The Statesman.
London, England, 1820-02-14 00:00:00

LAw-livrawasiveE.

COURT OP CHANCERY, Fen. 12.
IS THE M‘TTIR 01P COLIM AND GALPIN.
Mr. Ilwrr, on a former day, moved that the assignees
in this 1.1.1. S 111•11111 11, removed, on the ground that
their 'leis!. had !men expunged, and that they conse-
quently had no interest iu the bankrnpts estate. This
tion etas opposed by the Attorney-tieneral, on the
.;round of the assignees hiving acted must honourably.
Ilid
.that Mork), one of the petitioners, had actually
• oted for lirees.

31r. 11AUT this morning. prodnerd an affidavit, admit-
•l:lsf • 'eh to be the fact, hut stifle.% that Mr. Morley
wis no' Aware that them lichl one of the fictitious bUf
wi.on lie voted for him.

The Lotto I•uamcaLLUa observed, that while be now
.irderril the assignees to be retnovell, he did nut by any
means impute any blame to them ; bat the principle on
a :tick be acted in rentoeiwg them was, that they had
an interest of their own which was not connected with
the estate of the bankrupt. Ile then issued an injunction
to restrain the holders of fictitious hills from voting at
al; in the new choke of as%ivtee,,, and ordered the action
relative to the bills h• Il by 11itiglirla to be tried forth-
ills itt the Court of Coetnion Pleas, at the present

CONTEMPT OF COURT.

IN THE MATTER OF ANTHONY DEANE, ESQ. • MINOR,

ANO %V.“: 11 i V CIUNCERY.

The bin', t.ll Nrei.Loß, at the ri'in of the Court at
u.c.uck, obaerveil, that the Master had not yet made
Wig rct,..rt relative to the legality of the marriage of the
.1. : Os Miss Sarah Elir.theth Stables, at Gretna-

'.green. lle was informed, that in the plaster's office
they had the good sense to send a rase to Scotland for
the opinion of a lawyer there, as to the validity of the
marriage, merely stating that a marriage had taken
place, and asking was it valid, without mentioning the
eirennistances attending it ; that was, they had sent to
Scotland to ask if a imurrittge was a mesrriagr. Of
. mirse, they had been obliged to amend the case. When.
evil- the report was prepared, he was ready to deliver his
judgment.

COURT OF KING'S SA1(111111%

1 THK KING P. HUNT •ND OTIIIRs.
The Arrolutav-Ceteaust. rose to spew cause against
the rule Nisi obtained by Mr. Hunt, on Wednesday last,
for a rertionori, to remove his trial from Lancaster to
York. 'I be Learned Counsel commenced by observing,
that the indictment, in relation to which this rule Lad
been obtained, had been found in the September of last
year. Why so great a delay hail taken place on the
part of the defendants did not appear, but at was a little
extraordinary that the defendants :sad suffered the whole
of Michaelmas, and almost the whole of the present Term,
th elapse, before they had ventured to lay the business
fairly before the Court. It had, in the first instance, hero
kor,ifight forward by Mr. Chitty fur one, out of ten de-
fendants; but the Court had then refused the rule, be- 1
cause it did not appear that all the defendants concurred
is, the application.
Mr. Hunt now rose, and informed the Court, that, in
consequence of what had fallen from the Bench on
We,!nesday last, a person ha,l been seat express to Man-
chester, for the purpose of procuring the assent of the.
other defendants. That person bad- arrived about half
an Lour ago, and had brought with hint letters front the
Jiff-rent defendants, expressing their consent to the
Measure proposed.
This unexpectial lutelllgence'caused conslderable sar-
.pri.e, and evidently disconcerted the Attorney-lieneral,
who requested to see an affidavit stating the fact. It
,was impossible that the consent of the defendants could
have been obtained since Wednesday last, because Mr.
•Kt4ht, one of the defendants, was at this moment a pri-
soWr in Lancaster Castle.
This was 'hewn to him; when, from the haste in
which it had necessarily been drawn up, it was found
dable to ser•ral objections.
Mr. Hunt.—Tbe affidavit does tint state that the depo-
nent hail seen all the parties, but it states that lie hail
the implied consent of Mr. Knight, on the authority of
.is own soq. The Attorney-lieneral himself has taken
rigood care that we should not have the personal consent
tof that unhappy gentleman, who is now locked up in a
dungeon at Lancaster.
The Corer said it was necessary to produce an affi-
davit of the persons who hail seen the other delendmits,
and had olositte.l their consent.

Me. Meet bald, he had no objection to produce the
iffidasit etlitit person, although lie was quite fatigued
and exhausted with the extraordinary exertions he had
' made to accomplish the object of his mission.
The COURT. therefore, granted Mr. Hunt time to
amend his affidavit, and he retired for that purpose,
when the joint affidavit of Mr. Pearson, William Dann,
the person 'alluded to, and Mr. Hunt, was produced, to
which were added the several consents of the tire per-
sons who had originallysilissented from this applisation.
The deponents severally entered into a detail of the
means resorted to for procuriug the consents. It appeared
that Mr. Hunt had sent down written fornssof consent, hr
%V. Dunn, and that those forms had been signed by the
parties whose names were signed thereto. It was found,
however, that, in the form of consent signed by two
of the defendants, and which had been drawn up by
Mr. Hunt, some words relative to the conditions air-
• nexesi to the rule bad been erased—" Upon the terms
proposed by the Court," whirls words followed the words,
•" Sir,. be pleased on my behalf to consent to Mr. Hoots
appliestn for removing( the indictment against Mr.
Hunt awl oliers into Yortshire or Middlesex.-
rThe Cot scr having required some explanation of this
pparent•irregolatity, Mr. Hunt was a second time sent
ark, in order to procure as affidarit explanatory of
th s circumstance. In consequence of these interhip-
tons, it was past two o'clock before the subject was
I again entered into. , . • . •
I . The ATTORNST-CIENZRAL then argued at considerable
length against the rule. His arguments chiefly rested,
on the ground, that in an application to remove a trial
on aceottet of local prejudices, it was uecessary to state
facts, from which the prejudice might he inferred, be..
cause the suggestion entered on the record could not be
traversed. . .-.
The Nottervou-Oestanat followed on the same side,
sad enlarged upon the same points of argument. He.
dre.v the attention of the Court to the ease of the King
v. Harris, as reeortled in the third volume of Thermos
.110 ports. The motion..was in that ease4o.change the
imams from Oloneester.to some other place.. on accoant
of a periodic, which was stated to exist against the .de-
fenolant. The Court refused the rule, 'because it ap-
peared that opwards.of.6oo .Gf the inhabitants of that
place were liable to be summoned as J,nrors, and it was
unlikely that a general prejudiee conld exist amongst
- hod.- Would not. the Caine objection apply
when it was mews by. the books.
- arrived, that between eight and
in Lancashire were eligible to

.0 greit a body. Would not, the same objection apply
ja the present cue, when it was %hewn by. the books,
which bad that morning arrived, that between eight and
nine thousand. persons.iu Lancashire were eligible to
:erre as..turora ? .
After Mr. Cnrris, had addressed the Court on behalf
of two of the defendants,
Mr. limit was heard in support of the rule. fle put it
to the Court to say, whether any man could entertain a
doubt as to the prejndire existing a.gainst him at Lae-
caster. lie wished to call the paracnlar attention of
llr