The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1844-02-13 00:00:00

LAW' INTELLIGENCE.

NORTH WALES AND CHESTER CIRCUIT.—Before
Mr. Justice Williams, who will be joined at Chester by
Mr. Baron Maule, from the South Wales Circuit; Mont-
gomeryshire, Welsbpool, Saturday, March 9th • Merion-
ethshire, Bala, Thursday March 14 ; Canarvonshire,i Car-
narvon, Saturday, March 16; Anglesey, Beaumaris,
Wednesday, March 20 • Denbighshire, Ruthin, Saturday,
March 23; Flintshire, IVlold, Thursday, March 28; Che-
shire, Chester. Saturday, March 30.
HARRts v. REV. W. SMITH.—In the Court of Queen's
Bench on Thursday, Lord Denman delivered judgment in
this case. It will be remembered that a mandamus had
been issued calling on the defendant, to restore the prose-
cutor to the office of parish clerk, of which he had de-
prived him. The return to the mandamus set forth vari-
ous acts of misconduct on the part of the prosecutor in
the execution of the duties of his office, which, as the de-
fendant alleged, justified him in dismissing the prosecutor.
On the other side it was contended that the dismissal was
illegal, inasmuch as defendant had never called upon the
prosecutor to make his defence, but had proceeded at once
to dismiss him ; the prosecutor contended, therefore, that
the return to the mandamus was invalid. Lord Denman
in delivering judgment said, that the court held that re-
moval from a freehold office ought to be preceded by some
inquiry. It might have happened that the procecutor
might, had he been heard in his defence, have convinced
the defendant that he was not deserving of dismissal. It
mattered not that the misconduct of the prosecutor had
come under the personal observation of the defendant;
inquiry ought in all cases to precede dismissal. The re-
turn, therefore, could not be supported, and a peremptory
mandamus must issue. Harris will, therefore, be restored
to his office of parish clerk.
EXTRAORDINARY CASE.—In the Court of Queen's
Bench ou Tuesday, a case was heard of the Queen v. King
and others. It was a criminal indictment against William
Henry King, Emily Ann Birch, and Augusta Ann Birch,
" for combining and conspiring to cheat and defraud cer-
tain of her Majesty's subjects, being tradesmen, of divers
large quantities of goods." King is a solicitor, and Mrs.
Emily A. Breit, a widow lady, who for some years kept a
lodging-house in Bedford-place, Russell-square. The
transaction from which this prosecution arose was the
ordering, by Mrs. Bireh, from tradesmen in all parts of
the town, of a large quantity of the most elegant and ex-
pensive furniture, to the amount of nearly three thou-
sand pounds. When it was lodged in the premises at
Bedford-place, King put in an execution for a pretended
debt, and seized the property, which was sold. He was
restrained, however, from appropriating the money, by
the creditors making Mrs. Birch a bankrupt in the mean-
time. The case was complicated by a labyrinth of legal
proceenings, real and feigned, which have taken place be-
tween the parties. The jury returned a verdict of guilty
against King and Mrs. Birch, and acquitted Miss Augusta
Birch, expressing at the same time their surprise at the
extreme want of caution exhibited by the tradesmen who
supplied the goods. King was sentenced to be imprisoned
in the Queen's prison for eighteen calendar months; and,
with respect to Emily Ann Birch, her sentence was, that
she be confined in the Queen's prison for nine months.