Star.
London, England, 1828-05-12 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF CHANCERY, Mar 10:
RX-PAATI GOULD IN NB LfZTY, A BANKRUPT.
Mr. KNIGHT stated this to be the Petition of Mr.
Gould, a merchant, residing at Manchester, praying
that the Commission issued might be superseded, and
that another Commissionmight issue against the Bank-
rupt.• The Petition stated, that on the 16th of April a
docket was struck by a Mr. Abrahams, a jeweller, living
at Birmingham, against Lyon Levy, a clothier, also
living at Birmingham, for a d bt of 1201. The Petition
proceeded on two grounds-Ist. That the Commission
was concerted ; and 2dly. That the Commission ought
to have been sued out at Manchester, where the great
body of the creditors lived. To prove the concert
between Mr. Abrahams and the Bankrupt, it was
sworn in the affidavits, that the Petitioning Creditor
was an itinerant jeweller, having no shop, was liv-
ing in lodgings at Birmingham. and had lent Mr.
Levy the 1`..61. upon ohich the Commission pro-
ceeded; that, from the 16th of April, the time when
the docket was struck, to the 2tl of Nlay, no step what-
ever was taken to open the Commission ; that, in the
mean time, the B.tnktupt (who had previously ordered
and received goods to a large amount from different
houses in Manchester)contrived to remove all his goods
from Birmingham, and had decamped. It was upon
these grounds charged, that Abrahams had taken nut
the Commission to gave Levy time to clear all his goods
away from his creditors. Abrahams himself, it was
sworn, was insolvent, and had some years since stopped
payment. With respect to the place chosen for the
Commission, it was evident that it would have been
better that it should have been taken out at Manchester,
where the creditors resided.
Mr. SUDDEN (who was absent at the opening of the
petition) spoke in its support.
Mr. Twtos and Mr. Moperacy were beard for the
petitioning creditor, and relied chiefly on the affidavit
of Mt. Abrahams, who denied that he had ever stopped
payment, but admitted that he had, about fourteen years
since. taken the benefit of the lasolvent Act, in conse-
quence of the absconding of one of his partners; but
had since•paid 6s. Bd. in the pound. The affidavit fur-
ther stated, that if Mr. Levy had removed the goods, it
was wholly without his knowledge, consent, or privity;
and, that having been from Birmingham the greater
part fiche time, till the time of the present application
to .Upersede the commis-inn, he was wholly ignorant
of the circumstance stated in the affidavits on the other
side. Tne deponent further alleged, that he was now
in good circumstances, and was indebted to no one is
tl e irorld. The Learned Counsel contended, that al-
thane) the bankrupt alight have grouly misconducted
himself, yet, that the petitioning creditor was in no wai
in Moiled in 'the transaction.
The LOBO CHANCRLLOR was decidedly of opinion
that it was from beginning to end a fraudulent trans-
action, and that the commission had been concerted to
deiraed the creditors. He accordingly directed the
present commission to be superseded, and a new com-
ushsion to issue.—Petition allowed with costs.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, 11Iav 10.
BRX t 7. Till BISHOP Ol ROCHIaTSR.
A rule had been obtained to show cause why a man-
triausshmild not issue to compel the Bishop of Rochester
to admit a Presentee of the Crown to a certain Stall in
the Cathedral ok. Rochester.
Sir JAIIIIB•SCARLITT, the SOLICITOR GanaaAL, and
Coutatonic, showed cause against the rule, stating,
that by Letters Patent of Charles I. the Stall in question
had been annexed to the Archdeaconry of Rochester. to
which the Bishop had the right to present; besides,
the remedy was by scire facia:, and not by the preroga-
tive writ.

