The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1847-05-04 00:00:00

nd we are of

f Chester, there should I
tion to the archdeaconry of Chester, an

chdeaconry of

in this diocese, with the deanery of Worrall, in t e county
1,

LAW

INTELLIGENCE,

sittings. in the Queen's Bench. It is an action for libe:
by the Rev. Mr. Brosbie, a convert from the Catholii
Church, and at present a member of a Cody called " Th(
Priests' Protection
MaVnooth (

il court on Wedneid

plied for a rule to show cause why a criminal information
should not be filed againSt the proprietor and publisher of
the Railway Times for a libel on Mr. Muntz, the mem-
ber for Birmingham. The alleged libel impugned the
conduct of the hon. member in connexion with the pro-
ject for making a railway from. Birmingham to Leicester.
Mr. Justice Coleridge doubted whether it imputed any-
thing criminal ; but that it might lead to a disavowal he
would grant the rule.

On Ilonday, in the Court of Queen's Bench, Mr.
Crowder showed cause against a rule nisi being made ab-
solute for a new trial in the case of Woolmer and otheis v,
Toby, which our readers will recollect was an action
brought by the plaintiffs, who were the members of the
" managing committee " of the Direct Exeter, Plymouth,
and Davenport Railway Company, against the defendant,
to recover the sum of £lO5, being the amount of the de-
posits payable in the respect of forty shares which the
plaintiffs had allotted to him in the said company. At
the trial a verdict was given for the plaintiffs, but in the
following term a rule nisi for a new trial and in arrest of
judgment had been obtained by Mr. Serjeant Kinglake.
At the close of Mr. Crowder's speech, Lord Denman in-
timated that the Bench would take time to consider their
judgment._

IN THE EXCHEQUER.—Sharp v. Perrey, Executor of
Sewell.—Mr. Evans, Q.C., applied to the court to set

Aide the verdict which had.been entered for the defend-
ant and for a nonsuit, on the ground of misdirection of
the learned judge who tried the cause. This case was
tried at the last Chester Assizes. It was an action brought
by the plaintiff to recover £BO lls. 10d., for money paid
by him in 1841, for preparing certain deeds for the pur-
_ _

pose, as it was a

testatrix. It was stated by the learned counsel, that ob-
jections bad been taken to the title by purchasers from
the plaintiff; and that to remove these objections, the
• nrwo

John Cheesbrough, who, it was supposed, had some title
to the property ; this proceeding had been taken with-
out the sanction or knowledge of the defendant, who con-

that subsequent to the purchase, the defendant had lent
several large sums to the plaintiff on mortgage of his pro-
perty, and that he had rendered various accounts current
to the defendant during several years, without making the
claim in question; and that after these mortgages had
been transferred to a third party, nlaintifffnr thp fir.t +;,„.

OV 1/113.1G
set up his claim, which the defendant resisted on the
ground that the deed which was the gravamen of the
action was perfectly valueless, inasmuch as Cheesebrough,
when he executed it, was an uncertified bankrupt. The
court said the summing up of the judge at the trial was

quite correct
Rule refused