Star.
London, England, 1818-11-21 00:00:00

• N.

k hid Use whet this motion was; ten, tban that e _
Bade, that with the ineeption of Mr. Tooke, there With respect to the case itself, if the e
IMP Met a single whams awaked before the Coro. decide this question upon affidavits, it would appear
r, who imputed the slightest depot of blame ' that the affidavits which this pew; Noblemen had to
,Aprd clemobsel in this unhappy Wain Now, so produce, would completely vindicate him from any
' from that correct, every one of the wit- lethle conduct in thivensdancholy transaction,
beim the oeoaer concurred in imputing . which be as deeply and as siacerely head* as any
- no intentional misconduct, but an of the friend; of the unfortunate young woman who
-enmity, whichhad they been re- had lost her life ; but heeJlfr. Scarlett) was not in-
tim for a quarter of a minute, those fatal strutted to put the case uPoli that issue. The
es would never have happened which don was, whether Mr. Walter could be justlfid ii
*.present enquiry. It appeared that Mr. publishing the statements in question, which were
was driving his chaise at a very moderate calculated to case' the most offensive and injurious
the road, the road at the spot where the imputations upon the character and the candela of
kite not being more than 22 feet wide. Lord Churchill ? From the affidavits in support of
r _ Noble d stated, that he had called several the rule, it appeared that that Noble Lord had evino
aloratpd
times to Mr. Tooke to make way for his gig, and cad the Most humane consideration for the fate of
that the groom had also called out for the same pur- Miss Shirley—that when the accident ha emmed, he
and that then Mr. Tooke had pulled his hone had descended from his gig and aft.,- • eeery are
movement which, it .seemed, had been sistance in his power, by himself mid his servant,.
great fault with, though, in fact, it was the and that he had given his address, and expressed his-
only prole• one be could make undeotbe eircurn- readiness to stoma the Coroner's Inquest, if his pre
he beine or. his own proper side of the road. since was required. The insinuation contained in the
' corroborate) by the testimony of the groom emend libel was completely .negatived, and the-
ft appeared from the concurrent evidence leaned Counsekefter cern:seating upon the aggra-
witnesses, that the Noble Lord was at this valid natured the like, as well as upon the aMa-
- his horse at a furious rate. Some of eke upon the other side, submitted that the rule must
. , only called it an improper rate, but alLebe made absolute.
then) imputel Wenn to him on the occasion. It Chief-Justice AaaoreeseThe Court. in discharging
es stated that the horse was on a full trot, and that the rule applied for, pronounce no ophi in on what
the time 'Lord Churchil was attempting to pass has been spokee he as to the merits of Lord Charles
Tooke's gig, there was another vehicle of the Spencer Churchill's case, or as to his conduct. It
kind about to pass at the same moment; so appears, however, that en theeveningof the accident
e, in fact, it was impossible for three vehicles to and -the followkie day, lteroviducto I himself with
Ask safely ripon the road, which, as already stated; *linseed property. But the Court cannot allow,
ssonlr twenty-two feet in width: To say the least, thicopportunity to pass:without an observation, that
thereforee of the Nhble Lord's conduct gndeertieh‘the driver of a carriage behind another is to relax, ,
ecumstances, he evinced a degree of indiscretion and gave time to his precursereend net ea pirate and!
impatience which shewed a distegeed of his own attempt to pass with heedless ie4 0 .:ity,. $1 appears •
is well as that of others. Indeed, Mr. Jones from the affidavits on both sides that:ex-parte state '
Iliad said before the Coroner, that the Noble ments were-sent into public, bf both parties.; and the
a horse was on a full trot, and that he thought Court cannot help lamentins. that- such matements
!ship bad done wrong in attempting to pass, are but too frNumit in the public peruse The-Cherte
the circumstances stated. Another witness therefor*, disaawes the rule, without pronomicing
who was passing along the road had expressed any tipinimoupen the merits of the'presecutoes .ieme;
apprehensions that an accident would happea but from what has been said 011bottreitles, no ground
.s *the manner in which his Lordship was driving. has been .shewn for enabling him to proceed by way
answer, therefore, to the suggestion, that Mre of criminal information. If Lord. Charles S
oke was the only person who had imputed blame ChUrchill has bete aggrieved. he rave find ress in
to Lord Churchill, these were three other witnesses pother mode ofeeroceeding : but though the Court
whb, even before the Coroner, had expressed their discharges the rule, it sties not see any thing in the
disapprobation of the Noble Lord's conduct. The situation of the defendant ep entitle him to his costs.
