only a temporary interest in the Government ;
but it was provided by ti.e Act of Parliament, that if
their monopoly in the crate of the country ceased, theit '
corporate powers should continue, under which they
were capable of conveying, and taking titles to lands.
ll.s Lordship the' tfoi e agreed a lib the Master that this'
was freehold of inher stance ; it was real property in the
meaning of the term in the laws of England. The report
mu t be confirmed.
COURT OF KING'S BENCH, WUTIUMITZI4 Nov. 17.
(Sittings 111 &MOO
THE KINV V. 0185 *NS.
• Mr. Sergeant Bola mauve prayed the judgment of
the Court on the defendant, G-urge Henry Gibbons.
The detenclaht was brought up for judgment last
term, with several other persons who *err convicted
with him ; but in cnsectirence of the dangerous illness
of his wife at that tine, the Court postponed passing
sentence till this term.
Mr. Justice &stem in addressing the defendant, ob-
set ved, that he was now to receive the judgment df the
Coen, after having withdrawn his plea of not guilty,
ehd pleaded guilty to an Indictment, charging him with
being a party ih an Mega negotiation for the procure
incur aituaticin in the gift of' the East India Com-
pany's service. Me was one f thu-c who had taken an
active part in that very improper transaction. The sen-
tence of the Court on Mtn was, that he be imprisoned in
the custody of the Marshal of the Matahalsia for the
space of three calendar months.
THE KING V. DOCKLAND.
Mr. Guatair moved for the judgment of the Court
on the defendant, Edward Dockland, who was con-
victed at the last Guildford Assizes, on an indictment
charging him with having obstructed and assaulted
eittt&in Officers or Excise in the execution of t' eir duty.
The defendant appeared en the fits r of the Court.
and Lord Teureanest read his note. of the trial, front
which we collected the following facts. Tire defendant
carried on, in pattnership with his Caber and a Mr.
Ruben% the business if a tallow melter and chandler at
Camberwell. S rme susp ciao: being excited that the
defendant and bis partners were in the practice of de-
frauding the ',reeve, by the clandestiae making of
candles, the Sw ecru Gen. of Excise, with six other offi-
cers, vial to the delendanes premises at midnight, on the
42,4 of Jao. last. Oa one of the officers knocking at the
dopy, the defendant put his head nut of an attic window
sled detnaaded who was there? Tbe men irifinmed him
that they were officers of Excite, and desired him to
admit them to inspect the premises. The. defendant
replied, " It is a pretty hour of tha eight For officers
to come rand then withdrew his head horn the window.
The officers, after waiting some time witbout being able

to obtain admission at the front of the house, went to
the back of it, and two of them, named Smith and
HeX, get over the wall. Smith was immediately seized
by a large dog, which was set on him by the defendant.
Ilex beat off the dog, and was attacked by it in tuln,
and he was so seriously injured that he was enable to
resume his duties fur a month afterwards. In the cellar
of the defendant's premises was found a huge quantity
of illegally manufactured goods.
An affidavit was, now put in, denying that the defend-
ant had set the dog upon the officers, and stating that
some of them knew that the animal was kept loose in
the yard. The affidavit also stated that the defendant's
firm had been put to great expense by certain proceed-
ings which had been instituted against them in the
Court of Exchequer. There were also several affidavits
to the defendant's charact r.
Mr. Srrgeant ANDRILWB and Mr. BaODRICE, for We
defendant, addressed the Court in mitigation of pu-
nishment.

Mr. GURNIY spoke in aggravation.
The defendant was sentenced to six months' impri-
sonment in the House of Correction, to pay a fine to
the King of 1001. and to find two meties in 20)1. each
for his good behaviour for three yearn.

Sittings at Nisi Pries before Lord Thrums= and Catstmon Juries.
GARY V. WINSTANLEY AND OTHRIS.

This was an action against Messrs. Richard Winstan-
ley, William Gilmore Bolton, and Charles L Hoggan,
three of the proprietors of the late British Press news-
paper, to recover 2201. for one year's use and occupa-
tion of the premises No. 181, Strand. The occuption
from Lidyday, 1826, to the 26th of October following
was proved by Mr. Robert Cannon, the late publisher
of the British Pies,; and he depo ed to the fact of
Messrs. Winstanley and Bolton being proprietors of the
paper during that period, and to bis having several times
paid tent to the plaintiff on account of the proprietors.
Two other witnesses spoke to lacts showing that Mr.
Hoggart was also a proptietir.
Mr. CAMPBBLL, for the defendants, submitted that
the proprietorship had not been satisfactorily proved.
Lord TENTEIIDEN thought that a . pujute facie case
had been made out.
Mr. CAMPBELL had no 'Limes:es to call ; but he sub•'
witted that the plaintiff could not recover mute than
three quarters of a year's rent, as there was t.o evidence
to show that the premises had been occupies' for the
purposes of the paper subsequent to the 31st Oct. 18'26.
By consent of the plaintiff's Counsel, a verdict was
then taken (or 1651.