Court Of King's Bench, We...
The Times, 1824-11-25T00:00:00

An interval of twenty minutes elapsed after the conclusion of AlMr. Brodrick's argument, before either of the learned Judges entered the Court. At the expiration of this period, 1Ir. Justice BAYLEY took his seat on the benehl, to hea. short motions, intimating that the other Judges Were only waiting until such motions were over. Mlfr. CHrTrY moved for a writ of htbeas corpuT, on behalf of a lady, who had been coufined for three years and a hal in Ipsewich Gaol, under a sentence of the Ecclesiastical Court. She had been sued by her husband for a restitution of conjuigal rites, on which jgment was given that she should " go home to her husband." TIhe slqniftcanit did not specify any place of residence to whichi she could resort; and, as the husband had no known or settled domicile, she weie unable to comply with its terms, and was conse- quently committed to prison. H1er caqe was one of peculiar hardship. She was married in the year 1814, and brought her hlus- hand a fortune of 20.0001., a very small portion of which only was rettled on herself. In a very shiort timne, that fortane was swept away by executions, and she was redueed to poverty, and during her imprisonment had been dependant on tie gaol allowance for sub- sistence. INr. Justice BAYT.F.Y._IY not all this rather matter for the con- sidieration of the Esclesiastical Court than tbr ours ? Mir. CIIITTY admitted that it was; and grounded his motion on the defect of the significavit in omitting to particulatize the home to whicl the ladIv was to repair. Mr. Justice BAYLEY, upon this ground, granted a rule to show cause why the writ should not issue. Ina few minutes, tie l,ORD CHEsEF JUSTICE and Mr. Justice LITTLEDALE took thieir seatsuon the Beinch, and tire Court pro- ceeded to the consideration of rtles for new trials. At two o'clock the LOStD CHIEF JUSTICE withdrew to attend the Council. THE EARL OF ESSEX V. HARVEY CO0I1S3, ESQ. This was an action of trespass, by Lord Essex, against Mlr. Combe; the proprietor of the' Berkeley fox-hounds, for hunting on his estate, which was tried at liertford. The defendant pleaded licence ; antl supported that plea by producing certain letters, to raise an implied permission to sport. The Lord Chief Baron, who trie(lthe cause, handed the letters to the jury, who found upon them a verdict for the defen.!ant ; which, in the opinion of thc learned Judge, the documents wvoul(d not justify. A rule was obtained in a previous term, on the behalf of the noble Earl, to show cause why the verdict should not be set aside, and a new trial granted. Against this rule Mr. BOLLAND and Alr. LAW now showed cause. They urged that the letters were properly submitted to the jary; that tne conclusion drawn by them was not unwarranted by the evidence; and that, as nio qnestion of right was at issue, andI the damriages coul(d only be nominal, the C'ourt would not encourage further litigation and expense by sending the case to another trial. Ilr. ADnb.PHUS and Alr. BsOnDReCx, in support of the rule, urged, that there zeally was nothing in the case to go to the jury except the amnount of udamaves; that the verdict was unsurpported by law, and contrary to the opinion of the learned Judge who tried the cause ; and that it was impossible for the Court to say that tie darmages would be merely nominal in a case so nearly aftecting the repose ancl cownfort of a nobleman in hiis own domain. The COn RT said it was perfectly clear, that anv proprietor harl T ight to exclude all strangers from his larihis; but be might give a qualified licence, aceornoanied by a qualified prohibition ; and thiSseemed to be the effect of L,ord Essex's letters. ft appeared that the noble Earl intended to forbid the hunt froni draewbeg a fox in his preserve, but not fromfollozviug the fox through them whien fountl-a distinction perfectly well known to sportsmen. The Court, tlerefore, cauld not say thejury had done wrong, and must discharge the rule.-The rule for a new triRl was therefore dischargel. T HE K ING V. DUDFIELD. This was a rule calling on the Prosectrtor to show cairse whIy the thefendant, now a prisoner in Jiorsemonger-lane Gaol, should not be admitted to bail. The prisoner was taken into clistody in June last, on suspicion oh being iniplicated in the robberv at Lord Cowper's; and a bill wits preferred against him at the list fiert- ford assizes. Tire grand jury threw out the bill; buit the Judge who tried the other parties accused thtouhrt there was evilence to charge him as an accessory in Al idldlesex, anid accordingly trans. niutted him to that county. No bill wias preferred at the next ses- sions: but after thle a-sizes wvere over, an accomplice, named Jacobs, gave information before Sir R. Birnie, tending to show that the prisoner received the stolen Bank-notes to a great amount in Surrey, and his evidence was in some respects corroborate(i by that ot a publican named lVatson. Upon tits hi was colmtnitted for trial in Surrey. bitt no bill was preferred at the Alichaelmas sessions; upon which this rule was applied for and granted. Ar. BOLLAND now showed cause against the rule, which could be supported onily on the grournd of the prosecutor's tcfault. Nor, as the informnation tenadig to prove tire offenrce in Surrey was not ob- tained till after the assizes for that county, ire had bean guilty of no unreasonable dlelav, as he was not bount to indict for so serious an offence at the sessions. Air. ANDREws urged that the man had been in custody ever since June, asid that he ougirt to have been intlicted in ftiddihesex, or, if not at thc sessions for Stirreyv tirough the trial might be post- poned illthelassi'es. T'ie prosecutor seemed to bh waiting in the hope of obtaining more conclusive evidence; but this the law of England wonld not justify. It wvas true that stuspicion attached to Dlrdfield; bait still he was entitleui to that justice which every sub- ject hadl a right to claim. Trie Cot uRT thought the prosectutor was not bound toprefer a bill at sessions; and thiai, as there would be assizes holden for Surrey in six weekt, they ought not to admit the prisoner to bail. The rule was arcordingly discharged. ALLEGED MISCONDUCT OF AN ATTORNEY, Mlr. BOLLAND moved for a role to show cause why an attorney sliould not be struck oftf the Rolls for inisconiluct. It was allegea that he had conducted two prosecutions against Josiah raylor, for keepitig a gaming-house. anl trail proposed to conirproinise both for a sum of Monrey-rising in his eemands from 5001. to 6,0001. (A latugh.)-The Court granted a rule to shiow cause. COURT OF KING'S BENCH. WESTIrl1sTEi, Nov.24.