COMMENCEMENT OF TERM IN THE COURTs.—Monday being the first day
of Trinity Term, the Judges breakfasted with the Lord Chancellor, and then proceeded to Westminster, and took their seats in their re- spective Courts. The circuits, for t'he ensuing Assizes, are arranged as follows. Norfolk—Baron Lyndhurst and Baron Garrow. Midland— Chief Justice Tindal and Justice Littledale. Home—Lord Tenterden and Justice Gaselee. North—Baron Vaughan and Justice J. J. Parke. Western—Mr. Justice Taunton and Mr. Justice Alderson. Oxford— Justice J. A. Park and Justice Patteson. Welch—Baron Bolland and Mr. Justice Bosanquet.
ALEXANDER V. THE DUKE OF Wet.r.ixoroN.—The Lord Chancellor gave judgment in this appeal case yesterday. It respected the Deccan prize-money. The legal point at issue was, whether the Crown, having made one settlement, as in the case of the prize-money in question, had power to make a second, altering or modifying the first. The Lord Chancellor held that, in all cases, prize-money vested absolutely in the Crown ; and that, previous to final adjudication, the Crown might alter or modify the mode of its distribution as it thought fit. The appeal was, therefore' refused. The judgment of the Chancellor was principally grounded on the case of the Elcidamas, decided by Sir William Scott. HE THAT GOES A BORROWING GOES A SORROWING.—A curious exemplI fication of the truth of poor Richard's observation has come before out law court this week. The parties are the Honourable Mr. King, son of Lord Lorton, and Mr. Hamlet, the goldsmith of Princes Street. Mr. King, it appears some time ago had urgent occasion for a sum of money, and applied to Mr. Hamlet for accommodation. Mr. Hamlet refused to lend any money, but he offered to let Mr. King have what goods he liked. Mr. King accordingly purchased of Mr. Hamlet goods to the amount of 8,0001.; which goods were regularly conveyed over to Mr. George Robins the auctioneer, who advanced on them 2,5001.; they were afterwards sold for 3,500/. Thus, Mr. King became indebted to Mr. Hamlet in 8,0004 for what yielded him less than 3,0001.; in other words, he paid for the loan of the latter sum a premium of about 270 per cent. to set out with, and interest until the debt was liquidated at the rate of 14 per cent. Every description of security which Mr. Bing could give' Mr. Hamlet appears to have received. The only question which the Lord Chancellor, before whom the case came in the way of appeal, had to decide, was—whether the -transaction was of the nature of a loan, or of a sale. His Lordship, as the Vice-Chancellor also had,
inclined so far towards the former opinion as to impose on Mr. Hamlet the onus of proving that the transaction was a sale, as he alleged. There is not much novelty in the case ; we believe that similar affairs are going on every day among needy young aristocrats and wealthy trades- men ; but it is seldom the desire and never the interest of the parties to detail the particulars of them to the public.
PORTSOKEN WARD.—On Tuesday, Sir James Scarlett obtained from the Court of King's Bench a rule to show cause why a Mandamus should not issue, to be directed to the Court of Aldermen of the City of Lon- don, commanding them to swear in Mr. Michael Scales as an Alderman for the Ward of Portsoken.
REX V. Epps.—This was an application against a set of resolutions, and a petition founded on them, complaining of certain conduct of the Reverend Doctor Knatchbull, brother of the ex-member for Kent. They were published in the Kent Herald. They charged Doctor Rnatchbull with a rigorous exaction of his tithes, and with having trebled the composition agreed on six years "ago. poctor Knatchbull swore that he had leased the tithes to one Miles, and that no complaint of them had been made until the period of the late excitements in the county. The defendants, on the contrary, swore that Miles had never acted with the Doctor's orders, and that he could do nothing without his authority. An affidavit stated that Miles had refused, the composition, in one case, because the applicant had purchased coals of another person. (Miles is .a coal-merchant and carpenter.) On another occasion, Doctor Knatch- bull said the applicant might have had his tithes, if he had gone to Miles for the plough he had bought a short time before. On the sub- ject of increase in the rector's demands, one tithe-payer swore that his father paid Doctor Knatchbull's predecessor 47/, whereas the Doctor ex- acted 142/. The rule was made absolute. Lord Tenterden said, the tithe-payers had paid their compositions without complaint, till the late excitement had arisen. The rule ought to be made absolute at any time, but more particularly at this time., when so much excitement pre- vailed on this subject. [Will not the discussion of the rule tend to in- crease the excitement ?] MR. WAKLEY AND THE COLLEGE OF SURGEONS.—The College of Sur- geons obtained in last term a rule against Messrs. Wakley, King, Walker, and Dermot. The information arose out of an attempt, on the part of Mr. Wakley, to discuss the question of the exclusion of the Navy surgeons from the levees, in the hall of the College, which the Pre- sident and Council resisted. The riot (for it assumed that appearance) was the subject of a complaint at Bow Street, which we noticed under the head of police when it occurred. Cause was shown against the rule on Tuesday and Wednesday. Mr. Campbell was counsel for the defend- ants. He denied (on affidavit, of course) that there was any conspi- racy or purpose of conspiracy ; he also denied that there was any dis- turbance, except what was occasioned by the officers introduced to pre- serve the peace ; he also declared that Mr. Wakley's sole purpose was to discuss the question of the Navy surgeons, and by no means, as had been alleged, to convert the hall into a political arena. Mr. Campbell contended, that even if Mr. Wakley and his friends had been mistaken ;in assuming that they had a right to enter into such discussions in Sur- • geons' Hall, there was an obvious distinction between a riot and a mis- take. He maintained, however, that