- seined Counsel then proceeded to read the sup- The Rule must therefore be discharged, but without
posed libel, which, (as has already been mentioned,) Costs.
was a statement of the real circumstancesef the case werteceriox tog A Calsauti. pritoRKATION.
purporting to have been written by a Gentleman of Mr-Gem:se moved for a Role to thew cause why
thename of Yeoman, a friend of Mr. Tooke, in answer a criminal information should not be filed against
to a statement which had previously appeared in the two Magistrates of the County of Middlesex, for erns-
Morning Herald, Mr. Yeoman attributing the acci- Conduct in refusing, from improper motives, to D-
i
dent and the result to the furious driving of the No- cense a public-house. At preeent the Lammed teen-
isle Lord. The Learned Counsel then proceeded to Leman conceived it would be better net to game the
read the affidavits (in support of his argument, that parties.
the statement published in the Tames was a correct ' The Cuss, it/sTICS-J6 Itis always better on such
account of the transaction) of MeYtionian and seve- occasions to withhold the names."
'rap Mber persons. The former stated, that he had Mr. GVANzy said, his application was made at the
attended in an adjoining room to that in which the instaece of a Gentleman Of the name of Beaumont,
C.olionees inquest was held, And that he had con- who was himself in the Commission of th • Peace;
.versed with several persons, eye-witnesses of the ac- ,and he swore that he believed the refusal of the M.:-
cisient. who were unanimous in declaring, that the gistrates to license a public-house, built on his estate,
fatal occurrence had taken place in consequence of arose from private pique against him, in co isequence
the furious driving of Lord Churchill, whose con- efbis having taken an active part in exposing abuses
' duct, they said, was highly blameable. The affida- in the licensing system, which had rendsweilaim ob-
vit of a Gentleman who was passing at the time of noxious to the parties ageing whom he Is. ivied.
the accident with the funeral procession of his child The affidavit of. George Rands state I. that he
in the return from the church-yard, also stated, that bad made several annual applications for a license to
the-mischief would not have happened but for Lord open the house tenanted by him at Ship ierd's Bush,
Churchill's indiscreet driving, and that the misfor. but had always -been refused—that he :Mg had the
tune would not have occurred, had he stopped his signatures.of the Churchwardens and Overseers, be-
horse for about half a minute. The Learned Coma- sides all the principal inhabitants, to the certificate'
sel read these affidavits in detail, which amounted to 4 his character preforsner applicatione he had only
five in number; and he also added the affidavits of taken the signatures of the inhabitants ..on the last
two of the Coroner's Inquest, who were of opinion occasion, but the Justices refused the license on the
that the accident might have been avoided had Lord ground that the Act of Perliment required the sig-
Churchill been more careful. In answer to the oh- natures ofthe Ministers and Churchwarden to the
nervation, that the Coroner's Jury had not found a certificate of his character.
deodand of the Noble,Lord's gig, it was stated upon The affidavit ofJ. T. B. Beet/moue. Bete de .Ma-
the affidevitsethat Mr. Stirling, the Coroner, had di- gistrate stated that the Justices had declaredeo him
rected the Jury not to find a deodand, because Mr. they refused the license because the certificate to cha-
'ooke migbtbring an action against Lord Churchill ratter had hot the Minister and Churchwardens sig-
for the damage his gig had received, which would natures, es required by Act of Parliament, which he
fall to the ground if a deodand were foutrd. 'Under denied being so required by the Act, or to have been
these circumstances, the Learned Counsel submitted' required by the said Justices-themselves heath*: in-
that there was no pretence for this action, inasmuch •stances--that he was the ground landlord of salinity
as it appeared there was no misrepresentation of the houses in the village ; that several yeast: age, he was
transaction, the accuracy of the statement being urged to build this house by his tenants, for deem ne-
vouched and confirmed by the affidavits he had read. cessary accommodation, there being but one public-
With respect to an anonymous letter which had been house in the village, and that one a great dshance
written to Lord Churchill in offensive-terms of re- off—that he built the house at the expense of nearly
ch of his conduct, Mr. Walter had certainly no- I:2ooo—that seven annual applications hai been wlrly
to do With that ; neither had Mr. Tooke or made for leave to open the house. by respectablem-
ete. eoman any thing to do with it. . The applica- nuns, who had all been refused on various groundsr
don, therefore, being completely answered, he trio- First, that there were not new houses enough ; there.
