The Statesman.
London, England, 1812-11-27 00:00:00

try
mal information should not be filed against them for
challenging and posting Mt. Edwtrd Parsons, mer-
chant, of London. The Prosecutor's espurtestate.
ment of this case will be recollected, as reported
when the motion was made; and the Defendant's
Counsel now produced affidavits of Mr. Bell, who
is also a mercantile man, and of his partner, Mr.
John Clarkson, in answer to the Prosecutor's affida-
vits. They stated, that the Prosecutor, who is a
Centleman ia years, and of consideration in Bat-
son's Coffee-house, loudly sod to the Defendant,
Bell, in that place, after the discussion of tke mer-
cantile dispute which gave rise to this quarrel, " I
shall have nothing further to say to you; your con-
sluct is unlike that of a,gentlemau or a merchant, in
not answering my letters ; and I will have nothing
further to do with you. if Mr. Clarkson wishes to
;peak to me, lam at his service." Upon this the
Defendant asked for an explanation; but the Prose-
cutor replied with equal violence, "I have nothing
to say to you: you have behaved like any thing but
a gentleman." Upon the Defendant's quitting the
Coffee-room, the Prosecutor called out, " You
ought to be ashamed to show your face here;" up-
oil which the Defendant asked, " What is that you
say, Sir ?" in a manner which might import a threat.
The Prosecutor then called, 6.4 Waiter, turn this
loan out of the room : he is going to make a riot."
The Defendant then replied, " Now, Sir, you've
settled it." The learned Counsel attempted to re-
concile this statement with what had been deposed
by the Prosecutor and his witness, who, it will be
recollected, swore to the words " rogue, scoundrel,
and coward," as proceeding from the Defendant.—
The Prosecutor's affidavit, said Mr. BIIOUGMAM,
ad-
mitted that he complained of the Defendant's con-
duct, and that he meant to administer to him a mode-
rate rebuke for his unmercautile conduct; and nei-
ther his affidavit, nor that of his friend, negatived
the conversation which was now sworn to have pass-
ed.' The latter expressly said, that he was not near
enough to hear the whole.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL, in support of the rule,
was stopped by the Court.
Lord Etassertoeouotr.—Really it is high time to
put a stop to this spurious chivalry of the conipting-
house and the counter. The Court has been for
these two days occupied with cases of this sort :
yesterday it was an angry linen-draper of Bristol,
who had been a little time in a Local Militia, long
e,too;11 to.imbibe all the worst prejudices of the
army, that thought proper to post a practising stir-
geon for not accepting a challenge; and to-day we j
have a mercantile man in the same predicament. In-
stead of posting their books, these tradesmen are
posting one another. The Court desires it to be un-
derstood, that it is not necessary for the party ap-
Vying for a remedy against such an outrage as this,
tutotne perfectly unblemished before them; and that
if it shall be sliewn to be necessary for public quiet
and justice, they will interpose the remedy sought
for. If the challenge in this case had been sent co-
f atoll/ opal the Defendant's quitting the Coffee-
house, the Court would have contemplated it as ma-
wait% from the venial irritation of the moment; but
it appears that he at first applied to the Prosecutor
for an apology, •spoii the refusal of which, his friend,
the other Defendant, was sent upon this mischievous
and malignant mission to the Prosecutor, in the coun- I
try; and then, because a man refuses to be hunted
down when dining out at a friend's house, and chat-
lenged at six oN:tut:Lin the evening, he is to be posted
for a coward at Lloyd's Coffee-house the next morn-
ing.—Rule absolute.
Tux um %RITA/NTS OF WESTMINSTER IL THE COMMIS-
SIONERS GP LIGHTING AND PAYING.
Mr. PARE showed cause ai;ainst the Rule obtain-
ed in this very interesting case. A Rule had been
obtained, to show cause s by a Mandamus should not
issue, to be directed to the Commissioners of Light.
ing and Paving, calling on them to enforce the parish,
in whose district it might happen, to repair the pay-
ing and roadway of Picdadilly. lie had appeared OR
the part of the parish on a former occasion ; and the
Lord Chief Justice (Ellenborough) was pleased to
Billow time to his Clients, to ascertain whether there
were any disposable funds in the possession of the
parish, which could be appropriated to repair the
paving in Piccadilly. It was now ascertained by all
parties, that the parish had no " disposable funds"
for such a purpose; hut as application was about to'
be made to another place (Parliament) for an exten-
sion of their means of raising money, to enable them
to make such repairs, he now applied for the Rule
Nisi to be dismissed, ns that was understood to be
necessary previously to any application being made
to Parliament.
Sir W. GARnow could not but consent to the dis-
missal, as there were no funds, and as Piccadilly
must remain in its present condition, till Legislative
authority was obtained for raising more money.
Lord ELLENROROUGH observed, that as' such was
the case, the Rule must, of course, be dismissed.—
Rule discharged.
The Court did not rise till after four o'clock.

:Coverages 23.
THE KING V. M.G.

Mr. Nor,or prayed judgment against this Defend-
ant, convicted under an indictment before Lord Er.-
tt:xuoeoocn,atthe last Surrey Assizes, of publishing,
in thz first number of a periodical work, called" Town
Talk." a libel upon Thomas Best, Esq. who had the
misfortune to kill Lord Camelford in a duel. The
Orel :I'...ensetl the Defendant of barbarity, ignorance,'
profligacy, unfair gaming ; and asserted, that he had
wantonly killed Lord Camelford, and had been de-
s:rted by his wife for a more deserving object. The
Defendant had refused to give up the author of the
libel, saying, that be was already a liristuer within
the rules of the King's Bench, .and had no money to
pay costs. The Prosecutor put in an affidavit, which
stated continuances and justificatiptis of the libel-
subsequent numbers of the 44 Town TOO" The.
Court treated the Defendant as a systematic and trad—
ing libeller, and adjudged him to pay a fine of 501.
to the King, to be imprisoned in Newgate for nine
calendar months, and to give security for his good
behaviour for three years afterwards, himself in 1001.
and two sureties iu 501. each.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, WIVITIIIIISTEIt, Nov. 46.

VEGEE V. ROLM.
Mr. Serjeant SUEPHERD showed cause against a
Rule obtained on a former day by 'Mr. Ser,ioant Best