The Statesman.
London, England, 1823-05-31 00:00:00

GLADITTN V. BONNER.

This was an application on behalf of the defendants.
Sar..la and Anne Bonner, to dissolve an injunction grant-
ed by the Vice Chancellor; it also prayed that they
• might be at liberty to enter up judgment. His Honour
had restraiirEd the defendants from proceeding with
their action of ejectment on the ground that thereby
the merits of the case could not properly be disposed of.
It appeared that the testator had bequeathed the whole
of his estate to his son, but determined that nobody
should enjoy his property who resided in America, he
provided, in case his son (who hal then served in the
American war and married an American lady) should at
any period dwell in that country, that then all the rents
and profits of the premises should be received by Trus-
tees for the use of his two daughters, so long as the son
might remits there, and no longer. The circumstance
against whi,;ll the testator had thus provided actually oc-
curred: for Thomas Bonner hsving contracted debts to
a large amount, was induced to quit this country for
America, in consequence of a warrant being issued
against him for shooting at and wounding a Sheriff's
officer. Previous to this, however, he bad granted va-
rions annuities on his estate, and the annuitant creditors
having got part of the proper'y'veated in the hands of a
receiver, tinder the authority of the Court, refused to
comply with the terms of the will in favour of the
daughters, who, on their parts, immediately brought an
action of ejectment to recover possession. To restrain the
trial of this action, the plaintiffs filed their bill in equity,
and ob'ained the interposition of the Court below.
The Loon Csivicci.tors expressed his sincere Wish, if
possible, to remove this unfortunate family out of the at-
mosphere of the Court of Chancery, where they had been con-
testing their rights ever since his Lordship was a school-
boy ; an.: Mr. 'rho. Honner's great-grand-father was ;slain-
tiff in the cease reported in Ist Vesey, by which be was en-
tirely rulied. He desired exceedingly to prevent his suc-
cessors from falling into the same predicament, but they
seemed strongly bent on running a similar race. His Lord-
ship remarked on the singularity of Prohibiting this gentle-
man from residing in America (to which country it seemed
he was attached from early associations). when the terms of
the will rid not prevent him from living in any. other. His
Lor'shlp had oo doubt that by the action of ejectment, the
merits could not be tried, but then he thought the course of
proceeding to he adopted now, would be to send it to the
Master to inquire. and state whether the ladies had, under
the present circumstances, a prior interest to the annuitants,
tthich would also include the other point, namely, as to
whether the gentleman was actually now residing in America.
ssing stated thus much he would further consider the case,
and deliver his final judgment in a few-days.
S/VPSON V. RANDALL.

The defendant in this cease being about to present a peti-
tion of Appeal to the House of Lords, applied for leave to
r'eposit the sum in dispute in Court, there to abide the issue,
in-lead of paying it over to the plaintiff. It was contended
tile' by the adoption of some such course as this, the plain-
tiff, if ultimately entitled thereto, could not be excluded
from his right for more than a few weeks, whereas, in the
event of its being lodged in his bands, previously to the
Appeal being heard, if it was afterwards decided against
him, it would in consequence of his needy circumstances be
diflleillt to recover it. •
The Lon D CIILNCELLON begged to consider the probabi-
lity of payment to any one in the course of a " few weeks."
There were, he said, 116 Scotch Appeals pending in the
/louse of Lords. Of English, Irish, and Welsh (the latter
were by far the least lovers of litigation) altogether, from
about xlO to 2,30. For the disposal of these cases (inde-
pendent of those which were rapidly accruing) not more than
three days in the week were allowed at the mast, which his
Lordship calculated would be sufficient to hear about 36
' eases in the year. The last ease which had been decided
And crimpled five days. and the one at present before their
' Lordships would, in all probability. exceed that period.—
The parties might gather from this statement what chance
they had of their cause being disposed of in a " few
weelis."

COURT OF KING'S BENCII, MAY 30.
CRIMINAL INFORMATION.
JESSOPP moved for a criminal information against
two Suffolk Magistrates, one of the Chairman of the
Quarter Sessions for that county, for an alleged, cor-
rupt interposition to prevent the execution of a warrant
f>r apprehe...;ing a person, against whom two indict-
men::: for petit larceny hal been found. It was alleges!
-that after the indictments in question had been returned,
an application was made for a warrant to apprehend the
off as ler, and the warrant was granted, but the justices
(laestion forbade it to issue, on the ground that it
would be time enough to put it in execution a few days
h -fore the ensuing sessions. The only motive imputed
ftr this conduct was, that the alleied offender was a la-
boarer in the employment of the Chairman of the Ses-
sions. The affidavits omitted to state that the snpposed
felon had absconded, or would not La forthcoming by
tt.e time he could, in the ordinary course of events,
take his trial.
The COURT, under the. circumstanc-N stated, thought
there was no ground for this extraordinary interposition:
There was nothing to raise a seasonable presumption
that the Alagis'rates were influenced by a corrupt motive.
For any thing that appeared to the contrary, the person
agalnst whom the indichnetts were found, would be
ready to take his trial at the ensuing sessions. The ut-
most that the party now applying was entitled to, was a
tna.lcitue to the sessions to issue a Bench warrant for
the apprehension of the supposed felon. There was cer-
tainly nothing established on which to found a criminal
information.—Rule refused.
DEATH BY FIGHTING.
THE KING V. S. FEATHERS.
Mr. RUSsEL moved for a rule to strew cause-why the
Magistrates of Worcester should not admit the Defend-
ant Jo-bail, who had beeu committed on a charge of
manslaughter. The Learned Counsel stated that two
persons, named Roberts and Matthews, had quarrelled,
and they went out to light. Roberts was a pugilist and
be Was reluctant to fight, but the persons present urged
them to the contest. The)• fought seven rounds, and
Matthews was killed. Roberts and Samuel Feathers
were then contmit.ed on a charge of manslaughter. The
Learned Counsel made the application on the extreme
poverty of the Defendant, who was unable to pay for the
Writ of Habeas.
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE.—Have you an affidavit to
state how Feathers interfered on this occasion ?
Mr. RUSSEL—He was one of the seconds.
The Loan Cuter JUSTICE.—On the affidavits it ap-
Pears Roberts was unwilling to fight, but he was prelsed
by others; stad as Feathers was one who seconded them,
time Magistrates may probably. have reason fur refusing
bail Be cant of interpose. It ts quite clear, without the
interposition of others, teis melancholy ssecideut would
smut have happened.—ltale refused.
RUMNESS Of THE
_COURT.
:Le LORD Cuter JUSTICt said, it was important to
!,et on with new trials, the Court would therefore take
i‘-e Logsdon and Middlesex new trials at the earliest op-
Is-.rtonity. At any moment of the day Counsel might
~:Isect to be called on to argue new trials.
THE SING V. H. O'MEARA.
Tide application to tile a criminal information agaisat
Mr. O'Sleara for a libel ua Sir LI. Lowe, which stooC
tor further argument, was this day called as it stood in
the paper.
fdr. C. PHILLIPS said, the Solicitor-Oenerdi had re-
.
quested him to say it would he a great convenience if
the Comet would allow it to be s:racivorthe paper, and
come on as a motion.

.

• 1)L '