Star.
London, England, 1827-11-28 00:00:00

IMIATOI AND BUROWAIIES Olt 3T4IinfORIN

Mr. Sergeant TADDY moved for a sullies thew cause
why judgment should not be watered for the plaintiff
in this case as for want of a plea. The action was one
of ejectment, and was instituted by the lessor of the
plaintiff, to recover possession of certain lands, which
he claimed to hold by the tenure of Borough• English,
the Borough of Stafford. The affidavit upon which

lire was instructed to make this application stated that,
the defendants ender took to represent the tenant of 01
Lands claimed, and, in Trinity Term last, filed a Orr..
in which they described themselves as !, the Mayor And
Burgesses of Staff ,rd," a title which the plaintiff alleepfid
they had no right to adopt, as, in the Easter Term pre.
ceding, a motors in the shape of a quo evarrp.nio was,
made in the Court of Kings Ilene') against a -Mr.,
Francis Hughes for acting as Mayor; and upon that
motion judgment was issued against him as of Ea.ter
Term, and the Corporation was in a mea}usedistarleeri.'
It would therefore appear that at the time of the
filing of the plea. no such body as a Mayor and bur.
genes existed. Same time attar the judgment of the
Court of King's Bench had then issued, an application
•ss as made to the Crown, stating that _the number of
Aldermen and capital burgesses of the borough was
reduced from ten of each to six of the one and five of
the other, a number quite incompetent to the conduct-
ing of the business of the corporation. It was therefore
prayed that the old charter might be set aside, and a
new one granted. This petition was very graciously
granted by the Crown, but after several meetings on
'the subject, it was rejected by the town. These appeared
to be the facts contained in the affidavit, and the Learned
Sergeant thought, that as it aas quite evident no such
body as the defendants described themselves to be was,
in existence, the Court would feel disposed to grant him
the rule he prayed fur.
Mr. Justice GASZLEI thought there must be some
mistake in the affidavit with respect to the time when,
the judgment was issued by the Cou:t of King's Bench,
fur he had read a repent in the thwipapers (aod those,
reports, though nut given in detail, were generally correct,
in substance), that • rule, of a *imam- kind to that men-
tioned in the affidavit, was granted in the Court off
King's Bench only a few days ago, but he believed his
Learned Brother Russell could confirm-the Coon tan
that point.
Mr. Sergeant Rustiest said that it certainly was so—
such a rule was moved for, and granted.
Und r these circumstances, the Court expressed great
unwillingness to grant the rule. They therefore Lett it to
the discretion of Mr. Sergeant Teddy, to say whether Ire
would not take a rule to shew cause why the defendants
should not give security for costs.
To this proposition tl.e Learned Sergeant appeared
to consent.

•RNOLD V. Till BISHOP 01 BATH•AND WELLS.

Mr. Sergeant E. Lames moved. to discharge a rule
obtained by Mr: Sergeant Wilde on a former day,
calling upon the plaintiff to file his declaration in this
action on or before the last day of term. lie stated that
the rule was obtained only on Saturday last, and ►erved
on Sunday.
Mr. Justice PARK—Served on a Sunday, and upon
a Bishop too I I hope not.
Mr. Sergeant WiLus said it was served by letter. He
had no objection to enlarge the rule to the first day of
nest term, provided the plaintiff peremptorily oadertook
to declare in the mean Luke.

blr.Serge..nt Lewes had no instructions to accede to
an'' such proposal; but the Court thinking it very rea-
sonable, ordered a rule to be drawn up according'''.

CONSISTORY COURT, Nov. 27.
HARRIS AGAINST HARRIS.

In this suit, which is for a divorce on the ground
of adultery, ii.stituted by Mrs. Harris against Captain
Harris, her husband, the Proctor for the former ap-
plied for an allowance on account, till the question
of alimony could be settled. From the answers of
Captain Harris. in the Registry, it appeared that his
income amounted to bet ween .5001. and 6001. Mrs. Har-
ris had received a weekly allowance, equal to 801. per
annuto,from June till August last,when it ceased,and she
now received no allowance whatever from her husband.

