The Statesman.
London, England, 1824-02-10 00:00:00

me.
COURT OF KING'S BENCH.—lllownsv.
THE STAFFORD PEERAGE.
THE KING V. RICHARD STAFFORD COOK, AND OTHERS.
This was an indictment against the defendants for a con-
spiracy to disquiet Sir George .erningham, Bart. in the
possession of his estates, in the county of Stafford, and to
defraud his tepants under a pretence by the defendant
coolo of being Baron Stafford, and entitled to all the
estates formerly. belonging to the Dulce of Buckingham,
attainted• of treason in the reign of Henry the Eighth.
The *Feedlot Cook pleaded in abatement, that uon the
dal, or taking the inquisition, and long before, he was and
from thence hitherto bath been, pod still is Lord Stafford,
134r0n StUffdrd, on the day, &c. and long before enjoyed,
Ad hai and enjoys, and this he 'is ready to verify,
v 4,1.61614 as be is not named in the 'indictment by the
nwfie and dignity of Lord Stafford, &c. be prays judgment
that the indictment may be quashed.
Mr. TALVORD, on a former day, obtained a rule to chew
aise whythis plea should not be quashed for insuilideacv,
• nets is it did not show that the defendant was
to the name of Lord Stafford, either by patent,
sayiption, by pedigree, or by summons, it was
• Csuratrullersow showed cings and contended that
it iv* not imaapeleot to the Court to quash the defendant's
pies. It• it was deficient, it was for the prosecutors to
debut, but it was quite unprecedented to nail upon the
Clarttoquesh a plea of misnomer to an indictment for a
milallitneaftour.
Sesame? and Mr. TALFORD, in support of the rule,
ergedfliat the plea was clearly informal, and pleaded{ for
the 'mate purpose of delay. It was an attempt, collateiallt;
• to try'the defendant's title to the Peerage of Stafford, with
which the prosecutor had nothing to de. The Court hack
a cfiestetionary power to quash an impertinent or dilatori
plea. This plea was both impertinent and dilatory, and
the_Ofete ()tight to be quashed,
:F,lac Cowry, however, said that it was too strong a
measure for them to quash the plea; let the merits or dc-
rneri..3 of it be what they might, the prosecutor must
,demur.—Role discharged.

ONO'S BENCH CHAMBERS.—BATMIDAY.
. rOIN TS RESERVED 101 THE TWELVE JUDGES.
.Tice eleven Judges of the three Courts, Mr. Justice RI-
- f soDS(N bring absent by illness, sat on Saturday in the
. 'bomber adjoining the Courtof King's Bench, to hear the
objectioos to the indictment upon which Joseph Dar was
triedied convicted at Chester, for the murder of William
Wood.
,blx....fottga argued upon the objections. The first oh-
jectiim was, that the prisoner, with two others inlicted,
were cluirged with throwing stones, without mentioning
aqs number. The second was,•that they were charged
wttk giving the wound by those stones, many stones not
bfing capable of giving one wound. The third objection
• wps, that it was not charged who gave the wound. He
cued on this point a case from lisle, in which, where the
. pleadings were to Latin, de.rba was not beldt sufficient for
wig/a-hand without maim The fourth objection was,
e,indictinent charge.), " did cast and throw vault
.7 bittead of " did cast and throw stones."
r. Justice HOLOOVD referred to Dr. Johnson as giving
neater sense to those verbs, as well as a transitive,
,krati instanced " throwing with dice," in playing hack-
•gruswirt. .
. .tits r, JONES submitted that the transitive was the natural
add strict sons, of the words, and therefore the only one to
bapieeu la No isbdictuneut for murder. If, then, this was
the Wigs eeoses tine word witA must be struck out. But if
the omission of the. weed with could wet be sapeslioth, •nri-
ther could its insertion be erased. There bail been a case
in York, in which Mr. Justice Chambers held that the
"46"esion of with was fatal. It was an indictment for mur-
d, upon a Cdroner's inquest, and it charged that the pri-
aver did assault him (the deceased) and a poker did
l*at,. &c." The Judge held the charge was that the pri-
siteer.did strike the poker. The last objection was, that if
the parts objected to were struck out, there was no distinct,
definite, direct charge alainot the prisoner.
l'he Lotto Ctrise Jcsrice said they would report their
opmmes upon the ohjections.to his Majesty; and ordered
Cpup sr! to withdraw.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, WESTMINSTER Felt. 9.