Star.
London, England, 1828-01-29 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF CHANCERY, JAM. ftS.
..WANT= AND LORD ANSON.
Mr.SUOnn was-beard in this cause, and Mr. WHEAT-
Lay having pursued the reply, obtained permisston for
the remainder of the argument to come on some day in
the next week,
BRADSHAW AND BOUGHT.
The Court was occupied until its rising in hearing
Counsel in this cause, which is respecting a tithe ques-
tion, of no public interest, and which remains unfinished.
It was generally known in Court that Sir Charles
Wetherell is appointed Attorney General.
COURT OF. KING'S BENCH, WZMIIINSTXII, JAL 28.
'MOTIONS FOR NRW TRIALS.
The Court was occupied the greater part of the
morning in hearing motions for new trials, a list of eight
having been sent In this morning. Before they %%ere
gone into,
Lord TENTIRDEN adverted to the old practice of the
Court, according to which motions of this kind were',
confined to the first four days of each Term. They had
lately been allowed to be made after the first four days
of Easter and Michaelmas Terms, on account of the
press of business from the Circuits; but the Court had
determined that in future no motions for new trials
shotitd be heard after the first four days of Hilary and
Trinity Terrhs. The circumstance of Counsel being
frequently unprepared to make their motions within the
first lour days, arose from the fault of the attornies, who
did not deliver their instructions in proper time.

BULLETT V. HUTCHINSON.
Mr. KELLY moved for a rule nisi, to set aside the
verdict obtained by the plaintiff in this case and enter a
nonsuit. The action, which was tried' at the late sittings
at Guildhall, was to recover the amount of two bills of
exchange, which had been entrusted to the defendant
for the purpose of getting them discounted. The de-
fendant-on receiving them, gave a written undertaking
to thoplaintiff to return them on demand, in case he did ,
not sixceed in getting them discounted. This under-
.taking• was given in evidence on the trial, notwithstand-
ing it was found to be without a stamp. Mr. Kelly now
contended that it ought not to have been received with-
out a common agreement stamp. The Learned Counsel
cited several cases, to shew that a document of this de-
scription required a stamp.
Lord TENTERDIEN observed, that as the bills were not
delivered to the defendant to be converted to his own
use, but merely as agent of the plaintiff for the purpose
of getting them discounted .and handing over the pro-
ceeds to the plaintiff, the case was analagous to that of
an attorney who was intrusted with title deeds or other
documents,. for a particular purpose. The Court could
not therefore think that this undertaking required a
stamp.—Rule refused.
FRITH V. THRUSH.
Ws was an action by an, endorsee against an endorser
of a bill of exchange. It was tried at the last sittings
in London before Lord TENEERDEN, when a verdict was
found for the plaintiff.
Mr. BROUGHAM now moved for a rule to show cause
why the verdict should not be set aside, and a nonsuit
entered, or why a new trial should not be granted.—
The bill in question, it appeared, was accepted for the
accommodation of a person of the name of Major, a
clothier, at Frome, in Somersetshire, by whom it was
drawn. It had been passed into the hands of the de•
fesilant, an innholder, residing at Bruton, near Frome,
,imse
gave directions to Major to endorse it for him to
the.plaintiff. "Major deputed his daughter to make the
liitiorsernent in the defendant's name ; and that being
del*, the bill was handed over to the plantiff. Mr.
Brotighain took exception to this mode of.endorsement,
which he contended was irregular. The Court, how-
everoyerreled the objecticn. The. Learned Counsel then
submitted, that no sufficient notice of the dishonour of
the bill by the acceptor had been given to the defend•
ant. The notice was sent by post, and did not reach the
defendant's hands for two months. It was sta ed that
the plaintiff did not knoW, at the time the bill became
due, that the defendant resided at Bruton, and that on
his discovering his residence, a fresh notice of the dis-
honour was forwarded to him. It appeared, however,
'that the second notice was not given until two or three
days after the defendant's residence was known to the
plaintiff; and Mr. Brougham now contended, that the
cause of the claty ought to have been explained by
evidence at,theltial.—;Rule nisi granted.
CRIMINAL INFORMATION.
Sir JAMES SCARLETT (who, having resigned his of.
fice of Attorney-General, took his seat this morning
below the senior King's Counsel) applied to the Court
for a rule to chew cause why a criminal information
should not be tiled against a Gentleman of the name
of Peachey, a Magistrate of the county of Sussex, on
the ground that belted, from corrupt motives as a Ma-
gistrate, refused to grant a license to Mr. Richard
Clark, the proprietor of the Royal Clarence Hotel at
Bognor. The Court was aware that an application of
this kind was one in which the party on v.hose behalf
it was made was placed under considerable difficulty,
inasmuch as he was bound to strew that the party
against whom he applied had been influenced in his
conduct by corrupt motives, which ought never to in-
fluence magisterial decisions. In proportion, however,
to the difficulty would she the strength of his claim,
should he succeed in satisfying the Court, from the
whole of the circumstances, that there was fair and
reasonable ground for attributing such motives. Mr.
Clark, at whose instance the present application was
made, stated in his affidavit, that in 18514 he purchased
the hotel at Bognor ; that it was then licensed, and vi-
sited by families of distinction, particularly during the
summer mouths; that he continued to keep it until the
year 1826, when a fire happened in the town, and it
was burnt down; but that he is still paying a heavy
rent under a lease of the premises, which he took in
1821; that, for the purpose of continuing his business.
he purchased two houses contiguous to the former
building, and fitted them up in one house as an hotel
for the accommodation of the visitors at Bognor ; and
there being no other house in the place fit for the re-
ception of the respectable persons who resorted thither,
he anticipated no difficulty in obtaining a license for
the new hotel. He accordingly, at the proper time,
applied to the Petworth Quarter Sessions, of which Mr.
Peachey was Chairman, for a license, which was re-
fused, without, however, any reason being assigned for
such refusal on the part of Mr. Peachey. Several other
Magistrates were present, and one of them subsequently
expressed an opinion that the license ought to have
beets granted. Mr. Clark, the Learned Counsel con
tinued, had spent from twelve to fourteen thousand
pounds in building the new hotel, which had been pa-
' tronized by his Royal Highness the Duke of Clarence,
and was now called ,4 the Royal Clarence Hotel."—
The house had never been complained of as disorderly,
and it could not be said that it, was useless to the town
of Bognor, for during six months of the year at least it
was frequented by the most fashionable company. Mr.
Clark being refused a license on his first application,
determined to renew it on the next license day, and for
that purpose, after complying with the requisitions of
. -

