The Statesman.
London, England, 1809-11-11 00:00:00

- -7
777. •
.• fps
4, 4 • J.

14W I NTIC Lutist g.
CoURT OF cacti .1" cfalr. • '
Friday, .61oveaseter /Cr:
ELOPEMENT AT tilpfittlifilt.
The petitions of Messrs. tinit)l end Mks were
this day read by the Officer of this tenet, and his
Lordship, after a due consideration of the meter
therein contained iq Mr. Smith's alfidevit, was
pleased to order him to be discharged; bor with
respect to Mr: Giles's case, he postponcdit for fur..
Cher consideration.
WILMOT e. THE MARQUIS Or LANCDOWNE.
The Loan CHANCELLOR, eapressed his wish that
additional affidavits should be tiled by the Deiced-
ant, explanatory of some parts of his answer,
before this case should-be finally decided upon.--
A tenant fee life, withostltnpeachment of waste,
Inuit leave aufficient wood on the estate to answer
the repairs. His Lordship particulefly desired to-
know if it could be ascertained what nominee of
trees equal to those of this smallest size cut by the
Defendant, had beau I:ft on the estate. He
tiered the affidavits so filed With all possible dis..
patch.
VERT'S ASO OTHERS E. EARL PORTNIORZ.
Mr. Cook: appeared in this cause for Mr. Col-
lins, a person 'who had contracted with the De-
fendant for certmlit ireee, said to be ornamentat
trees, which the Defendant bad cut, or %vas pre.
paring to tut, upon a family estate, of Which he
was tenant for life, without impeachment. The
remainder.men had applied for au injunction to
restrain the Defulant from cutting these trees,
and the application stended also to Mr. Collins.
Mr. Cooke was about to read the answer of
Mr. Collins, when Mr. HALL, Counsel for Lord
Portmore, objected, upon the ground that it was
an irregularity to read the answer of one Defend.
nut against tuwither.
Mr. COOKE allowed that this was an iriagelarity,.
and if the objection was insisted upon he inert sc.
quieace. But this would be a much speedier way
of corning at the merits of the case, than by the
regular method of filiug a bill of ititarpleader.
Mr. Hatt still insisted upon his objection, stet.
leg, that according to the ploposed proceeding, his
client might be affected by statements, which his
Counsel 'night li,re no meanedsf examining.
Mr. Coors, of course, pee/steered nu luuger.
COURT OF sid4c4%
Friday, Nov.. 10. •
CARRICGTON V. TAYLOR.
Mr. GARROW stated this tp 1p "an .action for
disturbing the dads .deck. 't)te''Pfkintiff, tried
at the last Assizes fur * tf o.'Essex, be.
re my Lord Chief Baryat,°4l3l, near verdict was
for the Plaiotilf.;.rie now morel for a Rule
'!ti' Caen why a esosett sgould not be eater.
ail, or a new •trial hadfronrAke ground that the
action could out be meantime's( upon such evidance
as had been giver in this colt; for it *pestered that
the Defendmit was one *f thoeerartio are regularly
licaoced by the Admiralty td go to sea iu boats,
anB who, for their livelihood, *hoot *Oil fowl.
He had, in this ease, shut some wild ducks,
within 300 yards of the decoy-duck of the Plain.
tiff, by Ishii& the wild.decks within hearing of
the shut of the gun hail been frightened and put to
whereby the Plaintiff lost thechunce which
he otherwise would have had of decoying those
birds; not that'eny of them hod been shut by the
Defendant. He tontended that this action could
nu more be maintainedeigalnst the Defendant, than
an action could be tnabtaaissed against him fur
shooting upon his Own had, whereby the Lord
of the Matior adloining• to it, might lose some
pme by its being put th flight.
But the Court finding that this was an old de-
coy.sluck, held that it was privileged so as that
nose should shoot so near to it as to disturb the
fusel that may hare entered thereat ; for a decoy
'reassure privileged than the vicinity of game, and
what might dries game away from a manor, might
, legal, while the seine thing might not be al.
lowed to an oki 'decoy • and this had been held so
long ago as the time of my Lord iLalt....Motion
Mined. •

STORES V. -HEMEL.

Mr. Aesor stat,il this to be an action for eri-
niinal coniersation between the Defendant, and
the Plaintiff's wife, in which judgment had passed
by default, bit which the Defendant whiled to
have tried, he Peeling that he bscr a defence upon
the merits ; and 11,is he moved lingo alhdasits po-
sitively stating, that notwiihstaaiiin the oath 9f
a person who swore to leaving the process at the
house of the Defendant, it was never left 144
them. The Plaintiff and Daletulatit were attor.
nies and partners, at Chepstow.
The Custrt,4ranted a role to sties, CAM.

tan !LINA •. BIINCLS AND ANOTRIM.
Mr. ADOLFAILII moved that the return to Si
habeas carpus, by which these Defendants were
brought up, might be read 4 which being done, it
appeared that 147 had been committed for six
moths to Bridewell, by Mr. Gamut, for nun.
payment of the penalty of 1001.; whereas it ap-
peared, by the 46th of tho King, this was irregu.
Jar, because it was done at the instance of a com-
mon informer ; for by that statute all these pre.
secutious are directed to be in the name of the
♦ttorney-General.
The Das:octants were therefore discharged.

HOWARD LOYEDEN LOYEDIN, ESQ. V. THOMAS
RAYMOND BARRER, ESQ.
Mr. GARROW gloved for • a rule to Shaw cause
why the verdict lit this cue should not be set aside.
lie stated that it was an action of damages brought
by the Plaintiff against the Defendantt fur hokling
criminal conversation with his wife ; it was tried at
the Sittings after last term, before Lord Ellenbo-
rough, in that Court, and the Jury gave at verdict
for the Defendant. [For a statement of this case
.111 THE STATESMAN of thay 4.] The Learned
Counsel contended,Athat, from the facts given in
evidence to the Jury, they ought to have given a
contrary verdict, from the acknowledgment and
promise of the Defendant to Warren Hastings, the
Plainiirs butler, that if he would be silent to what
bad .okeu place, he would UM come near the