• that the Court would discharge the rule with costs. when the number increased. that they were pot all
*lr. Scitar.err reminded his Learned Friend, Mr. inhabited—and when inhabitant; were procured, and
Gurney, that there had been another libel published adicense agreed to be issued, it was denied to Depo-
inehe same Paper, a day or two afterwards, against nent's house, and granted to a Mean thatched build-
:hoed aurchill, which required some explanatfon. ing, standing alone, at an inconvenient distance; and
ee-Mr. Gunsar said, that he had hoped his Learned that £950 was paid to the Vestry Clerk for procuring
,Triend would not have thought it-necessary to bring such license ; that upein the license being granted for"
she second supposed libel 'under consideration. it the thatched house, the land about it, vrbith had been
appeared that the alleged libel was written by Mr. offered to be Jet, as building ground, for several
geonoto, by way ofanswer to an advertisement which years, to no purpose, became forthwith taken, and
!lad appeased in a Newspaper of the preceding Sun- covered with house.; and Deponents land, isr.
.44, and it seemed that the sting complainedef was had been previously freely taken, being then denied
the supposed indifference of Lord Churchill to' the 4 public-house, from that time ceased to be applied
mehincholy fate of the young lady who had lost her for as a building ground—that in the same hour
lifeein never having made any inquiry about her at when the Justices at Hammersmith last refused the
'Mr. 'Fooke's house; but, on the contrary, according license to this house, they panted new licenses in
toa statement which had appeared in the Morning favour of Mr. Thompson, a brewer in the neighbour;
/beaed the preceding day, he had manifested his in- hood, and another for two low tippling holism,
difference by attending one of Almack's grand balls which had been suppressed by former Justices, as
the very same evening the accident happened. Now disorderly or unnecessary, both of which houses were
with respect to the latter circumstance, it had been adjoining to, or directly opposite to existing licensee
*toted ruerely.on the authority of another Paper, and houses, and the immediate vicinity of seven others,
had not been vouched on the authority of the author and that in neither of these cases was a certificate'
of .clue second supposed libel. There was nothing, from the Minister produced or inquired far.. The
thiscefore, of an aggravated nature in that second Deponent declared his fitm belief, that the continual
mtation. refusal of a license for his house, so inconsistent with
Rostirsow was proceeding to address the the ficility'with which the said sineticei grantliceetme
Couttelesthe same side with Mr. Gurney ; but their for low tippling homes, in pieces crowded with such
Lordships, thought it unnecessary to hear him, and houses, to sense certain ccmiiexione arose front to des
therefore tailed upon sire to ineure him in the fair eneoement of his mature
h Mr. Sestietre to support his rule. The Learned in consequence of the part he had taken during w-1
Conned tiontended, that the whole object of Mr. viral years; in opposing and, exposing the errors of
Gurney's address to the Court seemed to be rather to their conduct, and of the licensing restate generally.'
- "-ere the conduct of Mr. Tooke and Mr. Yeo- The affidavit of William Cotta, stated that he had

t seven good homes in _ Ship-
hors bilk that in consequence of the want of a re-
p( rii"liatale elailluueadt.p -m iseditlesiamad other
to buildte-
' -house, which be had done; that there was no
a
lic-hoese within three quarters of a mile of it, in
Fig
line of WoorMane, or within a considerable dis-
arm on do used to Leaden, and none near it in the
village, wick afforded a decent lodging ; that there
had been upwards of tone hundred new houses built
within the last seven years; and in the whole there
Wee is times as many houses now in the village as
&we woe thirty or forty years back, but that the
member of public houses (two) remained lb* same.
It appeared that notice had not been given to the
'Magistrates of the motion, aad Mr. Gower said he
fwould serve notice, and mate his motion de Novo.

COURT OP COMMON PUMA. NOVIMNER so.
This day the argument was resumed upon the case
of the Duke of Newcastle, as one of the Commis-
sioners of Sewers for the District of Rye, v. Clarke,
Req. as one of the Cemnissioners for the Port of Rye,
le 'hewing cause against the Rule for setting aside
the verdict in favour of the plaintiff at Lewes, in the
annum AESjiES of ki3ll. The Rule, it appeared,
ems granted is Michaelmas Termrst the same year.
