Star.
London, England, 1827-05-07 00:00:00

that the plaintiff bad been twice a bactla upt, and
second commission, under which only a .very small]
dividend bad been paid, was still pending; and:there-
fore by die new Act, all his after-aceitired worerty was
vested in his bssignees until he paid 15s. hi the pound,
and that his susirtee was one of the Special Jury who
tried the cause. We swear that we did hot know of the
matter until after the trial a as'over.-*--Rule granted.
worms V. Um
This was an action against the defendant, a baker, of
Dlury-line, Por the publication of a libel upon the cha-
racter of the plaintiff, the daughter of a tradesman, at
Lynn, in Norfolk, imputing to the plaintiffthat she had
robbed him. The patt►es were related. At the trial,
before Mr. Justice Gaselee, at the last Thetford Assizes,
the Jury found for the plaintiff 1501. Damages, although
the defendant had pleaded a justifization.—The paidy
milers were fully published at the time of the trial.
Mr. STONZE now moved for a new trial ; first, on th'll
ground that the damages here escessive ; and second,tha .
the defendant had since discovered a material witness,
whom he did not know of at the time of the
The Couwr refused the rule on the second ground ;
and as to the first, they said'they would ask the Learned
Judge who tried the case, whether be was dissatisfied
with the verdict.
P. MOORS, 15Q. AND OTHERS E. NAMMOND.
This was an action of covenant, to recover against
the defendant a call of 51. upon twenty 'bares, held by
him in the Devon and Cornwall Minint Company. At
the late trial, before the Lord Chief Justice, the plaintiff
was nonsuited, on the ground that the Meeting of the
Directors of the Company at which t' le call was made,
had not been convened conformably to the provisions
of the Company's deed of settlement.
Mr. CAMPBELL now moved for a new trial, but the
Court thought the decision at ma Prima to be perfectly
I correct, and therefore refused the rule.

TAR ZING N. •ROROR NIGATINCIALZ.
The prisoner had been committed on a charge of
feloniously stealing from the Dover mail the Neapolitan
letter bag. He was now brought up by Habeas Corpus
to be bailed. The depositions before the committing
Justices having been read.
The Couir, on the motion of Mr. BRODERICK, ad-
mitted the prisoner to bail,—himself in 2,0001. and twos
sureties in 5001. each.

THZ XING V. THZ nZV. ROBIRT TAYLOR.
This defendant, who had been charged on two in-
dictments, at the last London Sessions, of alleged
blasphemy, uttered in the Ateopagus in Cannon•street,
and which indictments bad been removed into this
Court by certiorari, now came up and pleaded Not
Guilty, and received notice of trial for the Sittings after
this Term.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER, WS S. . I
Mr. Baron GAIROW continues absent front Court in
consequence of indisposition.
HOLILOYD V. PAMPHILLON.
This was an action of trespass tried at the Kingston
Assizes under these circumstances. After the Prince
of Coburg's marriage, the Corporation of Kingston
gave to his Royal Highness the exclusive permission of
sporting over certain manorial lands of theirs. In 1823
the defendant was served with notice by the Prince's
bailiff not to sport upon these grounds, and he accord-
ingly desisted for some time, until, having wounded a
hare one day on the neighbouring land, he obtained
leave from the•gamekeeper to pursue it over the grounds
in question, and also to do the same thing on future
occasions. Conceiving this to be a waver of the notice,
he subsequently went upon the grounds and fired at
some birds, but killed none, upon which the present
action was instituted against him, and conducted by the
Prince's Attorney, the plaintiff on the record stating to
the defendant that he was indemnified for costs. The
Jury found a verdict for the plaintiff, one farthing da-
mages, and the Learned Judge certified to entitle the
plaintiff to costs.
Mr. Anoramus now moved the Court for an order
to stay proceedings for the recovery of the costs against
the defendant, contending that the certificate was not
warranted by the circumstances of the case.
The Cot= expressed considerable difficulty as to
the mode or propriety of interfering with the exercise
of the Learned Judge's discretion, and ultimately di.
meted the motion to stand over until the affidavits
were laid before his Lordship, when perhaps he might
think fit to recall his certificate. •

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Mar S.
LIM S. MILLS.
Mr. Sergeant ADAMS moved the Court for a rule to
shew cause why the verdict in this case should not be
set aside and a new trial had.
The cause was tried before the Lord Chief Justice
Brim at the Sittings in London after Hilary Term. It
was au action brought by a Sheriff's officer, named
Levy, against the defendant, to recover a compensation
in damages for having published, in a work called The
Spirit of the Tinter, of which the defendant was the pro.
prietor, a libellous article, headed 44 Levy the Bum.''—
The facts woe very recently stated.
The Comm granted a rule to :hew cause.
nsizsrron V. COWIN AND ANOTRIW.
This was an action tried in London, at the Sittings
before the present Term. brought by Mr. Newton, the
proprietor of a publication entitled 44 The London Jour-
nal of Arts and Specifications," against the defendants,
who are publishers of a cheap work called the" Regis-
ter of Arts and Sciences," for pirating a number of
prints published in the plaintiff's work, and the Jury
gave a verdict for the plaintiff.
Mr. Sergeant WILDE now moved for a rule to shew
cause why the verdict should not be set aside, and a new
trial granted, on two grounds ; first, that the plaintiff
had not an exclusive right to publish the prints in ques-
tion ; and secondly, that the action was not maintaina-
ble, because the plaintiff had neglected to affix to each
print the name of the publisher, and the date of the
publication, as the statute (which is quoted) requited.
Rule isi granted.
SIMPSON V. DICKENS.
This was an action tried before the Lord Chief Jus.-1
tice Bur at the last Derby Assizes, and the Jury gave
a verdict for the defendant.
Mr. Sergeant ADAMS said this action was brought by
the plaint ff, Simpson, who is a tavern-keeper, against
the defend.,nt, a young man who was respectably con-
nected, to recover compensation for the loss of his
daughter's services. On the trial the young woman
proved that she had been seduced by the defendant,
and that a child was the fruit of their intercourse. For
the defence three young men were called, and swore
that she was an abandoned female, and that they had
had Criminal connection with hir. The Learned Str-
m said, that he had affidavits contradicting the eei-
&dm of these witnessei, and proving that the young