Star.
London, England, 1817-01-23 00:00:00

LAO I NAELLIG CE.

_ COURT OF CHANCERY, JANUARY 22.
DA 11 AND BRADFORD v. UPHILL.

•Sir 3itmtr7.l.. ItoNtu.v in this C 35,1 moved his Lord-
iltip.to dissolve an Jilin .ction, formerly granted for
the purpose of restrain:og the defendant from cutting
down some trews, and plonghing itone ancient pas-
ture land.; on an•estate in which she was tenant tot
lirgL He—argued, • it.was impossible the Injunction
hai his Lordship been
CAW have bren obtained,
jiTt.i.apcisst.sll46l a complete statement-of facts.—
She was •J tens*. foilife ;* but, she was also unim-
peathable of waste, although the contrary had been,
stated. Slur had here riade,so by an agreement with
ilaihttlf; agree.nent was afterwards rati-
dijr, ,*.and oh' Seticli sr, -cud till the Injunction was
MICSH o'.ll the sarri side.
Mr. Lewd, in support of.the. Injunction, said, he
altiays understood before an Injunction was dissolv-
ed, a case must be made put to satisfy his Lordship
of the impropriety of any longer retaining it. In
this, howeVer, he contended no such case had been
rude out. He admitted she was a tenant -without
impeachment of waste, bin he maintained she had
become so at the sxpense of her family ; for by mak-
ing this a condition in ilie.agteement she made with
them, she had benefited.hersch at their cost. Besides
she had • avowed her intention to cut down the re-
maining trees, and plough up the meadow land, the
moment the. Court should withdraw the Injunction,
and as her doing so would be an irreparable injury
to the property, he contended it was absolutely DC-
cew:ry that the Injunction be continued.
Mr. Rae followed.

Sir SAAWIL R.OI6IILLY, in reply, said, as the parties
were so nearly allied to each other (one of the plain-
tiffs being the daughter of the defendant), it was
necessary the Court should' be in the fullest possession
of every tac• . A charge had been made against the
p;aintiffs for sappressing material facts, and he had
nnt thought proper to meet that charge, by making
any.affidav,t to refute it. She had every right to act
as she had done, and he saw no reason whatever to
ailedge that the damage to he done to the estate by
ht.r ploughing the meadow land, and cutting down
the rer4aining wood, was irrvarable..
The LORD CHANCBLLOR said, that formerly in the
Court, Injuitetions had been refused where the party
boldly insisted on their right to proceed as they had
done. remembered distinctly the manner in
which tn.. edse had come before him, and the cir-
committees which had induced hint to grant the In-
junction. lie should take home ete answer to-night,
and read it over, and on coming into the Court to-
morrow morning, h- should give his opinion.
Mr. Leave.-1 understand, my Lord, we may
amend our Bill.

LORD CHANCRUqlt.—Certainly, Mr. Leach, for
you cannot sustain an Injunction on one ground,
while you wish to rest it on another.
His Lordship informed the Counsel that he had
seed over the papers in the case of Ellworthy w. Her-
ring and others, and would give judgment to-morrow
morning. •
COURT OF KING'S BENCH, JANUARY 115.,
HEIDEN O. BLOCK.
This was art information in the.name of a gui
informr against the defendant, upon the Stat. 5 Ann,
for onlasetully keeping a net for the putpose of de-
groihig game. It was tried •at the. last Summer
Assiies for Herefordshire, and a verdict was found
.for the plaintiff upon the second count for one pe-
nalty. fn the last Term Mr. CAMPBELL obtained a
rule NW for arresting the judgment,..on the ground
that be information did net negative the defendant's
qualification, as by law it ought to do. '
Mi4eavis and Mr. PULLEN not :hewed Cattle
against the rule, and. contended that the word utslatv-
My being introduced into the information, it dis-
pensed with the necessity of otherwise negativing the
defendant's qualification, but •
The Court were clearly of opinion, that as there
were other ways in wh ch the defendant _might be
unlawfully possessed of the net in question, and al
the information itself pointed at an offence against
the Game Laws, it was absolutely necessary distinctly
- and specifically to negative the qualification..
Rule absolute for arresting the judgment.
SECONDARIES' OFFICE, JANUARX 22.
WARREN e. SCOTT.
An inquest was yesterday held in the Sheriffs'
Court for the purpose of assessing the damages in an
action brought by thesplaintiff to recover compress'.
tion.for a false and malicious libel published by the
.defendant in a Periodical Work, in which action the
defendant had suffered judgment to go by default.
Mr. SCAILETT, in addressing the Jury on behalf
of the plaintiff, stated, that he was Lieutenant-Ca-
fond of the 27th Regiment, of which Lord Moira
is Colonel. He bad found it his duty in the year
1815 to institute a prosecution against Captain
Tucter,, one of his subordinate officers, whO was ac-
cordingly tried by a Court-martial, on a charge of
improperly appropriating to
.himself a horse at the
bas le of Waterlov. Of this charge he had. been
partally convicted ; but on consideration of his for.
tiler services, and his having been wounded in the
battle, had been permitted. to remain on half•psy.
AU this took place in 1815; and in May, 1816, the
defendant bad published a ong article, accusing the
plaintiff, Colonel Warren, of rancorous and personal
motives in the prosecution, of having stated false-
haods in hi. evidence, and combined with others to
defeat we orders of hi. Royal Highness the Coat-
mander•iii•Chief. lie had been thus arraigned be.
fore the public of malice, perjury, And mutiny, in
his character of prosecutor.. Mr. Scarlet' assured
the Jury, that it had been the sincere wish of the
plaintiff, that the defendant should put a justifica-
tion on. the recoid, and that the falsehood of the
charges might bp proved by an investigation of them.
He hatlstlected this as the molt lenient and candid
mode•of proceeding for that purpose; for be might
have ptoceeded in the. Court of ,King's Bench by in-
formation or by indictment; tLe consequence of
which mint have been to deprive the delendant .of
Ls liberty. .The defendant had, however,*declinen
pleading; and nothing, therefore, remained to the
r!. bat to..declaris *bat reparation was doe to an
.reficer'9l scant, ti Ito kid been so groislt slandered
12.2 MOW; rAtir Ato the,oprrtunity was offered
ltun 01 pubbing Vs truth. of his assertions shit his
' •

. •