The Statesman.
London, England, 1823-06-13 00:00:00

1111111.111 M.
Wipe indeed. disappointed to Bad that. any Noble
11 should object to the Bin going 'lnto a Committee.
:snow the rent evil it proposed to remove, was salter-
Jelly ackliontledge4 to mast. The objection want so fee
'naydeclarethat the evils were never to Ise removed by
ILeglilati ve ealetment whatever. Ile had heard uo
poled stated by whit& 'the *resent statmof the law could
-110 maßstathed:
- The Archbishop of CANTERBURY expleised. It was,
iS tie extent, and not to the priaeiple of the measure that
las objected to.
Thrie Lordships then disided *a the question of the se-
`Mind reeding—Non Contents, 15—Proxies. 12-27. Con-
demn, lb—Verdes, 0-21. blejerity against the second
reeding, 8.
line House then provetedediocessider the Report of the
Marriage Act Amendment Bill.
The LOR DCH AN CELLOR said he intended to introduce
into the Bill, the clause of which he had already given no-
tice. he should have it prepared by to-morrow.
The Report was theb ordered to be taken into further
considetation to-morrow.—At half-past nine o'clock the
House adjourned.

. COURT OF KINO'i BENCH, Jose Ht.
THE BIRO V. MESSITIR.
OD the reading of the Judge's Report in this eases
which was a prosecution for bribery, instituted by Sir
T. S. Cliampneys, it appeared that the Jury having found
a general verdict of.guilty upon the evidence of one per-
son, whom the learned Judge seemed to think was un-
worthy of credit.
The COURT, without argument, suede the rule absolute
for a new trial.
THE NINO v. WILLIAM MEAD.
This case, It will be remembered, was the first series
of eighteen prosecutions against the witnesses for the
Crown. upon itiformations in the Exchequer, against
several persons as concerned in a smuggling transaction
near Scarborough. The defendant was found guilty ;
upon which the Attorney-Central, who had moved for
special juries in all -the cases, refused his warrant to
the prosecutor for a tales, anti consequently all the other
causes went off for default of jurors. A rule was after-
yards obtained to show cause wby the defendant shoeld
not have a new trial, and lie was admitted to bail. The
prosecutor, James Law, was afterwards mortally wound-
ed by means of a gun or pistol, and William Mead mid
another were committee( on a charge of murder. At the
last York assizes a bill was found against them for that
orime, but the trial was postponed on the ground that the
packed state of public feeling would prevent them from
having an impartial trial.
Mr. U. F. Jones now appeared to chew cause against
tills rule, when •
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE asked whether the defend-
ant was not under prosecotion of a most serious charge?
Mr. Jones answered that he was in custody on a charge
of murder.
The LORD CHIEF Juarrecsaid, then it would surely
be proper to let this case stand over till that prosecution
was decided.
Mr. JONES submitted that then were peculiar reasons
why this case ought not to he deferred. There were seven-
teen other indictments, ail arising out of the same image-.
tion, which had gone off at a ruinous expense to the parties,
because the AttorneyAlentral, who moved for special
juries, refused to allow the prosecutor to pray a tales in any
of the causes. They could not bring any of them down
again, unless some arrangement were made respecting Vele
costs, and all arrangement had been refused, while this rthe
was pending. It was, therefore, highly important to the pur-
poses of justice, that the rule should he at once determined,
and it would take but little time. as it was moved on affida-
vits which had received the most complete and satisfactory
answer.
The SOLICSTOR.GENER AL said he was not satisfied with
the affidavits which he had seen; and it would not avail
the prosecutors to press for this discussion, because they
could not compel the defendants to go to trial at the sittings
after term.
Mr. JONES still pressed that he might be at liberty to en-
ter on the merits of the rule, as the case of his clients was
one of singeler hardship.
The LAID-CRIMP JUSTICE after consulting the other
judges, said The Court must in their discretion make-such
arrangements for the despatch of business as shall be for
the general benefit of the suitors. I am sure we shall be
consulting this object if we pass by this case for the present,
and therefore it must stand , ver
Mr. SOLICITOR-GENERAL begged leave to say, that none
of the records in the cases referred to had been brought
down by the defendants.
SIR W. BORT v. LORD NEWRY.
This was an action upon the warranty eta horse, sold
by the defendant to the plaintiff. The Jury bad found
for the plaintiff. A motion had been made for a new
trial, on the ground that there was no proof of a warranty
li
for soundness, inasmuch as the only proof was that the
defendant had said the horse teas sound, without pledg-I
ing himself that it was sound at the time of sale. Oa
shewing cause against the rule, •
The COURT were of opinion that it was unnecessary
to prove an express warranty, if the representation at the
time of salt imported a Warranty ; such was this case,
and therefore they discharged the rule.
THE NINO V. FIELDER AND ALDRIDGE.
On a former day the Solocurou-Oznestat. obtained a
rule for supplying a new poatea in the place of one which
contained a verdict of guilty against these defendants for ,
keeping a common gaming-house, which was surrepti-
tiously taken from the Crown-office. The conviction
took place four years ago, but no judgment bad ever been
prayed.
Mr. ADOLPHUS DOW appeared for one of the defendants,
and produced the last postea, tahiclrbe handed to the
officer. He said•that there was an anecdote condected
with the subtraction of the document which deserved to
be laid before the Court, and which would be fully dis-
lihmad. The party for whom he appeared wished to
next term and receive the judgment of the Court;
is prayer was, that he might appear on Tuesday
next and give bail for his attendance to receive such
sentence.
The Collin. granted this request, and fixed the amount
of the security to be given—the defendant himself in
2,0001., and two sureties in 5001. each.
TIM RING V. oLDPIELD AND-BENNETT.
The judgment on these defendants was respited till
next term.
THE LINO V. BARRY O'MARA, see.
Mr. Femmes said, that leave had been given to him
by the Court, to mention this case today, but that un-
fortunately lie bad not found an opportunity of so
.doing until the present moment, when he feared it was
too late to enter into it at length. lie therefore wished
Itheir Lordships to appoint souse day, when it would be
most convenient for the Conit to hear the case. He had
seen his client, and it was his desire that the merits
of the case should come before the Court.
The Loan Cuter Justice—You know, Mr. Phillips,
we cannot do as you retool. It is our duty so to ar-
range the business of the Court, as may be n.ost condos
cive to the interests of the persons who come before us..
The case must now come otiwthenever it is convenient.—
It is impossible to dep irt,froie our general rule, for the
'sake of particular individuals, whose counsel, however,
are very properly anxious for their interests. •
TREEING V. WM. LEAD AND ANOTHER.
Mr. J. W LLIAMS said lie was instructed to move in
this case (which is the same referred to in the case of
peijary) for a Certiorari to remove the indictment for
murder against the defendants, from Yorkshire, into this
Court. At 'plate an hone, he would refrain from mov-
ing, but mentioned the case, that the delay.usight net be
urged against him.
The Couar intimated, that lie might tail Aar tbt
grounds of his sprlicAtion in.a very few words. ,