The Statesman.
London, England, 1818-12-19 00:00:00

PIM!
• .

-,674
4. :

~~

. .
-, .

t ~:~ __. _

:.

es

flageg Since the days of Queen Anne, and acCgrding
to the present (tegument, his Grace cook] not enlarge
a enrich road so as to admit a modern carria►;a; fle
eopposed it would be contended that the Noble De'

fendunt, if the Injunction were not coniinued,woold
4o Ipso, the mann to the groom', and that every
Englishman would be enraged that such a monomeiti
a the nation's victories should he destroyed. Would
it not, said he, he !letter to frost:lto safety to the cave
44 the owner in possession, thart,for the Court to in.
'effete? HP trusted his Honour stook/ allow the de•
snot rer spud dismiss the bill. 7
Mr. WRAY and Mr. HANSON fOltoWed 4111117411110
same side. , , .fi. „,.‘•1
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL, Cinintel for the Plain'
tiffs, said, the present was a question of greet im-,
portance, not only to the parties, but to the Public at
large, for it was whether the Duke of Marlbornugh,,
or any of his successors, had the fight and'power of,
pulling down a splendid monument of British grata-
lode for the unparalleled sictories of his ancestor.-i
The demurrer must admit, for the putpose of the ei.,
guinea', that the Defendant had cut down trees, an
he had a right to Contend that the trees weta,plaoted
in the time of QOPtti Anne. ' • ••
The VICE•CHANCELLOR here ioterrapted the
Learned Solicitor, saying that the usual time for the
Court's rising had arrived, and that he should hear
the remainder of the case to-morrow.—Proceedings
deferred till to-morrow.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, Dac. 18.
' {TAIT V. GEE AND GARVER.
• This was an action for an assault and impri.
vonment. The Plaintiff is an ivory turner in East
ilarding.street ; the Defendant Gee, a publican,who
keeps the Cock, at Hsckney, and Garver, a beadle,
in the acme place. On the sth of October the Plain-
tiff and a friend went into the house of Gee, to take
refreshment. They tendered a 11. note, which Gee
said was bad. They gave a second, which Gee also
declared bad. He detained both notes, and the
• Plaintiff went to procure a constable, in order to
obtain the restoration of his property. On his return
without being able to find a constable, he was taken
by Garver and another Officer, on suspicion of hav-
ing uttered forged notes.
The, Plaintiff reque.ted the notes might be shown
to Mr. Fish. one of the Bank Inspectors, who hap-
pened to reside in Hackney. The notes were sc.
i cnrdingly shown to Mr. Fish, who declared they
Ji 'PIP both good, and wrote his name on them.
Gee woold not believe Mr. Fish, and the other
e 'Defendant, Garver, proceeded to search the Plaintiff.
t They found nothing in his possession objectionable,
.yet they handcuffed him and took him to Worship-
.street, w here he was discharged. These were the
• fa. Is. It was stated that Gee had declared himself
...verse to the proceeding of the beadle, Garver, but
4- iould not restrain him.

An objection was taken to the action with respect
to Garver, on the groond that the Statute required
:tin all actioiss brought against constables that the venue
be bid in the county were such officer was serving ;
I/Carver was in Middlesex, and the venue was in
is London.
This objection was held to be fatal, and the Jary
found a verdict for Garver.
r.- 'As she same objection did not apply to Gee, the
Jury found a verdict for the Plaintiff—Damages 501.
*

• COURT OF CO MON PLEAS. !)cc. 18.
BoElill V. CAMPBELL AND CO.

Mg MP, an action to recover poynient of e bill,
amounting to Iol2til. 7s. 15d. guaranteed by the De.
• Sendanta.
The Plaintiff iv a merchant in Antwerp, end sold
corn to Saver and C 0.,. in London. Sayer and Co.
baviug become indebted to the Plaintiffto the amount
now• claimed, drew upon then, for the amount, and
refused to give them farther credit till the payment
was guaranteed. Sayer and Co. accepted the bill,
• and got it guaranteed by the D-fendants.
The defence rested rather on points of law, which'
• were saved by his Lordship. It was objected that
the bill was not stamped ; but the Court remarked,
that it had been decided that foreign bills, such as
this was,, required no stamp. It was also contended
that valve had not been given by the Plaintiff, for that
a considerable part of the sum claimed had been paid
for insurance of the cargo.

. Verdict for the Plaintiff—Damages 1,0261. 7s. 6d.
LOW V. A‘HPITEL
Mr. Sentient Lees stated, that this was an action
more to ascertain a right than' to recover the small
sum which It professed to elaim. The Defendant
• demanded 2s. 6d. for every head of cattle driven into
Iffeckney-marsh or common. The authority pretend-
ed was that of the Manorial Court. That the Homage
Court had a right to make by-laws he did not dis-
pel*, and they referred to a Statute of James 1. to,
establieh their right in this case. But for centuries
the sum paid by all commoners, for each head of cat-
' tie put into this common, had been 6(14 tied there dud
" ' not appear any right on the part of de Homage
Court to raise this sum to 2s. 6d.
• • It was then proved that the Plaintiff had paid five
- shillings for a horse and a cow which he pot into the
•-' common.
' Mr. Serjeant VAUGHAN, for the Defendant, or-
geed upon the drainage and other improvements of
the marsh, and contended that the sem exacted was
reasonable considering those improvements..
The Steward of the manor appeared with his fo-
lios. lie proved the authenticity of the last charge;.
but nn cross-examination he proved 6d. to have bees.
-of old the tribute.
Mane legal difficulties arising in this question, it
was made into a case to be argued before the Court,
and s verdict was taken for the Plaintiff—Damages,
Four Shillings.
WA LDEGRAEI V. BIGNOLG.
Mr. CAMPBELL opened the plettdings.
Serjeant Less said, that t his action came be.
fore the Jury h consequence of a cruel and metig..
mot aspersion in vain attempted to be thrown upon
the Plaintiff. Far l.e it from him to blame tho pub.
Petition of all the proceedings in Courts of Justice.,
which was opt only a -source of amusement but oft
instruction. It was the great cause why men
charged their legal functions so well in all parts of
the country. The practices and• the proceedings of
our Courts, and the principles of Englibh law, were
daily reed by all persons, from the highest to the
lowest. But the Defeudant could shelter himself

IL