• - - - - - • % 2 114 46 • s •••• • • 70- • • -.lb- • • . • LAW LNTALLIt;ENCE. THE NATIONAL REGISTAR COURT OF KING'S. BENCH. suoinsv. sov. 2.. THE NINO V. THE UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE. The Solicitor General moved on a former day for a Mandamus, commanding the Vice Chancellor of the University of Cambridge to elect Thos. Jeffson. Esq. B. A. to the office of Lecturer of Mineralogy in the said University. Sergeant I .cns shelved cause OM day against the conditional rule, on the ground that the court had nu power to grant the Mos lems,. The court directed the application to stand over until Wednesday. TILE KING V. RADFORD. The defendant, a slietilr's officer. appeared 10 receive such punishment as the court in its judgment should award, fur exact tog from a person mimed Wood, whom lie had in custody in a lock-up house. the sum of 211. 13s. lid more than lie was legally entitled to demand. 'The subject matter having been referred to the muter of the Court, that ollieer read his report, by which it appeared that the defendant had received the overcharge already stated. Mr. Cooper. who moved fur the attachment against the defen dant. under which he was brought betore the court, stated, that this was not the only instance in which the defendant had im. posed on his client. The court sentenced the defendant to pay a fine of 251. to the King, to refund the sum illegally received, to pay the costs, and stand committed to the prison of the court until the whole is paid. QUEEN MAR.—THE KING V. WILLIAM CLARKE. The defendant in this vise. when brought up finjudgment last week, had time given for the purpose of making an arrangement with his printer. to induce him to give up the unsold copies of •• Queen Mali." The defendant now put In an affidavit, and produced twenty-live copies of the wink, as all which remained in the printer's hands. Mr. Gurney said he felt it to be his duty to press for the judg. trent of the court against the defendant, a. it apneared from his schedule, filmd in the Insolvent Debtors' Court, that at that time there were 529 copies in the printer's hands; either, therefore, there had been a very extensive sale since, or, what was more pnitiahle, some of the copies were kept back. The court would also observe • that by the defendant's withholding the printer's tame, it was impossible to have his affidavit as to the copies unsold. The Judges conferred together for some time, when Mr. Justice Bayley proceeded to pass the sentence of the court. His Lordship observed, that, from the recommendation of the Jut y and the defendant's subsequent conduct, the cour had been inclined to spew a very extraordinary degree of lenity towards him., hut as he had chosen (from motives which the mull had no right to censure) to conceal the printer's name, the case must be considered as one where the printer's name was withheld. The court, taking the recommendation of the Jury into its consider ation• and the defendant's conduct at Cie trial and since, did order and adjudge• that he should be confined in the house of corrcetion, in Codhath-fields, for four calendar months, and find securities for his good behaviour for live years, himself in 401. and two sureties in 201. each. _ _ The defendant asked what was to he done with the twenty-five copies of the work which he now held in his hands ? Mr. Justice Bayley—The court makes no order with regard to them ; but if you are prudent you will destroy them. The defendant said he had no objection to woe them up the Society for the Suppression of Vice, and accordingly handed them over to the solicitor fot the prosecution. Alt. Justice Bayley—That, ae u voluntary act of your own, is extremely ptoper—very proper conduct indeed. The def en dan t then bowed to the court and withdrew in custody. TILE CMG V ANDF.RSON. The defendant, who acted as suir.tyor of highways at Mile- Eud and Whitechapel, appeared, on the motion of Mr. Gurney, to receive judgment, having been Mund guilty of a traud, keeping back various rums received by virtue of hisoflice. The defendant, who is a man of respectable appearence, put in his affidavit. stating that lie bad been prosecuted in eonse squence of the ill-will entertained towards horn by an individual and that he had not been allowed the opportunity to explain the apparent deficiency in his accounts. ',Mr. Gurney said. he was suipriscd with respect to the defen dant's affidavit, and he prayed the court to allow one day to answer it. The court complied with the request, and ordered the defen dant to he brought up to-morrow. TEEsDAY, NOV. 26. JONES, GENTLEMAN, r, BRADLEY, GENTLEMAN, This was illll action fur work and lanour—business done by one attorney for another. The plaintiff in a clerk in court. A letter oftlie defendant's was pot in, requesting larthei time for pat ment. A