the Act of parliament, be procured the support of op-
wards of SO of the most respectable inhabitant house•
holders in Bognor, at the head of whom was the Earl
of Arran. They recommended the license to-be granted.
on the ground that the prosperity of the town of Bognor
depended principally on distinguished company con-
tinuing to resort thither. The application, however,
was again refused. The Sessions were adloirried to a
subsequent day, and Mr. Clark having determined to
make another attempt to procure the license, presented
to the Magistrates a memorial bearing the signatures
of about SO persons, representing the wish of the prin-
cipal inhabitants of Bognor that the new hotel should
be licensed, the Claremont Hotel having now become
reduced to a mere shed, and.not fit for the reception
of such families as usually visited.Bognor. This third
application, however, was also unsuccessful, though
there was no imputation of improper conduct on the
part of Mr. Clark, who had, in addition to the .
memorial, procured a certificatcof his perional fitness
and good character. The objection, it should seem,
related to Mr. Clark personally,- though it had been
said the refusal of the license arose from a desire s
protect the interests of the family to whom the former-
house belonged. He (Sir J. Scarlett), however, thonghs
that Mr. Peachey might be satisfied to let the interests:.
' of that•family be protected by the Court of Chancerj,
under whosejutisdiction they now were, and not sacrifice
the interests of a whole neighbourhood, for the purpose .
of protecting a single family.
Lord .lasrgarnto—Had Mr.Clat k been licensed before?
Sir JAMES Scooloorr.—Yes, my Lord, and he has a
licence still for the old house, which is now, however,
little better thau asked ; it was, in fact, part of the
house that had been burnt down. Mr. Peachey had
peremptorily' refused to giant the license for the new
house, but had refused to assign any reason for Os doing.
He said, 4, I will not license you ;" and when Mr. „
Clark asked him why, he said, ts You have got your
answer, Sir, in the refusal," and desired him to lefivet4
Court. Mr.. Claric afterwards wrote a letter to Mr.
Peachey, stating the tess,ons why he conceived a license
ought to be granted ; but the only ansoer he got was
.this--" Sir, I wonder at your assurance—you shall not
hove a license." It was rather difficolt to account for
this refusal of Mr. Peachey, and the only motive that
could be attributed might be infers ed from the following
circumstanc. : Soon after Mr. Clark had come tooeside
at Bognor, he was mainly instrumental in procuring an .
Act of Parliament for the improvement of the town ,
and neighbourhood. It-became necessary to pull down
some buildings in the place, and that gave great offence
to Mr. Peachey, who was a trustee of some property,
part of which it was necessary to take for the purpose
of the improvements. Mr. P. achey opposed the passing
of the Act; but Mr. Clark having succeeded against
Iris wishes, he (Mr. Peachey), had ever since din. ,
played feelings of personal hostility towards him.--
fhere was another circumstance to which Mr. .
Clark's affidavit adverted. It appeared that Mr. Clark
had obtained a license to sell wine at the former hotel,
under which he considered himself at liberty to carry . •
on the business of the hotel in the same way as most of
the hotel keepers in London did. It however happened"
on one occasion, that a peososeame to the In tel to,dina
ner, and-after be had taken wine, he .desited to have .. -
some ale. He was told that he could not be furnished
with it at the hotel, but that it should be oloaired for
him out of the house. This was done, and lie afterwards
called for a glass of spirits, which was also procured for
him ; but neither the ale nor the spirits was charged in.
