The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1848-02-01 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

The trial of Mr, Gutteridge, for libelling the Bishop of
Manchester, will take place at Warwick, in March.
A rule nisi fora criminal information has been granted
by the Queen's Bench, Dublin, against the proprietor of
the Dublin Pilot, for charging Lord Clanricarde, through
his " cruel, unrelenting, and ironhearted agent," with
exterminating his starving tenantry.
In the Vice-Chancellor's Court on Tuesday, his Honour
refused to dissolve the injunction against publishing the
Bishop of Hereford's Life of Thomas Aquinas in a sepa-
rate form. Dr. Hampden wrote it for the Encyclopedia
Metropolitana, and declined to allow it to be published
as a distinct work.

THE ASSIZES.—The following days have been arranged
with regard to the Northern Circuit :—Before Mr. Baron
Alderson and Mr. Baron Rolfe :—Lancaster.—Saturday,
February 19 ; Appleby.—Wednesday, February 23 ; Car-
lisle.—Friday, February 25 ; Newcastle.—Tuesday, Feb.
29 ; Durham.—Saturday, March 4 ; York.—Thursday,
March 9; Liverpool.—Monday, March 20.
BREACH OF PROMISE OF MARRIAGE.—In the Court
of Exchequer on Thursday, a young lady, named Caster,
the daughter of a retired victualler, obtained a verdict,
£lOO damages, against her false swain, Charles Clare, a
grocer in the Kingsland-road, near London.—ln the
Sheriff' Court, on the same day. a Miss Rogers brought
an action against a railway clerk, named Batchelor, for
breach of promise. Judgment -had gone by default, and
the jury awarded the fair spinster £64 for the loss of her
Batchelor.

NEWSPAPERS CANNOT BE LEGALLY LENT ON HIRE,
—At the Bloomsbury County Court, on Wednesday, a
news-vendor, named Miller, sought to recover from a Mr.
Champion, a retired tradesman, the sum of 6s. for news-
papers lent to him to read. The plaintiff having proved
his case, the defendant admitted the debt, but,doubted
whether he could be compelled to pay. The judge ob-
served that such a remark from him he considered dis-
graceful ; but still he could not entertain the claim, as the
law now stood the same as years ago, when it had been
'decided that persons lending newspapers to read could.not_
recover, but were liable for so doing to a penalty of .A.;50,
it being considered by such trafficking in stamp§ to be de-
frauding the revenue, as it prevented the sale of papers.
He therefore must dismiss the plaint.—Judiment for de-
fendant.

EXTRAORDINARY SCENE.—In the Court. of Arches, on
Saturday week, Dr. Addams finished his reply in the case
of GO v. Geils, which has been so long before.the Court,
by tgupting that the Court would speedily deliver its sen-
tence,* order that if any one point were decides' adverse
to Mrs. Geils the case might be taken to the Privy Coun-
cil. There was, however, he said, another tribunal to
which the cause must be taken—the bar of publicopiniop
—and he was satisfied that in that case they would neither
affirm the sentence nor remit the cause. Dr. Curteis rose
to fellow Dr. Addams, but the learned Judge said, I will
hear no more to-day :fter what I have heard. It is dis-
graceful to the Court, disgraceful to the public, and dis-
graceful to the profession. The way in which the cause
has been argued has been most disgraceful. The learned
Judge then rose to leave the chair, and as he was doing
so, Dr. Addams, with great warmth, said, I protest against
your observations, sir, and I treat them with contempt
#rid disgust,

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.---goNDATI
(Sittings in Banco.)
THE QUEEN E. THE ARCHBISHQP QF CM4ITERBURV.-

HAMPDEN'S .-MANDAMUS.
Shortly after ten o'clock,CASE
Lord Chief Justice Denman,
Mr. Justice' Patteson, Mr. Justice Coleridge, and Mr.
Justice Erle, took their seats, when the case of the
Queen v. the Archbishop of Canterbury was called on.
The Attorney-General then said ho was instructed by
her Majesty's government, with the full sanction of his
Grace the Archbishop of Canterbury, to oppose the rule
obtained by his learned friend Sir F. Kelly, for a manda-
mus in this case ; and the objections which it would be
his duty to urge were so numerous that he hardly knew
where to begin, and what course he ought to adopt. He
then proceeded to state the following as the order of his
principal objections, and cited a vast mass of antique laws
in support of them. He said that at the confirmation of
bishops it was usual to make proclamation requiring op-
posers to cone forward, but he should be able to prove
that at alltimes that part of the ceremony had been treated
as a form, and throughout the ceremony of confirmation
the Archbishop or his Vicar-General only acted minis-
terially not judicially ; that was his first objection to the
rule. He should secondly contend, however, that whe-
!her the-act of the archbishop was ministerial or judicial,
if wrong was done the remedy was got by appeal, bud not