clerk of the plsintirs proved the business done, and the reasonableness of the charges. There being no defence—verdict for the plaintiff 1061. and coots. undefended causes were disposed of, but of uo public interest. At twenty minstea to eleven the Lord Chief Justice, Justices Best and Holrnyd, took their seats in Itanco, hearing short motions, until eleven, when Mr. Justice Bayley came into court. The attention of the court was occupied in bearing an argu ment upon the terms of an award respecting paying of costs, of no interest, until past twelve. The c ase of certain attorneys being moved to be struck off the rill* was called again to-day. Mr. Header, for the defendants, observed the parties were now unending the Court of Common Pleas, which Court had determined to proceed in its judgment without waiting for the decision of this. *I be motion was accordingly permitted to stand over. TILE KING V. ANDERSON. The defendant, who was up for judgment yesterday, and re• witicied to give counsel for the prosecution an opportunity or si.sw, ring tiflidai its, again stood upon the floor of the court. — d. fender', In his aHidavit had slated that his prosecution WWI to he traced to hostile feeling on the part of • Mr. Pepper mire, one of the churchwardens, and unfair proceedings against Lim at a parish met ling. He denied that he had embezzled the perish money, and attributed the spparent deliciency in his accounts to errors wlich he bud not been allowed to explain. . _ Mr. Gurney on this occasion, put in the affidavit of Mr. Pep percorn, who deposed that the defendant had contrived during nine years to hold the office of surveyor of the highways, and during that time hid defrauded the parish to the *amnia of eighteen bnndred pounds. Other affidavits stated that the prosecution had been com menced in cunsequ• nce of reao!utions passcd at a meeting of trte tithallitants of the Hamlet of Mile Lod. The allidasit of Mr. Mariner the situ, ney, aillo stated, that the dehmdant having been indict. d at Hicks's Hall, had re nmsed the Kiwi...dings, by eri ti.trari into !Ida court, and that be ultimately suffered& verdict of guilty to be recurded against The Common Sergeant addressed the court in mitigation of panistiment, and Mr. Gurney in aggravation. The Lord Chief Justiec.—Let Ow defendant he remanded in the I .1.4 , 1 ti rOl the Nlaishall, and he liroii6Lt a.,;vin to 1120110 W. Tug &hi/dant nab taken out of court. _ WEDNESDAY, NOV. 27. THE KING V. WM. ANDERSON. The defendant was brought up in custody of the Marshal, pursuant to the order of yesterdAy, to receive sentence. Mr. Justice Bayley, pronouncing the judgment of the court, The defendant, as surveyor of the highways, in the Hamlet of Mile End, Whitechapel parish, was prosecuted under two via.—fur unlawfully and fraudulently making and producing false accounts in writing, and fraudulently concealing and neglecting to enter in those accounts several sums of money received from 12 different persons. The sums certainly were very small, not exceeding on the whole 41. and a fruition nn the first iouictmeot, and 31. sad a fraction on the second.— Aud that he did aftervvards'iake a false oath in swearing to the truth of the lir4 account, ■nd would have sworn to the second account, but that the magistrate before whom the oath was ten dered refused to administer it. The court held that this was a very considerable aggravation of the defendant's criminality. The court adjudged, that upon the first indictment the defen dant should pay a line to the Ling of 3001. and be imorisoned four calendar mouths, and until such fine should be paid. And on the second indictinent, after the payment of such hue, and at the expiration of such imprisonment of four months, that he should be further imprisoned for two calendar mot.sas. JIJIIISUICIIo9 OF TIIE MAUIsTICATES OF DOVER. Mr. Jervis skewed cause agsinst • rule nisi , directing • Habeas Corpus to the Captain o: his Majesty's ship Gloseestetr, to bring up the bodies of two individuals who bad been carried on board that ship, under a conviction of the magistrates of Dover on a charge of smuggling, under the provisions ut the statute 51' of the late King. Ile admitted that the offence had been committed within the jurisdiction of the magistrates of the port of Folkston° and that the conviction of the defendants had taken place before two magistrates of the port of Dover, who, it was contended, had no jurisdiction ; bnt he (Mr. Jervis) contended that they had jot isdiction. The act gave jurisdiction to the magistrates within the limits of the port in which the hula or vessel detected in sina:gling should be taken. Mr. Littledale WWI heard in support of the habeas. The Lord Chicf Justice did hot cousider it necessary to give an opinion on the question, whether the magistrates of Dover had authority to take cognizance of a smuggling transaction within the Jurisdiction of the magistrates of Folkstone. In cake he had beim called upon to decide that question, his opinion would, most probably, have been against the authority exer cised against the magistrates of Dover. The second question in the case was mo►t material, namely, whether the magistrates were not bound to chew on the face of the conviction that they bad the authority they had exercised t—The conviction was had iu consequence of that deficiency, and the writ of Habeas mu►t issue. . . Judges Bayley, Holroyd, and Best, were of the same opinion. Rule l'ur the writ of Habeas Corpus mode absolute. .... BRIDGE STREET GANG.