Mr. Clark's bill. The person, however, immediately.
went and laid an information against Mr. Clark, and
he was convicted by Mr. Peachey, in three penalties,
r amounting together to 751. for selling ale and spirits
• without a license.. Mr. Clat k remonstrated against the •
I 'conviction, and told Mr. Peachey that there was not an
betel keeper in London who would not every day be
liable to a similar conviction. Mr. Peachey, howeviro
refused to alter his decision, and told Mr. Clark not .
to give him any of his Bow-street law." The Learned
Counsel, after detailing some minor circumstances, said
he hoped the Court would be of opinion that enough
had been stated to show, that in refusing the 'license
b
Mr. Peachey hadbeen influenced by personal motives. -
such as ought not to be tolerated in a Magistrate;, and •
that their Lordships would call upon him to, account
fur his conduct, by granting'a rule to shot/'cause. • -
Lord Tatmotozo.—Yon may take the tale.
HABEAS C )RPUS—EX PARTE BAXTER. • t
Mr. ARCHBOLD moved for a writ of habeas corpus,
directed to the Governor of his Majesty's Gaol of
Newga:e, to bring up the body of, a person of the
name of Baxter, who had been committed to that
gaol, under a warrant of certain Commissioners of
Bankrupt. before whom he had been summoned to ,
give evidence as a witness. The object of the applica.
rims was to have the individual brougto before the Court,
in order
_that he might be discharged out of custody,
on the gasund that he had been improperly committed.
The Learned Counsel stated, that Baxter had been com-
mitted by the Commissioners, because it was said the
answers he had given at, his examination before Them
were unsatisfactory. Mr. Archbold, was, however,
at a loss to know what- the answers wtre which the
commissioners, considered to be unsatidictory: The
witness was twice examined before them. After. his first
examination he was allowed to go at large. On his
second examination it appeared that he had qualified -
some of his anwers, and to the last question the
had given an answer which the Commissioners consi-
dered objectionable. Mr. Archbold then read the
questions and answers, and submitted thaesthe whole'of .
the latter were unexceptionable except the last ; and he
contended than the Commissioners hadoso right-to.qoes- •
tiou the witness on the subject to whic4. W bidliven
that answer. The
,Commissioners had.inquired as
to his belief of the intention of another person.notiviih-
standing he had previously stated that he had had no
communication whatever with thait person. •
Lord TANTERDEN.—Take the writ.
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, WISTUDISTIR, JAN. 28.
Sittings in Banco.
SEAGO V. DEAN. •
This was an action upon a speCial agreement, to re-
cover a sum of 201. which the defendant had promised .
to pay the plaintiff, who is a widow, upon condition of
her accepting a lease, which she agreed tra .do, at the
to put the premises into repair.
This however, only a verbal one, and
sam e
a timeg regiment undertaking
w as
when plaintiff paid her' first rent she demanded the
201. which he
t had been promised. The defendant, how-
ever, did not find it convenient to pay at that t'me, but •
assured the plaintiff it should be deducted from her next -
rent. He had, however, nevi r thought proper to fulfil-
his engagement, alleging as a reason that be was not o
bound by the agreement. In the meanwhile he -had. o
enforced payment of the tent, and the plaintiff was
compelled to bring an action to recover the, 201. 'l.
action was tried before Mr. Justice Gaselee West!::-
minster, during the sittings after last term, when the ro
agreement having been proved by parole eviathce, **
verdict was found for the plaintiff. The °otiose' foi''
the defendant at the trial objected to the
of parole evidence of the agreement ; but 04 Lear {a

-:,,~;:

••

'

•••• • •