Court Of King's Bench, We...
The Times, 1824-01-24T00:00:00

I f15 being the first day of Hilary Term, the Judges took their seats on the bench at one o'clock. TltE XINGU, T1HEPrOSECUTIONOF TUE BtS?OP OF EXETEII, . V. "TIS REAL. JO11S 'BULL." MIr. SCARLETT moved for a rule to show acase why a criminal infbrmation should not be exhibited against the-printer and propree- tor of The Real JohTBv,ll, for a libellous paragraph reflecting on the Bishop of xeter. It woultl be propzr that hie should state th cir. cumstances out of i*hich the groundless imputations on the charac- ter of the Bishop arose. His Lordship received application from the parishioners of the parish of Nortlh littish,in Devonshire, complain. ing ofthe non-residenice of the incuipbeint. He accordingly took measures for prevailiug on the reverenu gentleman to rettitn to his cure, but without success.. h'liile these measures were pending, he received an anonymous letter in a female hand; and afterwaidiwa wonman intruded herself into his presences and made certain statements respecting the conduct of the rcetbr. The BLishop, uwonsequence of the information thus obtaiuid, theught. it .ne- ccSsary to make inquiries ; anel, in the result, thought it right te institute proceedings in the Ecclesiastical Couirt, to deprivel the incetmbent. of his beaefice, wthich tent ias64ed is a sentence of de- rivation. At this time the libel in question appeared. uider :the head of' " The Bishop of Exeter." The learned countsel then read the libel, whichl imputed to thie Bishop. ULnt lie had been intluced to prosecute by a strunipet, wbo was seen hanging on-his arm at the last visitation of his diocess, and that he-sat in -judgnment on his cause. 'T'o this the Bishop answered on oath, that he never saw this womam, except on the occasion which he had stated; that the whole calumsny respecting her was false; and that, though present in Court when sentence was passed, he took no share in it, anid only appeared be- cause lie was infonred by his legal advisers that his attendance was requisite in point of form. Thc COURT asked Mihat proof there was of the connexien of the defendants with. the paper? Mr. SCA5LETT replied, that they had made the -uSul affidavit fried at the Stamp.offlce. The Count granted a-miVe to shoiw cause, ROUTIRS("i V. TATTER .LL. Mr. (GuiruZcY movedfor a rule to shd%v egdse wtty .the verdict Cor theiwlaintiff' in this cause should not be set aside, aind a ronsuit en- tered. This was an action against Mllessrs. -Tattersalls, the well- knoiwn horse-dealers, fQr money had and received- to the rlaintiff's use. rlie plaintiff' had purchase(t a horse Jhl1iiging to 1 rinte s- terhazy at the defendants' auction, for 71 giiineas, witbout a war- ravnty; but sought tv reCOYer back thc monct on the ground.that the contract wvas vitated by fraud. The fraud saugested vwa-first, that the coacbman of Prince Esterh..zy, who 4hnweO the horse on the promises of the defendants, reprWented tbht hebad never been imne. " though the Prinee was a man who did not spate-his horses;" whereas the animnal appeared lamne immediately after' delivery ; and second, that the plairitff had been induced' t bid by the expecta- tion of being able to purchase another horse. ,adapted peculiarly to be driven with the horme in iluestiorr, bht- w ich was never intended for sale.. - It was proved that, before the sale- aq 'advesement ap peared its The Tines newspapers;. announcing for sale at MTessri. ratteisalls four lhorses, thie property, - of: ~ nobleman, dand . de- scribing two of theym-called r Hiihglflyer' sad t -sn as an excellent pair of hlorses for- a-' earri.e, aind remsrla. ble for spirit, and th'Lh rilliancy- of-tlicir actf6n. It did not ap- Pear.by whom this advertisenaeit was insetted * the deek of the defendants positively sWole that it *as not inserted bvytlhem , but svlen the servant asked at 'Tattersall's foF the horses advertised,- he -was shown the twvo which' appeared to coriespond with the descrip- tioni. - At the sale one of~ the hiorses was, first put uip~'aud the plaiin- tiff became the purchaser at 71 guine Thq other rse wwa then put up, and the pxaintijf anxious 'to have Wtlepait, bade I7.5 gui. flaas, hut foundhimiself unexpectedly opposed,-and the Ilioise wits bought inat 2001. it apeared- th.-t the mnoneWtas fot 'liaid Qyrt Prini;e Esterhazy for three davs, before the xpijati~n ~w1I~ch'. demand was -mntade, -and that le indeniifiea thedefentdants. The Lord Ciief-.Justie then tlioughtthat the representatitit -ofthe Coachman On the prensises ofthe daetendants -bund them, if they Parmitted him to be there ; and that they were also hounid by tie advertisement, as the allusion to it had bega recognised by -their servant. " He accordingly'heft.,thejuty- to say,- wvhether they-?hought the Sale t& be bona /Z'de, or conducnted with deceit, onwhsch. direc- tionuthe.jury found-for the plfltinltifF., -Mr. GWiraey A16ihwmdved to sdt aside'thiisvcrdiict, on the griue that,-the -advertisenientought,n6t to baie been received in evdene and that there vak nopxe.-of of, frizud. -- - - - aTe VO4 granted iirule, en the'alt"-rnativdfor,.anonsuilt or' newtrial.a I COURT OF RING'S BENCH;' WESTv1NSTER. JAX. 23.