THE LAW.
COURT OF CHANCERY.
FELLOWES V. LORD GWYDER.—In this case the Lord Chancellor affirmed the judgment of the Court below, ordering Mr. Page to perform specifically the contract which he had made with the plaintiff: (Nov. 16.) BEVERIDGE V. HAY.—This was a motion to commit the defendant to the Fleet for having commenced the business of a surgeon in the plaintiff's neighbourhood, after he had been restrained from so doing by an injunction of this Court. The case has been long before the public, in different forms. The Lord Chancellor this morning gave judgment upon the motion stating that Mr. Hay had been guilty of a breach of the injunction. His Lordship, however, suspended the order of commitment for a month, in consideration of the near relationship which existed between the parties, and in the hope that some amicable arrangement may be effected between them in the mean time. (Nov. 19.) FIDDER v. Foes-ma—After this case had occupied five hours of the Lord Chancellor's time, his Lordship made a calculation, from which he concluded that the whole hearing would occupy ninety-two hours! (Nov. 19)
COURT OF KING'S BENCH.
An application was made for leave to file a criminal information against certain Commissionersof the Court of Requests in Halifax, who had refused to take judicial notice of the proceedings of the Insolvent Debtors' Court. Lord Tenterden and the other Judges refused to grant the rule fora criminal information, as there was no evidence of corrupt motives. The Court, however, expressed its disapproba- tion of the conduct of the Commissioners, and hoped that tile publication of the present proceedings would prevent a recurrence of the evil complained of. (Nov. 16.) In an appeal from a conviction under the Hawkers and Pedlars Act, the Court decided that persons hawking yeast were not bound to take out a licence. (Nov.18.)
FAIR V. ELPHINSTONE....-The Attorney-General obtained a rule nisi to the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Bombay to allow the plaintiff to examine a witness. The action had been brought against Mr. Elphinstone, the Governor of Bombay, for illegally sending the plaintiff out of that country, and transmitting bias to England. COURT OF KING'S BENCH, IN BANCO.
OBSCENE-PRINT-SHOPS. THE KING V. EDWARD DUNCOMBE AND JOHN DUN. comun.—One of the defendants lives in Middle Row, Holborn, and the other in Little Queen Street; and they had both suffered judgment to go by default upon indictments which the Society for the Suppression of Vice preferred against them
for the publication of several obscene libels. The defendants now appeared on the floor to receive the judgment of the Court. Some affidavits in mitigation were put in; and stated that the defendants were ignorant of the contents of the publications which they sold, and did not know that they were committing any offence in selling them. One of the prisoners produced affidavits to his character for " morality, honesty, and integrity. Mr. Justice Bailey, after severely commenting on the enormity of the offence, and its immediate tendency to destroy the morality of youth, sentenced time pri- soners to pay each a line of 50/. to the King; to be imprisoned for six mouths ill the House of Correction ; and to find sureties for their good behaviour for three years, each of themselves in 2001., and two sufficient sureties for each in 1001. a piece. THE KING v. JOHN CLAPHAM.—The defendant had been convicted at Guildhall in October last, on au indictment preferred by the Apothecaries Company, and charging him with having falsely sworn that he was twenty-one years of age, iu consequence of which he was admitted to an examination by the Company, goof obtained a certificate authorizing him to practise as an apothecary. The de. fendant had come forward as a witness for the defence in the case of Cooper v. Wakley ; when his juvenile appearance excited the suspicion of the Attorney. General, who led the plaintiff's case, and put some questions to the witness wilieh ultimately led to the preamit prosecution. The defendant was sentenced to six months' imprisonment in the county gaol of Huntingdon. (Nov. 19.)
Cot OF EXCHEQUER.
PETO V. THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL.—The particulars of time law proceedings between Mr. Peto and the Crown have already been detailed in the public papers at great length, and in a variety of forms. The differences originated out of the building of the new Customhouse. which Mr. Peto had contracted to erect for 765,000/. The unfortunate issue Of the first attempt to perform this engagement, induced the necessity of incurring a much greater expense than had been origi- nally contemplated ; and when the building was completed, in 1820, Mr. Peru's clahn was 371,235/. ; of which sum ;115,773/. had been then discharged. Before the balance was paid, part of the Customhouse fell down ; and the Commis- sioners of Customs having instituted proceedings against Mr. Peto for breach of contract, in not having performed the work according to the original specifica- tions, obtained against ina two years ago, a judgment in this Court for 30,000/. The Crown Officers having lately intimated an intention to issue execution upon the judgment, Mr. Pepys now moved, on the put of Mr. Peto, that they he re- strained from so doing, un the ground that the judgment had been entered upon a view of the case not supported by the facts as they appeared in evidence. The Solicitor-General opposed the motion, ou the ground that the issuing an haunt:- thm in such a case, to prevent the Crown from suing out execution on a jade. ment recovered, would be a violation of the King's prerogative. He further contended, that no subject could file a bill for an account against the Crown; for although a subject might plead in bar of the whole of is demand by the Crows, he could not plead a set-oil against any part of it. Mr. Pepys, in his reply, con- tended, that if the Court had not jurisdiction in the case, the statute of Henry VIII., which ascertained and regulated the jurisdiction, was a mere nullity ; and that if an opportunity should be given to Mr. Peto, he would be able to prove that the judgment had been entered upon a wrong ground ; he therefore hoped the Court would grant the injunction for which he prayed. At the sitting of the Court on Friday, the Solicitor-General acquainted their Lordships that the officers of the Crown had accepted a proposal made a behalf of the plaintiff. that the Crown should accept a mortgage on Furnivats lit fur 33,000/ ; Mr. Peto continuing to hold the property as mortgager in possession for a year and a half. within which time it is believed that time merits of his case in Equity will be decided. Warr NE EX EAT EECNO.—Mr. Coe applied for a writ a, ...Teat, upon affidavits, which the Lurd Chief Baron thought imaufficient to justify the C:ourtin lay lag the drftntlant by the heels. An officer of the Court acquainted his Lordship. that such would he the effect of a writ rue (weal •.vhcp issued out of Chancery, hot that in the Exchequer it only amounted to a notice requiring time party to come and give security within a week. The Lord Chief Baron—" if that be so, then I must say that the practice is absurd upon the face of it; for if the party against whom it issues really intends to leave the country, the writ serves him as a notice to be oil'." (Nov. 20.)
ARCHES COURT.
HAM MERTON V. HAMMERTON.—This was a snit for a divorce promoted by Major Hammerton against his wife, on the ground of adultery committed by her with Mr. John Burke, the eldest son of the Lordtaief.lnstice of the King's gench in Ireland. The cause has been already argued, but the evidence was then in- sufficient to found a conclusion or violent presumption of the fact of adultery.
The case came on now by leave of the Court on evidence in support of a sup- plementary allegation. The evidence on the present occasion showed that the parties enjoyed at Paris and in Switzerland, ample opportunities for the com- mission of the offence; and Sir John Nichol', taking the whole in conjunction with the former intimacy between the parties at Cheltenham, was of opinion that the husband had made out his case, and was entitled to the separation. (Nov. 19.)
INSOLVENT DEBTORS' COURT.
Hugh Goldicult, late a captain in the 2d Ceylon Regiment, was opposed by
Mr. Cook, on behalf of a creditor named Baylis. The ()lily remarkable fact con- nected with the case was, that the insolvent had sold out his commission to become a picture dealer, and that his first, and probably his lay: purchase, was a supposed Salvator, which he bought for 6001. and sold for 6/. (Nov. 18.)
Previous page
