Court Of King's Bench, We...
The Times, 1824-07-03T00:00:00

iths wao a ntle obtained by Mlr. CoopER, calling on the Alder- man and Common Councilmen of the ward of Farringdon.within, tO "ho.o cause why a mandamus should not issue, directing them to hear a person named Civiall, petitioning for a licence for Joe's Coffee- htciss e,itre.court, which he had taken before the expiration of his redeeesaorWs termn. The Court, when the motion was originally made, said they could exereise no control over the dec;sion of the ma- gistrates but they might direct them to hear. AIsr. (eooPER now admitted that the role must be discharged, as the defendants had, since it was granted, done aU for which the ap- plicant was entitled to pray; they had heard himn; and, on hearing, rejected his petition. Mr. HUTcHINsON pressed that the rule should be discharged 'with cosl, on the ground t}hat tbe partv had been heard before he applied for the rule; but on reference to the affidlavits, it appeared that the defendants only swore that they had twhice heard the appli- cation and petition, and not that they had heard the applicant in support of them. The COURTa, therefore, discharged the rule without costs. THE KIXG V ARYANT. This was an indictmnent for a conspiracy, tried before Ailr. Justice Burrough at tbe last assizes for Bristol, when the defendants were found ruilty. A rule having been obtained for a new trial, The LottD CHIEF JUSTICE said that he had communicated with the learned Judge who tried the cause, and found that he was not satj'sfied with the verdict, nor with the manner in which lie him- self left the case to thejury. Perhaps, therefore, the counsel for the presecution would hardly oppose the rule for a new trial. 3Jr. C. F. FrLIAs admitted that after the learned Judge'st expression respeeting the charge, he could not mupport the verdict; and accordingly the rule for a new trial was made abEolute. BYRINE V. PARIKINS. Mr. FRNYCn, on the part of' Mr. Parkins, moved the Court to appoint a day for hearing the argument of the rule granted in this case for a new trial. ide made this application on an afridavit, stat- ing that Mr. Parkins had been in attendance every day this term, expecting his case to be heard, and had been repeatedly insulted and -alled "a robber" by the plaintiff, even within the verge of the Court. Thte LoP.D CmIEr JUSTICE said,they could not take some eases nDut of their or: er to the ivjury of the parties in others. As they nsad given notice that they should not, this term, take any more of the London and Mliddlesex new trials, Mr. Parkins would be re- lieved, at least for the present, from the annoyances of which he cosolalned. ILr. FREN cn said he thought that the Court sometimes took cases out of their order for the accomnmodation of parties. Air. Justice BAYLEY said it was not the practice to do so, and stked the leaTned Counsel whether he could mention any instance In wrhieh a rule for a new trial oktained in last term had been argued in the present ? MIr. FRrxcNI replied in the negative. The LonD CHIEF JUSTICE, said then they could not do what was asked to-day. They devoted to the public as much of their time and strength aspossible"rand they could do no more. The case must come on in its turn.-The motion vwas, therefbre, refused. COURT OF K.N('R R1LJfl1T tVr TirT-v'p1 TTrrr. O HE };ING "' 'T}1E ALDERMAN AND COM)CON COUNCIL3MEN Al vaDnJ:nor tvrTTl)