The 1 roctor other side stAted, that the income
of Captain Han is was but 1601. per annum : a public
situation which he lately held, yielding 1101. had
ceased. He was willing to allow .50/. or 601. for ali-
mony, but was not prepared to offer any sum on account.
The Court directed 501. to be be paid, till the alimony
was settled.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER, Hamm & 27:
TROTTCR V. HARRIS.

This was an action of trespass, brought by Mr. Hart-
well, a respectable G -ntleman, residing in §urrey, in the
name of his tenant, Richard Trotter, against the de-
fendant, for an invasion of his right to a ferry un the
river Thames, at La;eliam.

M'. Jaltllls (who was assisted by Mr. Tuestoxit)
stated, that the ferry in question was a franchise origi-
nally wanted to the Abbot and Cotive,.t of Laleham,
in Middlesex, w)to were Lords of the Nlaitor. At
a later period it passed into the hands of the Lowther
family, Iron whom it was purchased by a Mr. Tat-
tersall, who disposed .of it in 1810 to Mr. Hart-
well, in whose pos‘ession, and that cf his tenants, it had
remained ever since. Mr. Hartwell had let it for some
time to the defendant, whom he had been obliged to
distrain for non•payrrrent of rent. After Harris had
ceased to be the tenant, he had continued to ferry pas-
sengers across, in opposition to Mr. Hartwell, who was
obliged to bring an action against him for the trespass.
Tile defendant suffered judgment to go by default, and
being sent to prison in execution for the costs, he came
out under the Insolvent Act, and immediately tepeated
his invasion of Mr. Hartsseli's property in the ft-rry.—
The latter was thus obliged to bring *a fresh action, in
the name of his tenant, to establish a tight to the ferry,
and preserve it from encroachment. •

fie Learn. d Counsel then called evidence which
proved Mr. Hartwell's possession ever since 1810, Mt.
Tatteisall's previous pisession, and the former judg-
ment recovered by him against the present defendant.
Mr. TAUNXQII, who, with Mr. COMYN, appeared for
the defendant, contended that there was no evidence to
establish the plaintiff's exclusive right to a ferry on this
pact of the flyer; and a light of feri y being a fran-
chise which 'was a ilo•er of the Crown, and must
Meiefore be bettomed on royal grant the Jury would
infer that no such grant hadbeen made, unless evidence
was given to show tt bad beta exercised since before the
time of tegal memory, Which had flit been done herr. Tut
Learned Counsel called witnesses,.who swore to instanc es
of persons ferrying passengers across who tame not
tenatip of the terry.house, along with which the right
to use ferry7bad been alleged always to have been let.
tie after some hesitation' on the past of one
Penniman, who saidte differed witbtis eleven brothers
in diiiiking that an exclusive Tight to tt,e ferry had been
Made tatty Mr. niter* a verdict for the
*natl.-47444es Is. costs 40..
• !'his came the nisi pries Ceurt during the
~hole's( the day.

triscq.vßiT psxraiw CRLIAT, Nov. $6.
Thomas Claushtaq, Usti. forpapsly ap
brought before the Court fur final hearing.
Mr. Claughton bad been hefgre the Court spree time
ago, and his schedule, Couiaiairtg bpi items of 401,
and liabilities, a/agitating to uptiraids of two huadrad
thuusaad pounds, uaderstent an urettirtion. It tea,
stated that the insol/ept's extensive liabi pits nor
a number of specu:ations which be bad uofortunately

entered into, but nOtwiihstonding the Isrge arr.no
them was se i 4 and coutingent yroperty tiMicient
uiti-
gawiy to discharge every claim, and leave a large
sdrplut to the petitioner.

41ye Coyar, after aseettairring that all the creditors
had been properly served with notices. dehjated that
bit. Claughton was entitled to the batiebi of the ♦ct,
and be was cbschasged.