Star.
London, England, 1816-12-07 00:00:00

lute the imputations,. Mr. Merceron might with
justice have been held ar,worthy of his station as a
Magistrate, and of his office as treasurer. He should
proceed to prove the ,eedful facts, regretting that
these unhappy differences had ever commencedomd
that a Court of Justice should be disgusted with their
repetition.
The parish clerk proved that he had read these
libels in the church, after mornings ervice was over,
by the direction of Mr. King, who had previously
informed hits, that he had received them from some
of the parishioners, with a request that they should
be given out amongst the usual parish notices read in
church after the publication of banns.
Mr. DeNistaN end Mr. STARKIE appeared as Coun-
sel for the dt fendants ; and the course of defence
suggested was, that the publication of these notices
is: church, was the legitimate and ordinary mode of
calling together the parishioners for the purpose of
discussing paroci)ial matters ; and for this, they cited
Bart's Eccle.iastical Law, which expressly laid down
this as the proper mr.l: of publication, it being re-'
quisite that the object of the requited, meeting should
be expressly and distinctly announced in the notice.
Lord Extatealaounit concturei in the propriety of
the rule so hid down ; but expressed his belief, that
the learned writer referred to, did not go un to add,
that the notices so published might legally be the ve-
hicles of defamatory matter. It was impossible to
carry the doctrine to that exsent. Had the notices
in question been published merely in the presence of
Vestrymen, and not publicly in church, when stran-
gers to the parish were assembled, perhaps a greater
latitude of expression might be allowed than would
be tolerated in a notice given out to a mixed congre.
gation. It was probable that the signers of these
requisitions had a very laudable object in view, but
in their zeal to attain their purpose, they had over.
stepped the line of prudence, and had used language
which, in point of law, was illegal. With the merits
of the case, the Court, in this stage of the proceed-
ing, had nothing to do. However, his Lordship
thought, considering the delicacy of the situation in
which all parties were placed, that it was a prosecu.
tion which would not answer any useful purpose by
being persevered in, and he therefore asked the At-
torney General whether his client wished to proceed!
The ATTORNEY GENF.RAL, after communicating
with Mr? Merceron, said, that this was a matter
which he referred to his client's own judgment, as he
(the Attorney General) considered himself as the
=ere advocate on the occasion.
The case then proceeded, and the signatures of
the other defendants being proved,
Mr. DENMAN said, that after Lotd Ellenborough's
opinion, he should not go to the Jury, but reserve
the case of the defendants, with a view to mitigation,
if the prosecutor should move for judgment.
Lord ELLENDOROLIGH then proceeded to address the
Jury, and observed, the defendant's Counsel had acted
most judiciously in the course they had adopted. It
appeared in this case, that the defendants wen
persons of great respectability, though they bad
thus imprudently committed themselves. They had
certainly a legal right to call a Vestry, and to
discuss the expenditure of the parish money.—
There were also many other matters of great impor-
tance contained in the notices which had been read,
and for the consideration of which it was highly ne-
cessary a Vestry Meeting should have been called ;
but though there was much very proper matter con-
tained in the notices, there was much also of a very
improper nature mixed up with it—calumnious, li-
bellous, and highly improper to be promulgated in a
place of worship, and at such a time as this publica-
tion was made. They had certainly overstepped the
bounds of the law ; and as such, were subject to have
a verdict passed against them. AU which the Jury
had now to do, was to return a verdict of Guilty or
Not Guilty The mitigatory circumstances would
be taken into consideration by the Court, whenever
it should be thought proper by the prosecutor to
bring them up for judgment, should the Jury find
them guilty.
The Jury returned a verdict of Guilty against all
the defendants.
CONSISTORY COURT, DECEMBER 6.
bTROLJD V. STROUD.

This was a cause of nullity of marriage, promoted
by Isabella Fisher, otherwise Stroud, against J.
Stroud, her husband, by reason of minority. The
marriage took place by licence, at Stepney Church,
on the 94th of June, 1812. It appeared that the
wife was only 19 years of age at the time, and that
it was without the knowledge of her father, and
the same was kept a secret from him for a year after.l
wards. It was admitted by Counsel, on the part of
Mr. Stroud, that the fact of the marriage could not
be denied ; but contended there was a want of proof
of identity of the husband. Sir WILLIM4 SCOTT .was
however, clearly of opinion that the minority, tit;
want of consent, and the identity of the parties, wen,
fully proved, and accordingly pronounced the mar-1
riage null and void.
COCKPIT, DECEMBER S.
The Julian, Moloany master.—T vessel, with a
cargo of timber, proteoded.ao Trinidad ; there sold
the same, took in a cargo of molasses, and on her re-
turn to Penobscot, touched at Porto Rico, to take in
Spanish papers ; and afterwards, as she was proceed.
ing to Boston, being in a state of distress, she put
into Bermuda, and was there seized, on the 18th of
January, 1814, by. the Deputy Marshal of the Court;
and the Vice Admiralty Court of that island con-
demneaec d her. From which sentence au appeal was
priuted to this Court. Their Lordships affirmed
the sentence.
The Sea Polly, Rowell master.—This was the
case of an American ship,. laden with flour-and tar,
which sailed from Wilmington in St. John's, New
Brunswick, and, in the-prosecution of that voyage,
was captured on the Bth of July, 1814, by his Maps.
ty's ship Lacedemonian, and carried to Bermuda,
where the was condemned, on the ground of a breach
of blockade. Their Lordships restored the properly
as claimed, subject to the captors' expenses up to a
• certain period.
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.
ER JOHN FLOYD V. xxxxcaut, irSQ.
This action was upon the warranty of a hone. The
plaintiff, General Floyd, being in want of a horse,
employed Captain Serie, a friend, to purchase one for
• him. Captain Serie bad beard that the defendant, a
-ginitlemaa of fortune. in Devonshire, then inLondon,
'Soria about to sell a horse that would suit the purpose