Star.
London, England, 1828-05-20 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

&lAEA AND PETITIONS, BEFORE TIIS Loss CIIANCILLOII, AMR
EAST'S Tama, AVID PRAIIIOUS 10 TRINITY TRIM, 828.
Thursday, May 22.—Seal after Easter Term.
Tuesday, June Seal before Trinity Term -- Wedneaday;
Petitions.
SIMLA AND Pamtows, DITORt THE VICE-CHANCELLOR, ATTU.
BASSI& Tasat. AND !REMUS TO TRINITY TRAK, Is2B.
Thurmlay, May ift—Seal after Easter Term.
Tuesday, June 3 Seal before Trinity Term... Wednesday,
Petitions. _ _

COURT OF CHANCERY, MAT 19:
WARMSLEY V. FROWD.
This was an application on the part of the plaintiff,
to commit the defendant, who is a solicitor, for contempt
in the breach of an injunction. It appeared that Mr.
Frowd, who is the proprietor of a farm at Mutely, in
Staffordshire, commenced an action against the plain-
tiff, who had been his tenant, for a breach of certain
covenants, and for the recovery of the rents alleged to
be due. The plaintiff filed his bill in this Court, for the
purpose of obtaining an injunction to rertr.rin Mr. Frowd
from proceeding with that action; the Court thought
there was sufficient equity, and granted that injunction.
The Clerk tit the Solicitors on the part of the plaintiff
had ti ie', but ini•ffrctually, to serve the copy of the in-
junction personally up4.n the plaintiff; he proceeded
with the action, i.nd ultimately arrested the plaintiff in
defiance of the injunction.
Mr. SUGDEN and Mr. SPENCE were in support of the
application, and
Mr. AGAR against it, who contended no proper notice
had been given to the defendant.
His LoliDsuiP thought the case on the part of Mr.
Agar's client had entirely failed, and made the order
according to the prayer, and directed it not to be deli-
vered out till further order, it being probable some ar-
rangement would be made with respect to the costs:
VICE.CHANCELLOR'S COURT, Mar 19.
• TRUMAN V. PARKINSON.
At the sitting of the Court this morning, his Honour
gave judgment in this cause. The bill was filed by the
assignees of a bankrupt, for the pm pose of setting aside
a deed of conveyance, on the ground that no sufficient
consideration had been given fur it, and that it had been
executed in contemplation of bankruptcy. On the part
of the defendant it was shown that the sum of money
. stated in the deed as the consideration had been actually
paid. Under these circumstances his Honour was of
opinion that the deed was valid, and therefore that the
bill ought to be dismissed.
• COURT OF KIN6'S BENCH, !day 19.
THE KING V. AEI&
In this case the defendant was convicted of a nuisance.
in having erected a turnpike gate in the neighbourhood
of Bethnal Green; and Sir JAMES SCARLETT now ap-
plied for the prosecutor's costs, the prosecutor being the
parry aggrieved by tie nuisance, and therefore, under
the Statute of the sth William and Mary, cap. 11.
. sec.S, was entitled to his costs.
• . The COMMON SERGEANT objected, that as the pro-
secutor had agreed to take the opinion of a Gentleman
at the Bar on the question in dispute, but had after-
wards refused to hold himself-bound by that opinion,
be had therefore disentitled himself to costs.—The Cover
granted the application.
THE KING V. GILBERT.
This was a criminal information against the defend-
ant, a Gentleman residing at Bodmin, in Cornwall, for
a libel on a Mr. Wallis, an attorney, residing in Bothnia,
and also on his wife. The libel was published in the
shape of a hand-bill, addressed to the Electors of Bod.
•min, and stated that Mrs. Wallis was the Marquis of
• Hertford's woman of business—that Mr. Wallis had
obtained money which ought to have been spent in the
town of Budmin. and that a house which he had built
in the neighbourhood of that town was built with money
.which he had thus possessed himself of. One of the
libels concluded with an insinuation that Mrs. Wallis
. bad been guilty of incontinence with a person named
Glyn, and that a young Lady,.the daughter of Mr.
• Wallis, was the issue of this intercourse.
The information was to have been tried at the last
Assizes for Cornwall, but the defendant pleaded guilty,
and was now called up for judgment.
On behalf of the defendant an affidavit was put in,
.stating that he had written and caused to be published
the libels ih question in an unguarded moment; that it
was the result of political animosity which existed in the
town of Bodmin; that he felt he had done what he was
ashamed of doing, and that shortly after the publication
of the libel be had published an apology. -. •
A number of affidavits were also pat in from Officers
,itttbeArmy,who had served with Capt. Gilbert, and who,
bore testimony to his general conduct:and character.-
. ERSKINE then shortly addressed the Court in
aggravation, and observed, that.. the station and cba-'
ratter of Mr. Gilbert gave additional poignancy to the'
injury he bad inflicted.
Sir.JAMIS SCAnLETT, in mitigation, stated, that the
defendant was folly impressed with the impropriety of
his conduct, and that if Ms offence was aggravated by
the circumstance of his filling the rank of.* gentleman,
his sufferings were proportionably great at feeling that
be now stood to receive the judgment of the Court tot-
es act which he felt himself was disgraceful. The
Learned Counsel also stated, that the libel was not'
written by the defendant, but that he felt himself bound
tot to give up the author.
Mr. COLERIDGE followed at the same side.
Mr. Justice BAILEY pronounced the sentence of the
Court. He observed that the apology did not go so far
as to avow a disbelief of the imputations made against
Mrs. Wallis, and therefore the defendant stood forth to
receive the judgment of the Court for a most unwar-
rantable and unjustifiable libel. The judgment of the
"Court was, that the defendant should be imprisoned in
th* gaol of Bodmin for four calendar onths and enter
into recognizances, himself in 2001. and two, sureties of
1001. each, for three years.
The defendant thee withdrew in the custody of the
Marshal of the Marshalsea.

MIX V. ADAM.
The defendant was indicted at the Assizes for Hert•
ford, for stopping up a public footpath, and found
Guilty. The defendant had erected a building on the
florid ; and in order to accommodate him, and prevent
the necessity of his polling down the house, it was agreed
to refer it to Mr. Thessiger, to point out another con-
venient line for the road,and that Gentleman pronounced
Otis award, pointing out another line accordingly.
• , The SOLICITOLGENDRAL applied to the Court for a
rule to show cause why judgment should not be de-
fected till Michaelmas Tent*, to order to give time to