Star.
London, England, 1803-01-27 00:00:00

MANDAMUS.

Mr. ADAM obtained a rule to fliew caufc why a
writ of Mandamus (hould not be &reeled to the
Mayor, Aldermen, Common Councilmen, &c. of
the borough of Cleat Grimfby, to admit a perfon
of the name of John Cobbs, as a freeman of the
borough, on the ground that he had married the
daughter of a freeman, which, by the coldlitution
of the borough, entitled him to that privilege.—
Mr. Simmons, the Mayor, had refufed to admit
him, though it had been Rated to him, that the
conftitution of that borough required it. '

DUKE Or NORFOLK V. MILL, ESQ.:.
Serjeant Coccsi.L moved for a new trial in this
Cafe, in which a verdiEt had been found for the
plaintiff at the lafl anises for the county of York.
Lord ELLEwsnarrycer (who tried the caufe)
milked him, Whether he moved it on account of
his having rejeted certain written evidence, of-
fered on the trial, or whether he moved it ge-
nerally ?
Serjeant COCKILY. faid, he moved it on both
grounds, that this evidence ought to have been
admitted, and that the preponderance of the evi-
dence was on the fide of the defendant.

Lord ELLINBOROUGH then obferved, that the
preponderance of evidence appeared both to him
and to the Jury to be flrongly in favour of the
plaintiff; but if the Learned Serjeant was of a
contrary opinion, it would be nerd:try to reca-
pitulate the whole of the evidence given upon the
trial.

The depofitions which were taLen on a bill it
1767, to perpetuate the tetliniony of old whitener,
were then ;rad.

The Learned Judge then rca:i his report of the
evidence upon the trial, by whieli it appeared,
that there was a common in l'orl.ihire, called
Mafpin.Moor, of which a part inclofed by the de-
feadant was the futijen of the relent aSion.—
There were feveral manors adjoining this moor,
namely, Hilham Manor, which the plaintiff re-
prefented ; Birin Manor, which was reprefented
by the defendant ; Hamilton Manor, and Gaytf-
ford Manor, which had long ago inclofed its por
tion of the Moor. The contell was now between
the Manors of Hilham and niacin, about a piece
inclofed by the latter, to which the Duke of Nor-
folk, as 'toilet to the late Lord Petre, who was
Lord of the Manor of Hilham, let up a claim.—
'l'here were a peat number of Alls of Ownerfhip,
loch as driving, ace. proved on the part of the
Lords of the Manor of Hallam, and few in com•
flatiron on the part of the Manor of Birkin.
As the reading of the depoMions, and the
Judges report, hailed til pall four o'cli.ck, it was
:•::teed, that the argument on this cafe 'hyoid be
ollpoued for a few days.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, JAN. 2S.
MOHR() V. TWISSELTON.
Mr. Serj ant. COCKELL moved for a Rule to
thew caufe why a new trial Ihould not be granted
in this cafe, the circumitances of which he Rated
to be as follow ;
The defendant, upon a dircovery of the infidelity
of his wife, had feparated from her, and intlitutcd
a fuit of divorce. In the mean time, while the
divorce was depending, Mrs. Tsci&Telron bore a
child, which was confided to the care of the plain•
Mr,.. Munro. It appeared in evidence, that
the child's mother vitited the plaintiff often, the
reputed father never. The child, however, loon
after tickened and died, and the nominal father
having willingly paid the furgeon's bill, and the
expenses of the funeral, this was underilood to he
an acknowledgment on his part, that the child
was his own. Upon this ground the plaintiff,
Mrs. Monro, brought an :s Pion againll the defen-
dant for the amount of the firm, which the alledg-
ed to have been expended in maintaining the child
while under her care. The Jury, after having
heard the evidence on both fides, gave a verdid
for the plaintiff-501.
'The Court feemed to be of opinion, that the
rum awarded was rather too large, but did not
think that this could be conlidered as a fufficient
reafon for ditlurbing the verdift.—Rule refuted.
DECICER V. THOMSON.
Mr. Serjeant SHEPHERD appeared for the plain
tiff, to thew caufe again!) a Rule, whichhad,in this
cafe, been obtained by the defendant.
He Rated, that this anion had originally been
brought upon a policy of infurance. In the firft
Rages of the anion, the plaintiff's attorney had re
gularly communicated the Reps that were taken
to the defendant, that he might either compromile
the matter, or come forward with his objetlions.
To theCe communications, however, no attention
was paid by the defendant, who had obferved a
flight irregularity in the proceedings, viz. the
words " King's Bench," inferad in lime of the
writings, intlead of Common Pleas," of which
the plaintiff's attorney was not aware. As his aim
appeared to be to procure unneceffary delays, and
put the plaintiff to as much expence as pollible;
he took no notice of this circurnftance till judg-
ment had been obtained in favour of the plaintiff,
and then he came forward with the oblation of
irregularity ; and upon this ground the proceed
ings were let afide by the Court, and the plaintiff
was fubjefted to much unneceffary expence and
vexatious delay. The irregularity being corral.
ed, the plaintiff again obtained judgment in his
favour, with a provifo that he fhould give fecurity
to the defendant for payment of the cons of a
commiflion fent by him to Bremen for the pur-
pole of examining certain witneffes, in cafe their
evidence fhould materially alter the nature of the
cafe in favour of the defendant. Security was ac-
cordingly given by the plaintiff, to which there
could be no oblation ; but the defendant ating
upon his principle of delay, finding that no reafon•
able oblation could be made to the perfon who
Rood forward as furety for the plaintiff, applied
again to the court for a rule to (top proceedings,
upon the ground that the paper was not Ramped,
and that an erafure had evidently been made in it.
—The Learned Serjeant proceeded to obferve, that
the pretences upon which this rule had been pro-
cured were in the higheß degree frivolous and vex-
atious. The futility was unexceptionable, the
mitlake of the Ramp had been reetified as loon as
pointed out, and the erafure, which was limply
the infertion of the name of one month in the place
of another, which had been fcratched out, could
not in the fmalleft degree affect the validity of the
paper.
The judgment of the Court upon this cafe was
delayed till the following day, as Lord ALT..). LaY
was obliged to commence the Sittings vr Nifi Prism,
during which nothing occurred that could excite
the (lighten intereft.
j•N. 25.—FIELD V. THORP AND OTHERS.
Serjeant BEST, the Counfel for the Plaintiff,
moved the Court for a new trial in this cafe, the
circumßances of which he Rated to be as follow :
A Mr. Deverel, who fume time ago became a
bankrupt, and fled the country for a forgery, had,
a few years previous to that event, taken the leafe
of a farm, which the Plaintiff contended he only
held as truflee for him, to whom the profits of
the farm entirely belonged, with the dedation of
a certain fun, by way of commillion to Mr. Deve-
rel, for management. As fonn as the Plaintiff
learned that Mr. Deverel, with the real nate of
whole circumnances he had hitherto been unac-
quainted, was upon the point of becoming infol-
vent, he with all poffible difpatch took the premifes
into his own hands, and procured a deed from
Mr. Deverel, executed and figned by himfelf, in
which he declared that lie held the farm only in
capacity of trunee for the Plaintiff.
The Defendants, who ated as affignees int. the
creditors of this Mr. Deverel, feized the leafe in
their behalf as part of the bankrupt's property, re- 1
garding the tranfation between him and Reid
merely as a fi:teul pratifed with a view to fecure
the profits of die farm to die bankrupt, and there-
by defraud his creditors, immediately fold, under
this conviCtion, part of the Rock, confining of a
iptantiry of hay, which was, without delay, car-
ried off by the purchafers.
Fur the recovery of the value of this hay an Ac-
tion of 'rrover was brought by the Plaintiff againft
the Defendants. The Jury, however, impreffed
with the idea that the whole molt have been a
collufiun between Reid and Deverel, with intent
to defraud the creditors of the latter, thought
themfelves fufficiently juflified in returning a ver-
di& for the Defendants.
The Learned Serjeant argued, that this verdift
ought tis be fet :aide upon two grounds--firn,Thar
the evidence adduced upon the part of the Plaintiff
did not appear to have had its proper weight with
the Jurv—and fecondly, That as no witnelTes had
been called by the Defendants, he had no oppor-
tunity of preffing upon the ni;nds or the Jui y fe-
veral circionflarices tending to enrroborate the
evidence of the Plaintiff. lie was now prepared
to p: rive, beyond a doubt, u! truth of his client's
allegatior s; and that fn far Iron, there being any
icullutiutr ()ay.:en him and Dcvercl, the forgery

