Court Of Chancery, Tuesda...
The Times, 1824-05-19T00:00:00

The LoRD UIIANCELLO pronounced lus decision in ttrs case to-dav. He did not know iflMr. Hart had seen the afridavits against Mlr. Smith, and those sworn by Mr. Smith in contradiction of themn. llis Lordship expressed his conviction,upon a perusal of these docu- ments, that the Court of King's Bench did not come to a conclusion in their investigation of this matter in the light and hasty manner which Ar. Smith had represented. After the Master had made hi* report, and the Court had pronounced their decision, the affidavits were submitted to the consideration of Mr. Justice Bayley; and that learned Judge, after weighing the statements contained irn those affidavits-statemrrenta involving the most direct contradicdons, anh consequently the grossest perjury-stated his conviction that the Court of King's Bench could have adopted no other course than that wlichl it had pursued. His Lordship then referred to the imriport- ant allegation of Wheatley's absence from Nottingham on the day on which the bail-bond purported to have bten signed by him and ob- servedthatthatallegationhadnotbeen contradicted byMAr. Smith. If it could be contradicted, he should be glad to see an affidavit to that ef- fect-There was another fact in this case,which his Lordship confessed struck him with the greatest astobishment-namely, that Alr. Smith could have retained in his employment such a character as he him. self hadrepresentedWhesatleyto be. Upon every view of the ca%elook- ing at iteven with the moat humane corsideration, hia Lordshlp elt it .mpossible to come to any other conclusion than that to w hich the Court of King's Bench had already come. He was sorry to be comn_ pelled to say that on one side nr the other the grossest perjury he had ever vwitnessed had been committed; and it waY his determination that it should be brought before a jury and the guilty party might expect to be visited with merited psnliment. Alr. Smith said he would contradict the allegation of Wheatley's absence from Nottingham on the day aUuded to. iMir. HOR1NE, for the other side, said he hoped to see the affidavit before it went in to his Lordship. COURT OF lING'S BENCH, WESTStINSTERt, MAY 18. MtORGAN V. PALMER AND OTHERS. This was an action against the late Mayor ef Yarmouth and his efflcers, to recover the sum of four shillins, which they had taken from the plaintiff, as a fee on granting him a licence to keep an alehouse within the borough. It had long been the practice to receive this sum on making out such licences, but nQ immnemorial usage was shown to support it. A verdict waS obtained, subject to the opinion of the Court on a special case as to the right of thc plaintiff to recover. MIr. ROLPE now argued, that the fee was improperly demanded; that the plaintiff was compelled to pay; aAd had a right to recover it back in an action. Air. DovEr, on the other side, contended, that even If the fee coult not be justided, the plaintiff had paid it with a knowledge of all the (tacts and consequently in his own wrong. TuIe COURT were clearly of opinion, that the demandof the fee was-b*d in law, and that the circumstances under which it was paid took the case out of the generil rule, that money pail with a know- ledge of all the facts, cannot atlerwards be stet for with S,ucCes. They therefore gave judgment for the plaintiffi I ,COTITRIC OF CHANCERY. TITESnAV. MAr 18. IV THE AMATTER OF SIMITH.