Star.
London, England, 1821-07-14 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

Renaintus, Arnim; MID PIITTIONI4 311,012 IRS
Loss Cuassemos, arm UNITY Timm, 1821.
FIRST &Au—Tuesday, July 17.
Wednesday, July 18—Fridly, %I—Saturday, 21—Monday,
23—Tuesday, 24—Wednesday, 25—Rehearings and Appeals.
Swaim Sza.t..—Thursday, July 26.
Friday, July 27—Saturday, 211--Monday, 30—Tuesday, 31—
Wednesday, August 1--Tlorsday, 2—Friday, 3—Rehearings

and Appeals.
Than Szat...Saturday,'rig 4.
Monday, August 6—Tuesday, 7—Wednesday, B—Thurs-
day, 9—Friday, 10—Saturday, 11—Monday, I—Rehearings
and Appeals.
rouses Seat.--Tuesday, August 14.
Wednesday, August 15—Petitions.
SEALS, BANICIVIT Psrtaoxa,Fl7l2lllll/ DIRIOCTIONS, Causes,
PLEASIDISIUMIELII, Ricarnotus, AND Persrsoxs, BIFOLZ TUE
VICZ-CHANCTLLOIL, artaa TRINITY TERM, 1861.
FIRS? Seat.—Tupday, July 17—Motions.
Wednesday, July 18—Friday, 20—Saturday, 21—Mon da y ,
23—Tuesday, 24—Wednesday, 25—Bankrupt Petitions and
further Directions.
- -

SECOND &AL.—Thursday, July 26—Motions.
Friday, July 27—Saturday, 28—Monday, 50—Tuesday, 51—
Wednesday, August l—Thursday, 2—Friday, s—Bankrupt
Petitions and furtlirr Directions.

THIRD Se►c.—Saturday, August 4T-Motions.
Monday, August 6—Tuesday, 7—Wednesday, B—Thurs-
day, 9—Friday, us—Saturday, 11—Monday, 53—Pleas,
,De-
snorters, Exceptions, further Directions, and Causes.
FOUST!! Sent. --Tuesday, August 14—Motions.
Wednesday, August 15—Petitions.
.COURT OF KING'S BENCH, JULY 13.

RICHARDSON V. THE SHERIFF OF MIDDLESEX, AND

ANOTHER.
Mr. Scaat.zrr stated the case to the Jury, -and
described it as one of very great importance. This
was an action for assault and false imprisonment,
arising out of circumstances of a singular nature.
The plaintiff was a Gentleman of great respectabi-
lity, residing near Wanstead; and the action was
brought nominally against the Sheriff, but in fact
against one of his Officers. It would appear, that a
writ of Ca Sa had been forwarded. to the Office of
the Sheriff, as coming from an indiVidual named
Mills, with a request that the same might be put in
force immediately, against the person named therein,
Mr. John William Richardson, of Oak-Hall, near
Wanstead, Essex, no suspicion being entertained of
any fraud. The writ was in die regular course
handed over to the Officer, who went down to the
place described, and, .finding the plaintiff, arrested
him, thohgli told that he was not John William
Richardson but John Richardson ; and that he did
not owe anything for which to be arrested. The
Officer persisted in bringing him to town, and he was
retained in custody three days. In the meantime
inquiry was instituted for Mr. Mills, but no such
person was to be found ; and it ultimately turned out,
that the whole was a malicious proceeding. The
plaintiff, however, had his suspicions where it origi-
nated, though he had no proof to bring it home to
the parties. The Learned Counsel then called wit-
nesses to prove these facts.
Mr. GURNEY, for the defendants, first contended,
that the Sheriff was justified by the writ, and that the
plaintiff should be nonsuited.
The CHIEF Jo.*icn would not nonsuit the plain-
tiff on this point ; but said, he would save it, if neces-
sary, for future consideration.
Mr. GURNEY then contended, that here was no
malice in the case, neither was it one calling for or
justifying damages, inasmuch as the plaintiff had ac-
knowledged his belief, that he was the person meant
by the description in the writ, although the name
was not the same ; and the plaintiff further acknow-
ledged, that he suspected the quarter in which this
proceeding had originated.
Mr. SCARLETT submitted, that to adopt such a
principle would be dangerous to the liberty of the
subject. It was apparent, that the description in the
writ did not answer the description of the plaintiff.
The CHIEF JUSTICE said, he would save the point,
if necessary, whether the descriptiOn of John William
Richardson would cover John Itichdidson. In this
case it was plain, on the part of the plaintiff, that he
was the person intended in the writ ; and the ques-
tion for the Jury would be, how far the Sheriff could
have been actuated by any other feeling, except a
wish to do his duty ? They would consider this ques-
tion; and if they considered the Sheriff as justified,
they would find for the defendants; if not they would
find for the plaintiff, with such moderate damages
as the justice of the case required.—The Jury, after
a short deliberation, found for the defendants.
CHESHIRE V. BRITON.

This was an action of assault. The parties were
the driver of the Walthamstow stage-coach and a
passenger by thesame vehicle. The coachman called
the passenger a swindler ; the passenger broke the'
coachman's nose; and nothing short of the verdict of
a Jury could arrange their difference.—Verdict for 1
the plaintiff—Damages, Forty Shillings.
ADAMS V. PENNY.

Mr. GURNEY stated, that this was a proceeding cm
a writ of error, to set aside a judgment obtained by
the defendant against the plaintiff, on the ground
that at the time the judgment was obtained, the
plaintiff was not of age. The issue, therefore, which
was now to be tried, rested with the defendant, and
to begin, what he should have to prove was, that
the plaintiff was an honest man, whiht the de-
fendant would have to labour hard to prove himself
a rogue. The circumstances of the case s% e:e• as fol-
low :—The plaintiff had been a publican in Fleet-
market, where he carried on business for some time,
and contracted debts to a considerable amount;
amongst other creditors was Mr. Penny, the present
defendant, who had furnished him with spirits to a
considerable amount. Upon this debt he was arrested,
and then he turned round and wished to pay by a
plea of minority ; and as he understood, the mother
was now to be called to prove the fact. Ile was per-
suaded, however, she had put it out of her power by
her own declarations, to do so ; for on the son being
arrested, instead of then pleading his minority, he,
put in bail, and ultimately offered to give the pre-
sent defendant a warrant of attorney. A rumour
having in the meantime reached the ears of Mr.
Penniss Solicitor, that Adams was a minor, he went
to him, told him the rumour, and represented that it
would be folly, if such was -the fact, to give a secu-
rity which would be useless. Adams then contra-
dicted the rumour in strong terms.' An application
to his mother on the same subject, was treated in the
same manner; she expressed indignation at the re-
port, as one spread by some concealed enemy, de-
sirous of ruinipg her son. After these declarations,