for which the latter had fled his country had bean
executed for the ex prefs put pofe of defrauding the I
Plaintiff fle hoped, therefore, that the Court
would not refufe to give itim an opportunity oil
procuring that jullice for his client to which he
was entitled.
Lord ALVAxxtY obferved, that at the time of
the trial, the imprcilion upon his mind was, that
the whole was a fraud, and that the Jury had
Ihewn, by their verdift, that they entertained the
fame idea. In cafe, however, his learned brother
thought he could make good his prefent allega-
tions, it would be improper in the Com t to refufe
the opportunity requelted.—Rule granted.

RICHARDSON V. MACHWICK.
Mr. Serjeant BEST moved for a rule to flew
caufe why a new trial (hould not be granted in this
cafe. It was an aelion brought to recover damages
for the detention of 31 hides feized by the Defen-
dant in Leadenhall market, agreeable under an a&
made in the reign of James, which direEled the
fealers and infpettors of leather to feal filch hides
as were found to be damaged and unfit for fale.—
On the 18th of December, one of the Plaintiff's
fervants conveyed the hides to marker,the morning
following they were feized and carried to Guild-
hall, where an examination took place, and five of
them were condemned, as they appeared to be unfit
for ufe ; the remaining 26 were returned to the
Plaintiff, on his making a promile not to bring
any affirm againfl the Defendant for detaining the
whole of the property.
It was contended, on the part of the Plaintiff;
that the hides had not been fent to the market for
the purpofe of fate, and that they appeared to be
damaged from the effeel of rain, that had fallen
upon them during the night. The Defendant hav-
ing alto made application to prevent an affirm up-
on lie ocealion was fufficient evidence to convince
the Court the property had been unjunly detined.
Mr. Serjeant SMITH ERD obferved, that when the
hides were feized, the moll of them appeared to
be damaged in different parts ; the infpeEtors, there.
fore, in&ad of cutting off thole particular parts,
had taken five bides, which anfwered to the pro.
portion of the leather found feizable, and teturned
the reit that had been detained.

Lord ALVANLEY adverted to the evidence for-
merly adduced in this cattle, and it appeared that
the property had been fent by the Plaintiff to be
fold. The Court was fatisfied with the former de.
drum of the Jury in favour of the Defendant, and
the Rule was refufed.