—THE KING V. RIDGWAY. Mr. Brougham on a former day obtained a rule to shew cause why Sir John Sewall, Joint Atkins, Esq. and James Murray, solicitor, should not pay the costs to which they had put the defeudmit by reason of not proceeding to trial at the late Lan caster assizes, where they indicted him for perjury. and at an advanced period of the assizes sned out a writ of Certiorari to remove the proceedings. The rule also called nu the aforesaid parties to anew cause why the Certiorw i should not he quashed, and they made pay all the expences. Mr. Sergeaut Hullock this day sbewed cause against the rule, hut The court, feeling that the defendant had been placedlunder circuumtiumes of hardship, made the rule absolute. CRIMINAL INFORMATION. _ . Mr.Eresswell moved fur leave to Me a criminal information against two magistrates of the burough of New Radnor, in South Wales, for refusing to grant a licence to John Griffiths, a publican. The affidavit of Griffiths, on which the application was made, stated, that during ld years, previous to October, 1821, when his license expired, he had kept ■ public house in the borough of New Radnor. and having applied to the two gentlemen, who acted u magistrates, they refused to renew his license, stating that they would not in future allow more than via licences in the borough. The affidavit went on to state the borough to be very extensive. The application was refused. The Common Sergeant said be was instructed to move for leave to life a criminal information against three magistrates in the West of England, for corruptly refusing to grant publicans' licences, but he understood notice had not been given of the motion as required by law. ludo that omission he mentioned the matter, with intention to move next term. THURSDAY, Nov. 28. THE KING v. THE UNIVERsITY OF CAMBRIDGE.. Application was made fur a Mawdamas calling upon the Vice Chancellor of the University of Cambridge to admit Mr. Jepson, . . as lecturer of mineralogy. The motion was opposed by Sergeant Lens, first on the grouud that the lecturer in mineralogy had no right or interest io that office which could entitle bini to call upon the court for a Mandaiins.—ht Was also contended, that as the King was visitor of the University, all complaints relating to the internal affairs of the Colleges ought to be made to his Majesty in coun cil. The court did not see that Dr. Jepson intended to dis charge the duties of the office, and they dire:led an alladavit to be made on that point, before they proceeded further in the matter. The Solicitor General this day produeed the affidavit of Mr. Jepson, in which that gentleman declared his intention to act in the professorship of mineralogy, which he considered an office of honour and profit. The Solicitor General said it would be necessary to apply to the arguments which had been urged against the application by his learned brother, Sergeant Lens. —On the first point, namely, that it was not au office of profit giving the applicant any specific right which the court could re cognize ; he win prepared to prove it was both an office of honour and profit, givitv the professor a right of appeal to • court of law, lie adverted to the election of professors of che mistry, mathematics, mineralogy, music, botany, and anatomy. Those distinctions were always conferred by a majority of votes in the Seuate•house of the University. The professors took precedence o proctors, and on that account ir was an office of dignity. The professor of mineralogy swore at his election to give lectures, and all who attended his lectures were bound to pay him. In addition to the emolument thus obtained, he re ceived 1001. from the royal bounty. The gift was provided fur by vote of Parliament ; and it had been urged that on some oc canons Parliament might refuse to continue the supply with rektect to these professorships; but if that event should ever happen, it was not probable that the King would withhold his royal bounty.