Star.
London, England, 1829-07-21 00:00:00

LORD WINCIIILIIEA V. WAUCTIOPE.

Mr. Horne wished to know whether his Lordship
wottlil please to take an order in this case, which it will
be recollected was an application for a new trial, in a
cnestion involving the validity of the will of the late
I), he of Roxburgh. . _ _

'l he Lord Chancellor said he had determined not to
Mike »ny order; he would however say that no verdict
oar, 'id be given, that would satisfy his mind, unless the
ev:ilence Gf Mr. Diindas, the noble testator's solicitor,
was in some way admitted before the jury. He should
wake no directions about it, but the parties might, if they
vleased, take advantage of the hint.
After a few words from Mr. Horne,

The Solicitor General complained that the Court. if it
declined making any order, should make an intimation
which had precisely that effect.
The Lord Chancellor thought it would not have that
efiect. if another verdict was obtained, it was obtained
solely for the purpose of informing the conscience of the
Court, and he was convinced that Mr. Dundas's evidence
was absolutely necessary for the jury to come to a right
conclusion.

The Solicitor-General said, that that gentleman's evi-
dence was before the Court in another shape. His client
as not disposed to produce him at the trial, and he could
rut advise him to do so ; and as his Lordship said he
would not be satisfied unless the Jury heard his evidence,
it amounted to an order to produce him.
The Lord Chancellor-1 did not say I will not; or if
I did, I spoke more strongly than I intended.
The Solicitor-General respectfully assured his Lord-
ship that the words used were, " I will not."
The Lord Chancellor again repeated his conviction of
the absolute necessity of Mr. Dundas being examined
before the Jury, and the matter dropped.

IN THE MATTER OF TILE lION. JERVIS JERVIS, A

SUPPOSED LUNATIC.

Mr. Horne stated that Earl St. Vincent had not been
able to reply to the different affidavits Sled, and it was
wished that this unfortunate business might be further
del.!yed till this day se'nnight.
To this the Solicitor General objected, but after a great
(lest of di.cussion it was agreed that the petition should
be heard on the day named by Mr. Horne, at the sitting
of the Court. The Solicitor General took occasion to
ohserve, he had received an extraordinary letter from a
person on the other side, but he begged to state he knew
hovv to conduct his own business, and he desired that
such a thing might not be repeated.
A „Junior Counsel said that Mr. Browning had been
pestered with anonymous letters, the object of which was
manifest.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, JoLr to.
ILLY° AL DIST RESS-O ITTOES V. PORTSVEY.

Tills action was brought to recover damages for
enoritig the plaintiff's house, and taking his goods.
looking at the evidence on both sides, it appeared that
the defendant, who was tho original lessee of a louse in
Upper Grenville-street, Pancras, assigned his lease to a
person named Lewis, and in 182 S Lewis assigned it to
the plaintiff, which gave him lee-al possession of the pre-
mihee, but his goods became liable to the landlord for
arrears of rent. There being three quarters in arroar to
the landlord, the plaintiff moved off his stock in trade,
and part of his furniture. The defendant, knowing that
he was liable, as the original lessee, for the landlord's
claim, thought proper to break open the house, to put in
a looker, and distrain for the amount of the landlord's
claim, amounting to 19!.
Mr. Chitty addressed the jury, for the purpose of re •
clueing the damages.
Lord Tenterden said, the defendant had acted illegally
in doing that which he should have got his landlord to do.
h w as, however, not a cs.se for excessive damages.
The jury Bound for the plaintiff—damages, 161.
THZ KING V. WEST AND OTHERS.

This was an indictment for .an assault at the Castle,
If.Sington, in December last, on the prosecutor, Charles
Clark, by four persons named West, Jones, Ante, and
ons.--ek appeared, from the evidence of the prosecutor,
tint he went into the above public-house to take some
r•6eshruent, and joined in a game of cards with Jones
and Lyons ; a quarrel afterwards ensued about the fair-
ness of the play, and Lyons commenced an as.ault on the

prosecutor, which was followed up by Jones and West,
when he was knocked down, and kicked violently during
ale time he was on the ground; the landlord was also
charged with assisting the defendants.
A surgeon deposed to the prosecutor having received
some injury, a black eye, and a bruise on the side, which
was apparently occasioned by a kick.
Mr. Holt, for the defendants, called several witnesses
who were present during the whole of the quarrel, and
swore that the prosecutor, Clark, was drunk, and first
insulted Lyons,. and that the attack on each side was
simultaneous. It was also proved that the landlord was
not present, and that West merely interfered to separate
the parties.
Lord Tenterden summed up, and the jury acquitted all
the defendants.