Court Of King's Bench, We...
The Times, 1824-06-10T00:00:00

LXAW REPOJ T. Whis daVDlr. JustIce JiAYLEY, I5Ir. Justice ,IjTTLEDALE, and, Mlr. Justice laLnoyio sresumed their sittings in the grand jury- room, and the LORD CHIEF JUSTICE sat at szisi prius. . Among the cases areued in BanTe was THE KING V. RICHARD STAFFORD COOKE.. This case, which had been repeatedly mentioned in Court, now' camne on for argument. The defendant was indictedl, with othevs, on the prosecution of Sir George Jerningham, for a conspiracy to molest bim in the enjoyra^nt of his estates, and to defraud his tenants by false pretences. To this indictment he pleaded in-abate- ment, that he held and enjoyed, and was entitled to hold and enjov, the degree, estate, dignitv, and title of Lordl Stafflird Baron Stalttird, and ought to have been'so described on the record. To this plea there vwas a demurrer, which nowv came on to be argued. Mr. T.FLPOuBD, for the prosecution, contended thatshe plea was bad on two principal grounds :-first, that it did not show that the defendant was a peer of the realm, or entitled to a dignity of the IJnited Kingdom; second, that it diil not show howY the defendant claimed peeragc, or set out any writ, patent, summons, or prescrip- tion on which the prosecutor could take issue. 4fter citing autho- rities to prove that a partv was not entitled to be namecl of any fo. reign honour, he contended that it did nat appear that Stafflord was in England, or that the title was derived from any place; but it might be a foreign dignity, or a mere name of courtesy, as the late Cu'rsitor Ba-on was always denominated Baron Mlasseres. The de- cision ofall the Jutdges in "theKine v. Knowles,"I Lord Raymond, 12, proved thc necessity of averring how the party claimedl peer- age; and indeed this was necessary to determine the mode of trial, which was bh the record of Parliament on a creation by writ, by production of letters-patent in ease of a creation by patent, and by a jury on a claim of pecrae by descent or prescription. Mtlr. CAXPUEC.L, for the defendant, chieely relied on an set of Parliament of Edward VI., restoring Eenry, son of the Duke of Buckingham, who was attainted In the reign of Henry Vlll. in blood, by the itleof Lord Stafford. and giving him permission to use tlhe arms X the Barons of Stafford. This act, he contended was apublic act, of which the Court would takejudical notice, ant they would intend the honour claimed by the defendant to be the same recognized by thc legislature in this statute. MIfr. TALFOURD, in reply, 2rgueia that the act was not a pub- lic act, as it respected merely the interests of an individual; and that if it were, the Court would not rnake the large intendment asked on the other side, especially as the title thp;e given, and the title claimed, were essentially diffcrent. The COUJRT were clearly of opinion thas the plea was bad. A party pleading in abatement was bound to state his title with cer- taintv. ard to show in what manner lhe claimed it. Without de- ciding whether the act of restoration was a public act, they thought that even if it were, the descent should have been traced, and the defendant shown to be the heir male of the restored Lord Heniy. They were asked to intend that the defendant was such heir male, and that no other Baron Stafford had ever been created any where sillce the act, which was a great deal too much to be granted on a dilatory plea. There mnst, therefore, be judgment against the de. fendant <quod respondoet ozuster. .NISX PRIUS COURT.-Before tMle LORD CHIEP JUSTICE. GtLIET V. CLAROT. This was an actior bv a French milliner against a lady of the same nation. to recover the valueof a parrot, unlawfully converted by MUa- dame Clarot to her own use. AIr. MIARRYAT stated the plaintiff's case, and expressed his hope that the jury would give such damages as would compel the defend- ant to return the parrot, which Madame Glinet was still willing to receive. MTr. Andre Charles Gaudron stated, that hbs present wife, when iss Aloulier, was requested by lladame Glinet to go to Paris and bring the parrot here, but she was unable to get it from the party in whose custody it was. He had seen it at the house of the defend- ant, where it was alwavs called Aladame Glinet's parrot. The parrot spokc good French, and used to talk to the witness in that tongue. The wife of AMr. Gaudron stated, Madame Clarot said she would keep the parrot till some monev due to her was paid. She brought the parrot from Patis. It spoke French extremely' well, and was taueht to say "Madame Glinat shall not have me till she has Paid the 201." Charlotte Borday corroborated the statement of the last witness. Joseph Nash, a dealer in parrots, said they were birds of great value, c6pedially if they spoke French. He had sold one as high as 90 guineas, which was to be sent as a present to the Governor-Gene- ral of India. (A laugh.) Mr. SCARLETT, for the defendant, proposed to show that the parrot was presented by the plaintiff to the defendant in return for very valuable kindnesses conferred on her. To prove this case he called several witnesmes, two of whom said that Miadame Glinet, on seeing the bird in a new cage, patted his head, and said, " lie had got a new cage, and anew mistress, and she hoped he would behave well."~ The IIORD CGIEF JITSTICE left the jury to decide oa this con- flicting testimony, and directed them if they thought the parrot had not bee. presented, to give the plaintiffa reasonable compensation for its loss. The jury forand a verdict for the plaintiff-Damages 30 guineas. COURT OF KING'S BENCH._VWESTMLNSTEti J19s 6.,