Star.
London, England, 1829-07-08 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE:

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, Inv 1.
Sir J. Scarlett took the usual oaths for his office, as
Attorney General.
rAYTON V THE GOVERNORS OF ST.THOMAS'S NORMAL.
Lord TZNTIRDEN delivered the judgment of the
Court in this cause, in which a rule Nisi had been
granted. calling on the defendants to show cause why
the nonsuit should not be set aside. It was an action
brought by the reversioner of the house (No. 109, Cheap.
side), against the defendants, for having pulled down al
house adjoining that of the plaintiff, without taking the
necessary precaution of shoring up the plaintiff's house.
In consequence of this alleged neglect on the part of
r''e defendants, the plaintiff was obliged to take down
own house; he then brought an action on the case
t) recover compensation in damages for the loss which
be had thereby sustained.
At the trial, Lord TSNTREDEN was of opinion that
the plaintiff had sufficient notice of the intention of the
defendants, and that he, therefore, ought to have taken
the necessary precaution of ensuring the safety of his
own premises. The plaintiff was accordingly noosuited.
A rule Nisi was subsequently obtained to set aside the
nonsuit. and the case was argued at considerable length.
His Loitesithi, now said that, in the opinion of the
Court, the nonsuit ought to stand.
'the rule was discharged.
THE LING R. SEYMOUR. SSG. •
rd TINTERDEN. with reference to the case, skid, an
application was made for a rule calling on the prose-
( nior to show cause why a new trial should not be had.
The application was made some time since by Brother
Wilde. The Court thinks that the rule Nisi for a new
trial ought to be granted.

THIS SING V. DAVY AND BRACH.
Jacoh Wells Davy and John Beach were brought op
to receive judgment. An information bad been filed
against the defendants at the instance of the Corpora-
tion of the City of London, for committing a nuisance
in the Thames, and the defendants suffered judgment
to go by default. The nuisance consisted in throwing
into the river, near Battersea, large quantities of the
rubbish dug cut of the St. Katharine Docks. Accord.
ing to the contract, this rubbish ought to have been
landed at Millbank, near the Penitentiary.
Whilst the officer of the Court was reading the affi-
davits in support of the conviction,
Mr. DENMAN said, that the only object of the pro-
secutors was, as conservators of the navigation of the
river Thames, to prevent the recurrence of practices
such as that resorted to by the defendants, and which
had already been carried to a dangerous extent. The
prosecutor would now consent that the defendants
should be discharged on their own recognisances, they
undertaking to abate the nuisance, and to remove the
rubbish from the river, under the direction of the Water
Bailiff.

Lord TaNTERDIII—That is a very proper COMIC
This is, indeed, a great public nuisance, and unless the
matter is set right, the Court cannot deal lightly with
the parties.
The defendants promised to repair all the mischief
that had been done.
Mr. &runs showed cause against a rule obtained by
by Air. Comyng for discharging an insolvent debtor
from a judgment to which he was made liable after his
ei 'charge in the Insolvent Debtors Court. The rule was
• obtained on the ground that he had entered the debt in
his se edule, and that he was released by a clause in the
Insolvent Debtors' Act from all debts due or growing
due before his discharge. In showing cause against the
rule, it appeared that the insolvent bad given a warrant
of attorney to pay instalments, and that one instalment
was becoming due at the time he claimed his discharge.
The Court held that the parties might have ?roved
the debt under the assignment of the insolvent s pro-
perty in the Insolvent Debtors Court, as in the case of
a commission of bankruptcy, and that the insolvent MI
entitled to be discharged from the process issued against
him.

LU 9. HID&

Mr. GUMMY showed cause against a rule obtained in
this case to set aside an award. The plaintiff had given
the defendant 2,5001. for the lease and goodwill of a
public-house, and an agreement was entered into by
the parties, under which the defendant was to return
1,0001. if he opened another house within half a mile
of the plaintiff. The defendant opened the South-
wark Bridge Tavern, which the plaintiff considered
within half a mile of his house, the Black Lion,
in Bishopsgate.street. The question having been re-
ferred to Mr. Charles Law, the Barrister, that Learn-
ed Gentleman measured the distance, taking the
nearest access, and found that the Southwark Bridge'
Tavern was within the half mile one foot eleven
inches. The arbitrator consequently awarded that the
house was within half a mile of the plaintiff's house.
,Mr. Gurney contended that the award was correct.
There had been three admeasurements. Two ways of
measuring made the distance within half a mile, and a
third, which he might call a dandy measurement, along
the footpath to keep white stockings clean—tA laugh)
—placed the house beyond the halt mile. The arbi-
trator had followed the rule laid down by Lord Ellen-
borough, who, on deciding a similar case of measure-
ment, held that the shortest access to the house was the
way to be measured.
Mr. PATTISON, on the same side, observed, that the
object of the plaintiff was to keep the defendant from
setting up within half a mile of the house, and the ar-
bitrator had found the defendant's premises were within
the half mile. The nearest way to the house had been
properly measured, and there could be no doubt it was
within the half mile.
The Arroarme GENERAL said, they all admitted that
the nearest way was within half a mile. They did not
rely on the line as the crow flies. which would have
brought it mach more within the half mile, but the
nearest access upon measurement showed the persons
who went out'of the Black Lion had not half a mile to
walk to the Southwark Bridge Tavern. The carriage
way did not make the distance longer, but the thud
way made it exceed half a mile. The question was,
whether they were not bound to measure by the foot-
path? The class of customers who visited these houses
were generally foot passengers, and therefore they came
by the footpath. The rule laid down by Lord Ellen-
borough applied. They were to measure the nearest
access by the footpath.
Mr. CutrsT, in support of the rule, said, the three
Gentlemen who preceded him had taken different views
of the way by which the house was to be approached.
His Leimed Friend (Mr. Pattison) had followed the
black letter law instructions, namely, to pluck on his
hoots, and wade through difficulties. His Learned
Friend dashed over the deity ways to take his pint of
porter, or glass of grog—(ll laugh). Mr. Gurney went
in a carriage, therefore he preferred the carriageway;
and the Attorney General, who never went to those
Muses. did not • wish to approach by a right line.—
,
• The Learned Gladness contended that the measure

meat which made, the distance mote than half a mile
ought to be taken, and the award set aside.
Lord" Tauraubms was of opinion that Mr. Law had
taken a correct measurement.
_lt appeared that the

Southwark Bridge Tavern was within half a mile of the
plaintiff's house, measuring by the nearest mode of ac-
cess. " I think," said his Lordship, " the Arbitrator
has done right in the nearest mode of access."
The COURT refused to disturb the award.
The ATTORNIT-GZNOULL moved for a rule to show
cause why a writ of prohibition should not issue from
this Court to the Court of the Duchy of Lancaster, to
stay proceedings in a suit therein. The cause arose out
of a claim to mines in the Manor of Ashburn. It would
appear from documents that the mines were conveyed
to the Duke of Devonshire, as Lord of the Manor. The
application was now made on the ground that the
Court of the Duchy had not a competent jurisdiction to
'decide the question.
The COURT granted a rule to show cause.
Mr. PLATT moved for a rule to show caul, why Mr.
Cole, an Attorney of the Court, should not be struck
off the Rolls, for allowing a Mr. Wilson to practise as
an Attorney in his name.
The Collar granted a rule.