Court Of King's Bench, We...
The Times, 1824-02-10T00:00:00

. .LAI9e AEPO1tPt This was a case of prohibition, which was -argued in a former term, and orn which the CoQurt took time to consider. The quesioat whichi it involved was, whether a contract for the sale of a presenta- tion to a living made during the dangerous ilness of the incumbent, and when his life was despaired of,was simoniacal and void, though the clergymnan afterwards presented was ignorantof the circumetance of the bargain. The LoRDt CHIEF JUSTIcF now read the judgment of the Court-that the contract was, under its peculiar circumstances, si. meniacal, and that the ignoraince of the clergyman to be presented was immaterial to the qulestion in issue. '['hey, therefore, affirmed the serntenee of the Eicclesiastical Court, for exrl uding the party pre-. sented to the living. T1iE ItIO V. THE CLERR~ OF THE rHMIDDLEsEX COUNTY COURT AND HIS DEPUTY. ar. EFRENCH moved for a rule to show cause why a criminal in. formation should not be exhibited against the clerk of the Middle- sex County Court,and his deptity, for improper conduct in their of- fice. He moved on several grounds-first, that they had impro perly heard a case where the claim exceeded 40s., the pla.i,tift' choosing to reduce it to 39s. I Id.; second, that they had taken itn- vropPr fees, having cnarged 5s. fid. on a second ru1 nii ; and last. Iy, that they had refused to hear the defer'.Gznt's witnesses. The COUnT, after observinir that they could not proceed in this way on the first charme, g.,nted a rule to shiow cause. ATr. SCAItLETr nOse and said that, on the patt of the gentletteh moved aiainst, he was requested to express their great satisfaction tmat -n rule was granted. The CoURT said this observatioin was irreguilar Itnd the matter dropped. THE KIXM, ON THE PrTOSECUTiOY OF SIR Ctl bRGE JMIING- HAS!, V. RICHARD STAFFZ,tRI COOKE. Mtlr. CA srruELL showel cause: aoatnst the rtsle obtained in last termn for quashing the plea of Richard St4fford Cooke, indic-ed with James Stainlp Sutton Cooke., and others, for a conspiracv, on the pro- sectttion of Sir G3eorgeJerningham. The defendant, Richard Staf- ford Cooke, pleaded in abate lent a plea tveriRed by affidavit, that at the time of taking the incuisition, he was Lord Stafford. Baron of oia'TOrG, anct had a rirht to enjoy that dignity and estate. The "lotion for quashing th5s plea ought not, the learned counsel con- tended, to he n.aade a'solute, because the Court, hz such a measurue would deprive the party of his writ of error, which he might prose- cute afterjudgment against him on demurrer. The bsjiection to the plea was, that it set out no w.rit-no patent pf creation-no descents; but, in this case, no writ or patent could hav.e been set forth, be- cauxe the Baronv of Staffird had its origin in too remote antiquity, and the party pl6ading could ohly begin with Doomsday Book, and load the record with a pedigree reaching to the present time. It was agreed that this plea was a goo(d plea, if properly pleaded; and surely the Court wdAld not quash it oni motion, but leave the prosecutor to denmur, evesn if tlev inclined to think it defective. Hle vas, how- evet, prepared to argue, if necessarv, that the plea was good. Mr. SCAULETT and Mr. TALFOVRD argued in support of the rule. It was clear that the plea was bad, because, according to all the authorities, it ought to have set forth a writ, ot patent, or pre- scription, or summons to PaTliament, from whenee the Court might see that the party had a colourable claim. By analogy to the cases in which the Courthave quashed indictments, it was obvious that they had a discretiontary power to control criminal proceedings, and prevent them from being abused to the perversion of justice; and in the " King v. Granger, 3 Burrow, 2110," they quashed a plea in abatement, becau-e it was not verified bv oath. Here, indeed, there was an affidavit; but it was to a mere matter of opinion, on which no indictmnent for perjury could be supported. The charge was a mnost serious charge; not merely alleging that the defendants set up a pretended title, but that they used that title for purposes of fraud anti outrage, and no claim, however good, coula justify t7aeir pro- cc-dings. Wl'ouldl the Court, then, sanction an attenmpt to correct the sourse of justice, by the introduction of a collateral matter so indistinctly introduced, so imperfectly stated, as that which formned the zsubstance of this extraordinary plea ? TheCouRT said,they thought it would be too strong a measure to quash the plea, whatever they might think of its mierits. They therefore dischareed the rule. The argeument o, the rule for changing the venas from Stafford- shire to Mliddlesex, on the ground of prejutlice excited by the pub- lic prints, and the alleged interest of the gentry of Staffordshire and the adjoining couinties in the claim, was postponed till to-morrow (this dav.) COURT Or XITNG'S BENCE, WVE:ST7rsrTER, FIB. 9. FOX V. TRWF 1TqnnP XV pmfvqT!1_