Star.
London, England, 1827-11-24 00:00:00

wide dictum—•• we are not here to administer the law,
but to act as Magistrates. Give me the papers, ind
111 cut this Gordon (meaning Gordian) knot. I shall
sign for Mr. Archer ;" although, in truth, Mr. Arehet
was not the person, but Mr. B icon, who applied.
Mr. Mayhew stated, that he was the more ccnfident
as to those particulars, because he made a memo-
random of them the morning after the !ransack!).
lie said, that many of the customers- of the inn
had refused to attend it if the license were delayed any
longer; and averred, that much more had been stated
by Mr. M•Lachlan and Culonel Bramsby ; but as they
did not appear to gain anything by their interference,
I peter:4story refusal was given to the claim of Mr.
Mayhew, and the order signed for Archer, or rather for
Bacon. The inn was then put up for sale, and bought
in at 4,4804 being far below its real value. There was,
it 4ppeated, a mortgage clue to Archer of 1,0001. in
addition to the 5001. that had been transferred by him ;
but a person of the name of Baker had also a mortgage
of 1,5001• and he had stated his anxiety to'bave the or-
der made out to Mayhew; so that Mayhew, besides
being assignee, represented property to the extent of
3,0001. while Archer oily represented. 1,0001. While
Mayhew was acting for a number of persons, Archer
was acting only for himself. Colonel Branson had said
he could do nothing, but that it was evident the Ma-
gistrates only granted the license to protect Archer,
their clerk. _ .

Mr. Justice Bavt.Ev--The license should only havebee n
granted to those who could conduct the business well.
Mr. BROUGHAM said, Mr. Mayhew claimed priority as
acting for the creditors, but asserted that the only object
of the Magistrates was to protect Archer, their clerk,
while Mayltew's duty was to protect all the creditors.
Mr. Justice BAYLEY—Let us see where lies the cor-
ruption.
Mr. BROUGHAM said, that was the point he was arriv-
ing at. When Colonel Branston, said the Magistrate,
granted the license to protect Archer, their clerk, Mr.
Crabhe, replied, " exactly so, that was our object." Now
this, he (Mr. Brougham) contended, was a corrupt and
sinistir inducement. They granted it to him as an
individual creditor, who ought not to have been
favoured at the espence of the rest.
Mr. Justice Bartsv—lf they thought he could carry
bn the business hitter than another, they were justified.
Mr. Bacivonam—Bet, my Lord, be could not carry
it on at all. As the assignee under the commission, he
proceeded to sell the house without the licence, Bacon
not having refused cet tarn terms proposed by the Com-
missioner s.

Mr. Justice BAYLRY—Does Mayhew say he would
have catried on the business blench?

Mr. Beoutmast—Yes, my Lord, he swears that he
would so have done if he had been unable to sell it to
advantage for the creditors, or else'he would have put
in some one to carry it on for the creditors.
Mr. Justice BAYLBY—You say Bacon was out of pns-
lessiell; but if Mayhew had consented he would have
gone in.
Mr. BaoIJOHAM —He was not a sufficiently substan-
tial man ; if he had once got in it would have been very
difficult to get him out. The two Magistrates had signed
the certificate, recommending Bacon to themselves as a
proper person to be chosen; and Mr. Mayhew stated
that he verily believed they refused the license to him,
not in the proper discharge of their duty, but tort uptly,
and in order to give an undue preference to their clerk.
If they had given it to one who could carry on the
business properly, instead of one who could not, the
property would have been worth two or three thousand
pounds to the creditors more than it brought. MI. May.
hew, therefore, thus applied to their Lordships, because
Ile Could adopt no other course. He could not apply
fir a Mandamus, and he (Mr. B.) only recollected one
instance in which it had been applied tor, and then the
tule was discharged. He believed he had shewn that
the Magistrates had corruptly acted, and with intent to
give an undue preference to their own clerk. The house
was now shut up entirely.
Mr. Justice BST ay—lf you bad suffered Bacon to
go in, such would not have been the case.
Lord TINTaaDaN—You may take a rule to shew
cause, but you must do so at your peril; Mr. Brougham,
you know the consequences.
Mr. BRouotts►t—Oh, yes, my Lord, I am aware of
the consequences that may attend on preferring a charge
against Justices of the Peace.
Rule to shew cause granted.
Mr. CAPAPDLLL moved fora Rule to show cause why
an information in the nature of quo warranto, should not
be issued to Francis Hughes, Esq. calling upt.n him to
show by what right he discharged the office of May( r
of S:afford.