Mr. Sajeant BEST and Mr. serjeant VAVOHAN,
allied against the Rule. The grounds upon which
this Rule was granted were, first, that the
having no right of possession in the place where a
ceetant sluice or darn was erected, was not entitled to

bring the action ; secondly, that the Jury draw an
improper conclusion from the evidence ; and, thirdly,
that judgment should not, be granted soon obstakte
rere dote, because the dam was erected upon a na-
vigable river: Aga;nst these grounds the Learned
Counsel argued at considesable length, contending
that their clientshad a lmal possession d the place
where the dam was erected, aril that they were con-1
sequently entitled to being an action against the de-
fendants, by whose order that dam was destroyed, it
compensationfor which injury the Jury found a ver
diet oof £B6l damages. It was further contended !
that the Commissioners of Sewers were called upoi
to elect' the dam which had been so destroyed, in 01'
der to pesserve WOO acres of land from inundation
and which land it was their duty to preserve. Whe:.
the Counsel had closed their argument,
The Caws- #vatice put a question for the consi
deratioa at the Counsel on both sides, namely, whe.
ther-a caseited ewer occurred, in which an actioi
was ever maintained by any public body, for injur:,
done to a public work ?
Farther argument upon this case was postpone,
until next week, but no day was mentioned.
COURT OF EXCHEQUER. NOV. 20.

Dian D4.1:',. DUCHA NAN AND WIFE.
Me. Mao:wit WA to oppose a rule, obtained on
former dap by Mr. Dauncey, to show cause why th• '
interlocutory proceedings in ibis case, should not b
set aside with costs. The present application wa•
founded on an affidavit of Mr. i..evy, plaintiff's at-
torney, echo had caused the defendant, and Hen-
rietta his wife, to be served with a writ f quo mina:.
to compel their appearance. The defendants atm- -
my entered an appearance for the husband, but not
for the wife; the proceedings of the suit continued
and as the wife did not enter an appearance fur her
self, an appearance, under the statute, was required
to be entered for her. 'The role bad been obtained,
because it seas argued, that the appearance of the
husband was a nullity, since there was no appearance
for the co defendant. On two grounds he opposed
the rule, first, because the defendants were both in
Court, and it VMS of no importance bow they got
into it; and secondly, be contended, that the forms
of the Cant were complied with, for the appearance
of the husband Was sufficient ; and to support this
opinion he cited a variety of cases—SS Henry VI.
'f01.45 : entl.4o -Edward lIL fol. 1. In this cue the
defendant endeavoured to take advantage of the
-plaintif by a separate appearance, and thus the pro-
endings could not continue, unless re-pleader was
awarded.
Mr. DAtteggy, on the part of the defendant, con-
tended, thatthe proceedings were wrong ab initio, as
the Canoe which ought to have been followed was,
that when no appearance was made for the wife, a
matian ought to have been made to compel the hus-
, baud tp enter au appearance also for his co defendant,
or an appearance under the statute ought to have
be ti entered for both. The appearance of the wife
was in point a fact unnecessary, because the appear.
ance of the husband was sufficient, as in usual cases ;
but on the Rreseni occasion, the husband disclaimed
any connection with his wife. The whole was, there-
fore, a nullity.
The Cogan was of opinion, that the appearance
of the husband was by no means nullity, and that
the course Adopted was perfectly regular. It was im-
possible to eater an appearanm under the statute for
the husband, after he had appeared. The rule was
deaf* discharged with costs.

Bow-osiazar.—A letter was received yesterday at
'this . Office, from .Cloodwia, the Constable, who is
employed to pursue Charles Rensett and the child of
Air—Honig, accompanied by Mr.Horsley's nephew,
to identify the child. The letter is dated from Ca-
and states that they arrived there on Sunday,
and bad go doubt but that they had traced Charles
Bennett and 'the child, who had arrived at Calais on
eh* Wednesday se'nnight, and that he had taken his
place in a Diligence far Dunkirk.
.kha Most underwent a final examination, and
was committed for trial, on a charge of breaking
open the home of Mr. Morgan, the cabinet-maker
in Catherine-street, in the Strand, and stealing vari-
ous articles in the trade, to a considerable extent and
to a large amount.
The driver of the litickmansworth coach appeared
and pleaded guilty to a complaint made against him,
' under the Stage Coach Act, which inflicts a penalty
'of t. 5 for leaving his horses without a proper person
' holding them during his absence.