SEX V. ACKLAND.
Sir J. SCARLETT moved tor a rule to show cause why
a criminal information should not be filed against a
person of the name f Ackland, for a libel on the Ma-
gistrates of Bristol. This person had been a Revolter
for a London Newspaper, and from London be had
gone to Bristol, and there set up a Newspaper for himself.
la the course of his functions he thought proper to at-
tend at the proceedingsof lite Bristol Magistrates, whietr
proceedings he repotted. in his own way, in his P.M'
but as in these reports there were continual and gross Eris+
representations, the Magist,ates thought prrper to turn
him out of the room where they held their sittings, and
that circumstance was understood to be the caus of the
libel on the MagitrAtes, on whose hehall he-applied for
theßule:The Wertz httnianiores.were quite familiar to this
person, and, indeed, he had a gilt in that way, fur he
quoted Euripides in Latin; and in cbaractetizing tbi
Magistrates seriatim, he spoke of •ontof them as ex boxii
pater- malls flies!! One of the. Magistrates had the
h,snour of being described as worthy, but corrupted by
keeping bad company; and the others of them were
described in a much more Offesiosivelnanner. This libel
bad appeared in a Newspaper. published by the. defen-
dant himself.
Lord-Trarnanzw—Take a rule to show cause.
ARCHES COURT, MAT 10.
JUDGMENT IN THE PORTSMvUTH CASE.

Sir JOHN NICHOLL dehvered his judgment in this
long depending suit of nullity of marriage, by reason
of hand and circumvention, and mental incapacity of

the Noble plaintiff.
The Learned Juice,- in pronouncing sentence, reca
pitulated minutely the various facts in the cause whiLl,
established the habitual cisildisbnesssind imbecility ca
Lord Portsmouth, dwelling very-mush on the capricious
character of those whimsical prepossessions, the some
melancholy history of which is already too familiar
to the public to be here muted. He next investigated,
all the circumstances attending the mode in which Ibis
marriage was •procured and solemnised—from the first
application for thelicenseto the briaried completion 01
the ceremony, every incident was strongly impressed
with the most suspicious features of clandemisitl. in
commenting upon the settlement, Ste. which leeltexe-
cdted between the parties, he expressed hiniself inter
of strong indignation at the palpable advantage which
bad been taken of the Earl's helpless and almost.idiotic
coadition,and declared that he could look upon the whole
transaction in-so other light than as a gross conspirscyoi
the part of the Hanson family. As to the other circum-
stances on which an adulterous intercourse was att00411:
to the Cosiness with Alder, and all those other fate of

gross and profligate criminality (wit
public decency has been so often outraged), the Co
entirely concurred with the Counsel for ins Lordship in
the expression of indignant reprobation and disgust ;
ani, finally, it pronounced the pretended marriage be-
tween these parties to be null, void, and of none effect
in law ; condemned Mr. Hanson, the father and trustee
of Lady Portsmouth, and her Ladyship, in the costs of
the suit.

EXCHEQUER CHAMBER, MAYIO.
MURDBR AT RATH.

The Judges met to hear the further arguments in
this case.
Mr. FOLLETT, as Counel for the prosecution, in a
very learned addresss, answered the arguments adduced
by Mr. Moody, and cited several cases to show that
promises, or inducements, held out by unauthorised per-
sons, to prevail on a prisoner to confess, did not prevent
the confession from being afterwards received in evi-
dence. The Learned Counsel also argued that, in this
case, supposing any undue influence had been used in
the first instaace to obtain chi prisoner's confession
(which he did not admit), still the prisoner was after-
wards warned by the Mayor that whatever he said
would be taken down, and probably be given in evi•
dence against him; and the constable also cautioned him,
that all he said to him would be told to.the Magistrate ;
yet, after both these admonitions, the prisoner deli-
berately made that confession which he (the Counsel)
contended, had been properly received in evidence by
the Lear ned Judge.
Mr. Moony replied, after which the Court was
cleared, and the Judges remained closeted in consulta-
tion for upwards of an hour, and then decided that the
confession was admissible evidence against the prisoner,
and consequently the conviction against him was ac-
cording to law.
The prisoner was respited until the 4th June, about
which time it is supposed his execution will take place.