The rule was moved for on the ground of a defect in
the election under the New Charter.—Rule granted.

CRIMINAL INIIJRMATION.

Mr.Framamit, the Banister, said he tote with wounded
feelings, such as had induced him to appear before their
Lordships yesterday, and with an equally agitated
mind. It was, however, his duty to move for a rule to
chew cause why a criminal information should not be
filed against persons calling themselves J. Barry, and
Co. of Bride•court, Fleet•street, and against other per.
sons, named J.Robins & Co. of Ivy-lane,-Paternoster-row.
Mr. Justice BAYLEY—You can't move against Co.
Mr. FIRENCH—The names are not mentioned, my
Lord. They ate net publishers of a newspaper, but ot
a weekly publication. The Act of Parliament requires
that their names shou!d be registervd in Sonter set-home,
but no such names appear there, for I have searched. I
dont know their Christian names, but I take them as they
appear on the libel.
Lord TUNTILRDYN—They must have names, and there
must be persons acquainted with them. Have you
made inquiry?

Mr. FPRZNCH—I have, my Lnrd, and one says one
thing, and one another. I cannot find out their names.
Lord TiNTERSEN—They must hive names, and you
must know the names of the parties you wish to rule,
you are not in a condition to apply for it.
Mr. FPRENCH —They call thernselvesJ—, and their
names may be J, for aught I know to the contrary. J
is a name in France.

Mr. Justice BAYLEY—Bat no such name is known in
England.
Lord TIiNTIRDEN—NOII must condescend to seek
your rtile on the same terms as others.
Mr. Frnenett—Then, may I mention this case to-
morrow ?

Lord TraTlßDlNT—Certaini7 r or whenever you arr.
in a condition so to dn; but you must come prepared with
proper materials. We cannot grant a rule against Cu.
Mr. Fragra_ctr-0 no ; L must not say a word abort
Co.

PREROGATIVE COURT, N0v.25.
JAU MN AGAINST COCK AND OTHERS.

This was a suite to decide the •alidity of an alleged
codicil to the will of MI s. Lydia Ellison of York. The
circumstances of the case are rather singular. The
testatrix, a woman of somewhat eccentric character,
died at York in May, 1826, in consequence of tri acci-
dent which happened to her a day or two previous.

During the confusion occasiowed by that occorrence.
several mangers get admissive Mt& the house, and
some wetting apparel, as well ass few sovereigns, were
missed, together with a micros old pocket-book, in
which the testatrix kept her private papers, and which
she always carried about a ish her. Suspicion fell upon
the rune. The testatrix had esecoted a will in the year
1796; the property she left was considerable, the per-I
srinalty amounting to the sum of WOOL. Some Months''
after her death, her executor, Mr. Jameson, received a
letter, with the London post mark, of which, ma literary
curiosity, en exact tops is subjoined:—" Sir, i am the
person who horn nercety take the two sotireins i
found at Mrs. Ellison's house, also the paper, but
cannot get no rest; the soeteins is gone, and i hope
you'll forgive that, but this paper is sent along way
of, because she durst give it you for fear. Hop-
pin all is right, and no person to take barns, i shall
hear on it friim your humble servant, I shall never do
so no more, don't tell Mrs. Robinson.—Sept. 8, 1826."
In this letter was enclosed a scrap of dirty paper, in
which was written, in penciLthe codicil now propounded,
which h id originally commenced as a letter to the eon.
&lentilsl solicitor of the testatrix: .6 Mr. Wether by, Sir."
This had been erased, and the deceased declared that
she left her house at York, and her money in the funds,
between Mrs. Cook, of Great Beddow • Mr. Ed* are
Ball, of Stamford•street, London; Mrs. Warkinson, of
Burwell; Mrs. Warn, Mrs. Nenn (if living). The paper
was paper was dived "York, August 3, 1824."
The COURT, afttr hearing the arguments of no less
than six learned Advocates engaged in the canse,rejected
the paper, winch it held to be impossible to regard as a
testamentary document, and decreed probate to the
will of 1796.

•