. ialauasv..—lfesterday an Inquest was held at the
sign of the Monmouth Head, Hemming's.row, on
the body of Martha Pamlico, aged four years, the'
daughter of Mr. Puarello, of Castle-street; Leices-
ter,squate, who came to her death from the supposed
barbarous treatment of Mrs. Hill. the child's aunt,
to whom it was given to nurse. The Coroner and
J9r7 were, of opinion that Mrs. Hill's conduct had
laden most herberous, and returned a Verdict cf
illanslaughter, against her: She was immediately
attiveyed in a coach, in the custody of Hartley, a
constable, to Tothilfields Prison.

• • , . .
i .
.•. . •
. _ . . .. .
quest. It lei lan wow woes !this motion was . man, than that of the Editor of the /Son newspaper, built seven good .houses in Beaumont-place,
trade, that with the eweeption. of Mr. Tooke, there With respect to the case itself. if the Court could herd's Book that in consequence of the want e
was mat a IMO witeas =MEW Woes the Coro. decide this question upon affidavits, it would appear IPocuek/4d11104"01° eassagamai he and et
ow, who imputed. the slightest dere, of blame ' that the affidavits which this young Noblemen had to smuts of . Monsmant,, peesuaded him to 1
to.laord Churchill in this unhappy flair. Now, so produce, would completely einsficate him from any Poblie-hoom• which be had done; that there
far from that bainz correct, every one of the wit. ,c.we conduct in ddatimenncholy transaction, .public-house within three quarters of a mile o
tames before the Nivea.. concurred in imputing . which be m deeply and as Mem* Lamented as any the line of VfOodalane, or within a considerab
Maem--cestainly no intentional misconduct, but an of the friends of the =fortunate young woman who tame on eke mad to London, and none near ii
said Impetuosity, which had they been re- had lost her life ; but he,4,111r. Scarlett) was not in- age, 'fib afforded a decent lodging ; the
strained but for a quarter of a minute, those fatal strutted to put the case upon that issue. The ques• had been upwards of une hundred new house
aelowegsseees would never have happened which lion was, whether Mr. Walter could be justified In within the last seven years; and in the whole
rave rime; the Present enquiry. It appeared that Mr. publishing the statements in question, which were -were six times as many houses now in the Ira
TEN* was driving his chaise at a very moderate calculated to ca* the Most offensive and injurious there wee thirty or forty years back, but tl
' pm* she road, the road at the spot where the imputations upon the character and the condect of number of public houses (two) remained the as
not being more than 22 feet wide. Lord Churchill ? From the affidavits in support of It appeared that notice had not been given
... . Mag
Noble d stated, that he had called several the rule, it appeared that that Noble Lord had evin- istrates of the motion, sad Mr. Gonnat
-
times to Mr. Tooke to make way for his gig, and cud the Most humane consideration for too fate of w serve notice, and Unite his motion de ise
that the groom had also called out for the same per- Miss Shirley—that when the accident ha he cotntr OP COMMON Illitil. NOVIMSR
. pose, and that then Mr. Tooke had pulled his bone had descended from his gig and etery Ai. This day the argument was resumed upon t
inwards—a movement which, it . seemed, had been sistance in his power, by himself and his servant, of the Duke of Newcastle, as one of the Cc
found great funk with, though, in fact, it was the and that he had gives his address, and expressed his Amen of Suwon for the District of Rye, v. 4
' only prole.. one be could make Gude:idle eirctun- readiness to attend the Coroner's Inquest, if his pre- rusa; as
one tithe Commissioners for the Port 4
. *antes, he best' a.. his own proper side of the road. settee was required. The insinuation contained in the to win cause against the Rule for settinl
a was corroborated by the testimony of the groom sealed libel was completely -negatived, and the the verdict in favour of the &Wilt* at Lewes,
itimeelf. ft appeared from the concurrent evidence Learned Counsel... her cemaseating upon the aggra. Summer Rises of kBll. The Rule, it as
O'Meara' witnesses, that the Noble Lord was at this voted nature of the Med, as well as upon the aa. on" Brant°ll is Michaelmas Termat the ulnae
*Be-driving his horse at a furious rate. Some of elm upon the other side, submitted that the rule must Mr. Seiji!ant Bass and Mr. serjeant VAL
dient,indeed, only called it an improper rate, but all• made absolute. . aired against the Rule. The grounds upon
