The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1842-03-29 00:00:00

NISI ERIUS COURT.-FRIDAY

Mr. Baron ROLFE took his seat on the bench at twenty
minutes to two o'clock. The counsel within the bar are Mr.
Sergeant Atcherley, attorney-general of the county palatine;
Mr. Sergeant Murphy, Mr. Starkie, Mr. Dundas, the• Hon.
J. Stuart Wortley, Sir Gregory Lewin, Mr. Baines, Mr.
Armstrong, and Mr. Knowles. Mr. Alexander is not suffi-
ciently recovered to resume his duties; nor were all we have
named present to-day.
On the evening of Thursday an application was made to
their lordships, to order t4e sheriff to return a writ, which
had been issued for the purpose of summoning four knights
to appear in court on the first day of the assizes, to try a
writ of right to the possession of some property in Chorlton-
on-Medlock. The writ was produced, and the following
names called over :—Sir Thomas Potter, of Manchester ;
Sir Thomas Braneker, Sir Joshua Walmsley, and Sir George
Drinkwater, of Liverpool. Three of the gentlemen an-
swered to their names; but Sir Joshua Walmsley did not
appear; and, after some time spent iu endeavouring to ascer-
tain whether he had been . regularly summoned, it was at
length agreed, by the consent of both parties, that the mat-
ter should stand over till the following day, and should be
treated as if done on the first day of the assizes. Mr.
Justice Parke intimated, that Stir Joshua Walmsley ought to
be informed, that he would be required to attend in court
next day.

This morning the preliminary steps in this now almost
obsolete legal proceeding were taken shortly after the sitting
of the court. The four knights, Sir Thomas Potter, Sir
Joshua Walmsley, Sir Thomas Brancker, and Sir Thomas
Drinkwater, were sworn to summon and impannel twenty
good men and true, to try a writ of right. They then chose
from the jury list twenty names, which were read by the
crier.—Mr. Archbold, counsel for Mr. Charles Rishton, the
demaudant, stated that the trial could not take place at the
present assizes, as the act required the jury process to issue
and bear taste, before the first day of the assizes, which had
not been doue.—Mr. Starkie, Q.C., counsel for the tenant,
Anthony Nesbit, tendered demi-marque if it were necessary
to do so.—Mr. Archbold said, it was not necessary till the
time of the,trial. We understand that this case is one of
considerable importance, involving, indeed, it is said, the
freehold of perhaps one-half of the township of Chorlton-on-
Medlock. The demandant claims an interest as the surviving
representative of Barbara Aytouu, and the case will turn very
much on pedigrees and genealogy. It is somewhat remark-
able that an inquiry of this nature should come into the
courts sonic eight or ten years after the passing of a statute
which took away the right of having this peculiar form of
action. We understand that, in fact, this writ was issued
only a few days before the passing of that act. The last
cases of writs 'of right, of which we have any information,
were Angell v. Angell, tried at York in the year 1816, and
Hardman v. ,Cleyy, tried at Lancaster in 1817 ; and we be-
lieve that the case now under notice, Rishton v. Nesbit, is
the last writ of right that ever can be tried in this country,
being the very last writ issued, and the only one outstanding.
The causes taken during the afternoon were of no general
interest.

CROWN COURT—SATURDAY.
Mr. Justice Park took his seat on the bench at nine