Court Of King's Bench, We...
The Times, 1824-07-01T00:00:00

!,Tr. t. URt E f ulOVeO tor tne juttgiment ',t ta C(ourt on tIIese rte- fendanrs of' the prcsent prosecution, who were fbund gtilty of a vio- lent Rssault on Sarah Cornwall, a servant in their employ. On the patt of the defendants, Mr. Anot.prtus producel affida- vits. alleginig that they were very Young, and had tbur children de. pendeint on tihein for support, and urged the topic ol commiseration which they presented. dl r. (;uRXa V., in aggravation, stttted that the defendants had cast grourdlesl inoputations on the character of the prosecutrix, and had jattempted to injure the character of an Aldermao of London in order to rernove the indictment from the sessions. Thle ('ntnT, advertitig to all tiecircumnstances of the cae, sen- tentericed Nathan to a tnonch's itnprisonnsent in the King's Bench, Iand only imposed a fine of Is. on the witb. ;r KttING V. stANtCIMtE. Ttis wa anl indictmient against the edlitor of the Brixtol Merculry for publishitg in his journal two letters reflecting on the conduct of Sir Alexander Wl'ilsotI. At the trial before AMr. Justice Barroughi, I the defendant was convicted, and ttow in his absence, to which the prosecutor consented, judgmnent was prayed. After the report hadi been read, The LORD CHIEr Jl'STTCr suggested thiat the cdefendant shiould go belore the Master, with a view to the payment of such costs as he I should think just, instead 'it receiving judgment. Mr. Sergeant PELL, for the defentlant, requested time to consult his cltent, to wrhotit he shoultl earnestly recommend att acquieseence in the proposal. M r. ADAM, for the prosecution, said he was instructed by Sir Alexander W''ilson to accede to ainy thing which the Court slould d eeiii ri ht, The em ORhD CHI{EF JUSTICE, after observing tha; Sir Alexan. der M'ilson dil himself great credit by his conduict, ordered the cast' to stand over till M onday, to give an opportunity for the arrange. ment suggested. THiE KING v. rotr tARBOtORtOG. The A'TOTLtxFY-GE2ERAL miioved in this case, on tice part of the Crown, for a rule to show cause why judgtnent shottlcl not be given for the King, notwithstanding the verlict of the jury. Thie Court had merely sutstained that verdict, without giving any opinion on its effects, and his objcat now was to hare that eff'ect solensnly decided. The Coutrt said, they coeild not grant this rule without the de. fendant'e consent, as it was a part of the rule for a new trial that if the veldict shituld be sustained, tite defentatit should have judy- ment. The ATTORN1E`.GErEt1Ar. replied, that lie wished to save the ax ense of a writ of error, on whici lie fully expected to suctceed. f4he cotsnsel for the defendant having no instrucfions to cottsent, the Attorne -fleneral took nothing bv his nmotion. CR*tMtIAt. INFORtA'trONT. Arr. J. EVANs moved for a rutle toshow cactasewhy acriinial information should not be fileti against Robert Lings, gentleoisau,an attorney of Lincoln, for endleavouring to excite Alr. Uresham, an- other attorney of the saime citv, to coostlit a breach of the peacC. ItatppearedTroin the learned coutnsel's statement, that a.:llr. Fisher had sent Air. Greshaml a challenge to fghta tittel. The latter liav- ing paid no attenrion to the hostile mnessage, wis met a short titne tF- terwarts in the intrket-place of Lincoln by Air. Lings, who pullel out of his pocket a pair of pistols antI some biulets, an4 tireateneti that if he did not give Mr. Fisher the ineetitig required, he would post him through the city. Under these circutnstances, Mr. Gre- shiam applied for the protection of tie Cottrt. The LORD CIrwEF JUSTIcE.-AS You sav tliat botli parties are attorneys of this Coourt, you tnay take a' rule to sltow cause.-Ritle 7oid granted. iAr. Justice LTTrr .LDA.L at one o'clock sa1t at A'Nic Prio it Lotidon; buti tried no case of public interest. Tlre xtNC V. CBIIBn AND A,rOTHtig. This was an application to htie Court, made bv MIr. UIuTcHIN. sONe, for a rule to show cause wlhy an inforniatiotl itt the nature of qlteo w.sarraon should not be gra ted to show by witat authority the above inlividuals claified to use and exercise the office of Counmis- sioners of the Court of' Requests for thte city and liberty of W est. minster. It appeared frotn tte statemetit of .Mr. Hutchinson, that by the statute of the 23d of' George II., (the act establishi!fg the Coutrt ot' Requests fbr the city and liberty of Westminster), thc se- veral and respective parisites, who had a tiglit to asseimble in vestry witiin thelr respective parishes. within the city ttnd liberty of WVesct 'ister, vere respectively empowered and required to meet on tht lst tiay of Mlay in every year, providing the same should not ficll on a :iunday, in thie several and respective vestries, in every of their resttective parishes,and nomrlinate and assign in the wvhole, the number of 242 of the most substantial and discreet persons residing withinii titeir respective prishes, wito were to be cominissioners for thie pur. poses of the saidt act, of which said number of 242, thie parishi of St. Paul. Covent-garden, were to nominate and appoint 20. Ilr. fHut. citinsott then stated, thtLt no vestry, meeting whatever had been call. eci in thc tarish of StL Patlt, Covent-garden, pursuant to the terms of the said act: but, notwithstanding, the names of 20 individuals had been retstrned by the vestry elerk, antl atnong such names ap- peareid his own name. The Coturt, on this statement, immcdiately granted the rutle. COURT OF KIN(WS BENCtH. WrST[IMNSTER. Jvrt'- 30. l'llE KING V. NATHAN ANtl) WIFE.