. theio imputed blame to him on the occasion. It Chief-Justice Anaore.—eThe Court. in discharging this Rule was ranted were, first, that the pl
was stated that the horse was on a full trot, and that the rule applied for, pronounce no °phi in on what having no sigh of possession in the place u
St the time 'Lord Churchil was attempting to pass has been spoken' of as to the merits of Lord Charles certain sluice or darn was erected, was not enti
: Tooke's gig, there was another vehicle of the Spencer Churchill's case, or as to his conduct. It bring the action r secondly, that the Jury di
=Me kind about to pass at the same moment; so appears, hawayse, that en theeveningof the accident improper conclusion from the evidence ;and, t
in fact, it vas impossible for three vehicles to and the followkg slay, lie conduces I himself with that judgment should not., be granted eon o
..., safely iipoo the road, which, as already stated; feeling .std propriety. But the Court cannon alloer awe did*, because the dam was erected upoi
• onlrtwenty-two feet in width: To ray the leas& this_opportunity to pass..without ass observation, that sigahle river: Aga'nst these grounds the L
I. therefore„ of the Noble Lord's conduct onder'sucla the driver of a carriage behind Mother is to relax,: Counsel argued at considerable length cant
ICircumstances, he evinced a degree of indiscretion and give time to his precursbr,and ant to Orate and that their clientshad a Imal session of tin
, ..
dimpatienee which 'hewed a disregard of his own attempt to pass with heedless si.O.:ity. It appears • where the dam was ereete3, oral that they we
. t• yas well as that of others. Indeed, Mr. Jones from the affidavits on both side% that ex-psyte state . sequattly entitled to bring an action against 1
le
•
. f had said before the Coroner, that the Noble neents were -sent into public, by'both parties.; and the Pendants, by whose order that dam was destro
a horse was on a,full trot, and that he thought Court cannot help lamenting. that- such Ems/yew compensationfor which injury the Jury found
his Lordship had done wrong in attempting to pass, are but too frequent in the public ous,,Tbe.court 1 diet of £B6l damages. It was further cont
Under the circumstances stated. Another witness therefore, disaawes the rule, without pranomirsini that, the Commissioners of Sewers were caller
who was passing along the road• had expressed any apinionarpoh the merits of the'prosecutor's .icase; to civet the dam which had been so destroyed,
his apprehensions that an accident would happq but from what has been said en backsides, no ground der to preserve 5000 acres of land from inuni
liem the manner in which his Lordship was driving. has been .shown for.eaablios himto proceed gy way and which land it was their duty to preserve.
in answer, therefore, to the suggestion, that Mr. of criminal information. If Lord Charles S the Counsel had closed their argument,
' Tooke was the only person who had imputed blame Churchill has beta aggrieved. he may find ress in The Catses-Otatica put a question for the
to Lord Churchill, therse were three other witnesses another mode ofinroceeding : hut *gush the Court &ratios c the Counsel on both sides, namely
whb, evenbefore the Coroner, had expressed their discharges the rule, it 46es not see any thing in the thern caselted ever occurred, in which an
' disapprobation of the Noble Lord's conduct. 'The situation of the defenelaat te entitle him to his costs. was ever maintained by any public body, for
Learned Counsel then proceeded to read the sup- The Rule must therefore be discharged, but without flororto a public work ?
i posed libel, which, (as has already been mentioned.) Costs. • Farther argument upon this case was post
was a statement of the real circumstances of the case ATTLICATION FOR A CRIMINAL UTEPOESEATIOIL until next week, but no day was mentioned.
purporting to have been written by a Gentleman of 31r.Gna.NLY moved for a llole to thew cause why COURT OF EXCHEQUER. NOV. 20.
diename of Yeoman, a friend of Mr. Tooke, in :Inswer a criminal information should not be filed against EV52124.1:1). IbUCHANAN AND wire.
1 to a statement which had previously appeared in the two Magistrates oldie County of Middlesex, for mss} . Nr.ldAtiat&siosese to oppose a rule, obtaine
Morning Herald, Mr. Yeoman attributing the acci- conduct in refusing, from improper motives, to u- former day by Mr. Dauuc
;22 tay,
h i o t
stew c shew cause w
... A.. • -.l•_ _ I (
former nrnropilinise s use
2