The Statesman.
London, England, 1821-11-09 00:00:00

• LA.'
; .
Olt enmetrAY, Nov. L •- v:11
• .44
CON'TICIIST OP COURT. ,
stubs' v. naaLow. ,
Mr. Ittirsm. stated that the affidavitas dospart of
the defenitasts bad been filed, and they essialned the
. whole circumstances of the emir 111.7 were of great
length, sand their coolants recce af.such a mann, that
be bad to wisest his-Lordship would hear -them in.
his private mem..
Mr. Cntwo.mitt be bad sot seen the affidavit.; in
fact, bolus' se iastiseelase. as his elicit considered
•.. that the ease had boas pat sa mid to yesterday,.
The 14611 D 0114.11C11401111 You eau sopa Ito my
, private row Mr. Ching,. sad bear the &Malts mid ;
for the caneo as simulated:lo me yestaeday..le else of
the. worst nature of contempts I ever heard. • .1.-cannot
1... presume it tabs proved moil I read the affidavits on
she othee side.- If the Ceased and Solicitors of the
.
parties will attend me sow in my private room, I will
hear it.
His Lordship tbea raffinadtsad after being almost as
boar, returned. •
VII Loan ClRANCRLlAlL.rigarilitte. why
in hearing this awe* of Cis 401 a y ease where a
Ward of Conn is aspersed ; but where both parties
consent* I do.gdriakletaillt to refuse. 1 -highly
approve of the conduct oiler. Itoapell in asking that
. it should be beard oat ofteurt, and of the coaduct of
Mr. Ching in ,consentiapr tait ; for from the painful
ritcomstapcos disclosed ira the affidavits, it wottlalave
made it a painful duty for me to have performed my
duty in Lburt. that, oommitted one of the defend-
ants."
We understand that his Lordship committed Thos.
Barlow to the custody of the Warden of the Fleet, and
observed, that he would read the affidavits, and further
consider bow he would deal with Joseph Barlow.

COURT OF KINGS BENCH.—Werruntrna, Nov. 8.

THI ZING V. TURNEN.
The defendant appeared at the sitting of the Court
to plead to an indictment preferred by the Constitu-
tional Association for publishing some of Carlile's
works. The indictment was read by the Officer, and
the defendant pleaded Not Guilty. He was told his
trial would come ors at the Sittings after Term.
RICUAHDSON V. SIR H. MUM

This was an action against the defendant for an as-
.
• sault and false imprisonment. The cause was tried
before the Lord Chief Justice, at Guildhall. and a ver-
dict found for the defendant.
Mr. SCAELETT OR this occasion moved for a new
trial. The plaintiff. who sesides in Essex, was going
• to London, when he was stopped by an officer belong-
• ing to Sir R. Reeve, the Sherifflor Essex, and served
with a writ of ca. ea. 'l'ne plaintiff said it must be a
mistake, as he did sot owe at much money as could en-
title any man to arrest him. The name in the writ
was Was. Richardson, and the plaintiffs name was
John. The officer would not listen to what* 'plain-
tiff had to say, but insisted on his captloti, aid look
the plaintiff to Ms house. It was there discovered
that the writ had been sued out by some malicious per-
son and the plaintiff was discharged. Some time after
be brought his action. •
The CRIER Jurrice, i■ his charge to the Jury,
railed their attention to a piece of paper which bad
- been pinned to the writ, and which contained the
place where the plaintiff resided, and oiher particulars.
making it almost impossible for the officer to be mis-
taken in the person of the plaintiff. There was no
doubt the writ bad been maliciously sued oot, but the
Jury had to consider whether the officer had received
instruction which made it impossible without a breach
of duty to avoid arresting the plaintiff.—The Jury
bond a verdict for the defendant.
Mr. SCARLET? now contended in support of his mo-
tion, that no instruction received by a Sheriff's officer
could authorise the arrest of a person whose name did
not appear on the face of the writ. •
Mr. Justice BEST asked whether there was no attor-
ney's name to the proceeding?
. Mr. ANDREWS said there was, but it happened that
there were no less than four of the same name.
Mr. Justice Blom—Something ought to be done to
put an end to such dreadful abases.
The LORD Cuter JUSTICE said this was a question
of great importance, not only to the civil but criminal
administration of justice. If the mistake of a name
in a writ or warrant was to make the officer responsible
the consequence would be serious. Under all the
cumstances the Court granted a rale to shew cause.
WEST r. ANDREWS.

Mr. OURNEY moved to set aside the nonsuit in this
case, and enter a verdict fur the plaintiff. It was an
action to recover penalties under an act passed in
the fifty-fifth of his late Majesty for the protection of
paupers, and to prevent parish-officers supplying
the poor with provisions. The Bill was brought in
by Mr. I). Gilbert. The action was tried in Sown,
and it appeared that the defendant • was one of the
Guardians of the poor of live 'consolidated parishes in
that county. It was proved in evidence that be had
entered into a contract to sell sheep, to aperson names
Griffiths, who fanned the poor, and tbe Learned Coon-
sel for the plaintiff contended, that such a contract
was an infringement of the Act of Parliament before
named. The defendant consequently bad incurred
the penalty of 401. The Learned Judge held, that
inasmuch as the defendant did not supply the poor
directly with provisions, but the man with sheep, who
farmed the poor, be did not come within the weaning
of the Act.
Mr. Justice BUT asked who the farmer was ap-
pointed by ?

Mr. tluatiev.—He is appointed by the Guardians I
of the poor, Rad the contract is obviously se infringe-
meat of Mr. Oilbert's Act, which was passed to pre-
vent the very thing which the defendant had done.
If half. dozen Guardians of the.poor make contracts
with the farmer, they have an interest in the prowi-.
lions supplied, and consequently they cannot exercise
a proper superintendence ever •the concerns of the
poor. In that view be sabasitted that the seaside
ought to be set aside.
The Loan CHM JUSTICZ.StippOSO en con-
pleintleade to these Guardians that the previsions to
the!~ are had, and it appears one supplies the sheep,
another the bacon, and ethers different ankles to the
' farmer, will they not have an interest "in upholding
tNe *apply. and consequently the judicious contrail
t• eysis expected to exercise be withheld.