in this particular case there was no mistake, but that the right was really as Mr. Wakley had inter- preted it. The Court declared against the right ; but thought, as the object of the rule was the removal of an obstruction, that object had been obtained, and the rule might therefore be dropped. The Court having declared the interruption to be illegal, it would not, in all pro- bability, be renewed. Mr. Campbell said" Mr. Wakley is here in Court, and he authorizes rue to say, that since he now knows the opi- nion of the Court on the law of the case, he will certainly abstain from persisting in opposition to that opinion." Mr. Attorney-General—" I think Mr. Wakley is punishable as a libeller, a rioter, and a conspi- rator." Mr. Campbell—" Then I will make no more concessions. I am perfectly ready to trust Mr. Wakley's case in the hands of the Court, or in those of a Jury." Sir James Scarlett — "That is more like the spirit that has been already displayed." Mr. Platt and others, for the rest of the defendants' denied that they were guilty of any thing like conspiracy or riot. The Attorney-General 'replied on Wednesday. He argued, from the remarks in the Lancet of the 12th of February, 5th and 12th of March, that there was evidence of a preconcerted interruption. The case had been likened to that of Hunt and Parkins, who, on the occasion of an election of Lord Mayor, attempted to introduce a motion on the Manchester riots. That case, Sir Thomas Denman said, stood on quite a different footing. " The claim of right made on that occasion had opinions of lawyers in its favour— one of them that of Mr. Sergeant Glynn, who had been Recorder of London. There were, besides, precedents of cases in which the sup- posed right had been exercised. The Corporation of London was divided on the subject, the Aldermen being on one side and the Common Council on the other; and the Court of Aldermen, who had obtained the rule, disclaimed all wish to have it made absolute, their only object being to have the opinion of the Court on the law and the right ; and having got that opinion, they were perfectly satisfied." In arguing for the conviction of the other parties with Mr. Wakley, Sir James Scarlet; who followed Sir Thomas Denman, observed, that he remembered a case tried at Lancaster before Mr. Baron Graham on an information against certain persons, for a concerted riot at the Liverpool Theatre, and there Mr. Baron Graham held that the cracking of nuts and whistling to- gether amounted to acting in concert. So in the case where Macklin, the celebrated player, had obtained an information against certain per- sons for hissing him in concert. Mr. Campbell—" And Lord Mansfield Said in that case, that Macklin never acted so well as when he let them go." Lord Tenterden said—Mr. Wakley and Mr. King had attended at the meetings both of the 14th of February and the 8th of March, and had been active in the disturbance ; while Messrs. Walker and Dermot had only attended the latter meeting, and were not so active. The rule, therefore, must be made absolute as to Messrs. Wakley and King, and discharged as to the other defendants, MR. NEELD AND HIS LADY,—A conditional talk was granted, on Mon- day, on the application of Mr. Neeld, the heir of the celebrated Mr. Run- dell, against a Mr. Thompson, the editor of a Sunday paper called the Satirist. The libel which led to the information stated, that Mr. Neeld's lady, a daughter of the Earl of Shaftesbury, had been delivered of a child a few weeks after her marriage. A similar slander was circulated a short time after the marriage of Captain Byng to Lady Anne Paget, with the additional lie that the young couple had separated in con- sequence. LANDSEER v. Roannson.—An application for a new trial in this case was made on Thursday, and refused. The ground of the application was an affidavit on the part of the defendant, Robinson, declaring that the anonymous letter produced at the trial was not written by him, or with his knowledge. It was contended, that had it not been for this anonymous letter, the publication could not have been brought home te Robinson. The Court, however, held, that the letters to Captain Po- cock, and to Mr. Evans of Gray's Inn Mr. Landseer's attorney, suffi- ciently established the publication, without the assistance of the anony- mous letter, and refused the new trial accordingly. In the course of the application, Lord Tenterden adverted to the fact of the defendant having pleaded specially in justification, that he had in fact committed adultery with Mrs. Landseer. The Attorney-General admitted that such a plea had been placed upon the record. Lord Tenterden—" And no attempt was made to prove it." The Attorney-General said he wag desired not to offer any evidence. Lord Tenterden—" It would have been very difficult to offer any." The Attorney-General—" I apprehend your Lordship would not have allowed me to go into such a justifica- tion." Lord Tenterden said he certainly should have hesitated before he allowed a pan to prove his own turpitude,—to give evidence of the fact of his having committed adultery, as a justification for writing let. ters of this description ; at the same time, he had not entirely made up his mind to reject the evidence in case it had been offered. LEGAL Irsouvrry.—An action for slanderous words, some ten or a dozen in number, was expanded, the other day, by the skill of the spé. cial-pleader, into no less than twenty-eight counts ! From two of the number' the character of the rest may be guessed—" You are not a cer- tilicatedattorney"—" You are no certificated attorney." The Court of Exchequer was applied to, on motion, to have some twenty of these dia. tinctions without difference struck out. Yesterday, Mr. Sergeant Heath showed cause against this, as an innovation, and called for the restore. tion of the degraded counts. He contended that there was no precedent for this schedule A work. Mr. Baron Bailey—" Then it is time there should be."
INSOLVENT DERTOR.—Richard Whittingham, whose case we noticed last week, was yesterday remanded for fifteen months. .
Previous page