—Upon the other point, namely, that the King was •isitor, and that all appeals lay to the King in council, it could not be denied that in two instances appeals had been made to his Majesty in council, but the application in those cases was made by consent of the parties. it the court felt there was any weight in that part of hit learned frit.ud•s argument the doubt atilt cr • Mair - , • reaped to the power which the ling and Council bad to di. el" the question might be tried by as issue. It was admitted that the ft . .. as visitor, bad power to investigate complaints proceeding am.. the University ; but the royal decision must proceed from his Jac b . e , The Lord Chief Justice eeeee d, that this being the last day of term, the court could not then a.rote any longer time to the argument, but would be prepared next 1... c t o meet the question, and give judgment thereon. The decision o. s consequently postponed. The court sat to a late hour, bearing and deciding questions relating to points of practice. MA. HENRY HIINT. As the Judges were rising to quit the court, at a quarter past seven o'clock, Mr. Henry Hunt rose on the floor, and began to address them. Mr. Justice Bayley.—What is it you move, Mr. Hunt ? Mr. Hunt.—l wish to move against one of the office's —no, not one of the officers, but a gentleman of your Lordship's Court, Mr. Charles Frederick Williams. I wish to ask your Lordships that he niay be criminally prosecuted for insulting me, and trying to provoke me to fight aduel, which would have forfeited my recognizaueea. The Lord Chief Justice.—That is a motion for a criminal in. formation, and Ma be made by Counsel. Mr. hope your Lordship will not drive me to Coun sel in this case. I have heard of " set a thief to catch a thief ;" but I am afraid it will not do to set a barrister to catch a bar. rioter. Mr. Justice Bayley.—The same attempt has been formerly made, and the Court decided against it. The eistiuction is this —every man has a right to he heard in his own cause ; but in a criminal information the Crown is the prosecutor, and there fore only counsel can move for it. Mr. Hunt—But in this particular case— The Lord Chief Justice.—There can be no failure of jus tice. We do not conclude you ; you may prefer a bill of in dictment before the grand jury. Mr. Justice Best.—Or bring your action. Mr. Hunt.-1 have another case to bring before your Lord ' ships ; but at this late hour, when yon have been fatigued with ,rio long a sitting, I can scarcely press it. Mr. Justice Beat.—We will hear you move any thing in a elvil cause. Mr. Hunt.—l scarcely know whether your Lordship will think this a civil cause. It is • complaint against one of your officers, Mr. Lushington, the Master of the Crown office, for extortion. Your Lordship may remember, that when 1 was a prisoner in Ilchester gaol, I applied by my counsel, Mr. Chitty, for the redress of certain grievances which I was mitering. The High Sheriff of the County redressed these grievances, and consequently I requested leave to withdraw my application on payment of costs. The costs were taxed by the ma ter, who made an error calf. in casting them up, against me. I %vas de tained in Ilchester gaol for these costs—at least 1 was obliged to pay them before I left it, as a detainer was lodged against me. The Lord Chief Justice.—lf you complain of • mere error, you can only apply that the Master may review bia taxation. Mr. Hunt.—No, n.y Lord ; for these errors base happened singularly often—o ce in the case of the High Bailili of West minster ; once in a case before Mr. Justice Best, when a pound too much was charged me. Three times there have been errors, and all against poor me. (A laugh.) The Lord Chief Justice.—We are sorry for it : but what can we do? Mr. Hunt.—l have long affidavits on the subject; but I will not trouble your Lordships with them now. The Lord Chief Justice.—Then you will not move now Mr. Hunt.—Not in this case ; but on the other question I wished to address your Lordship. The Lord Chief Justice.—That has 'tern decided already. Mr. Hunt.— But only in my case, my Lord. The Lord Chief Justice.—Yes ; often before. Mr: hunt.-1 could show your Lordshiv many cues to the contrary. 1' The Lord Chief Justice.—Not now, on the last day of term —another lime we will hear you. Mr. Hunt.-1 wish to ask your Lordship a question about au indictment which I preferred for a libel against a newspaper editor named Dr. Stoddart : the bill was found, but 1 do not know how the case stands. The Lord Chief Justice.—lt LIS been long out of the paper —do you wish to re-enter it Mr. Ilunt.—As I said, I really do not know what has be come of it. The ca e stood for trial, and was called on, but when I iufurmed your Lordship that I wished to open the case to the jury, you refused to permit them to be sworn. The Lord Chief Justice.—Yes ; on the unie ground that you Cannot move for a criminal information in person. Every cri minal proceeding is at the suit of the Kiug, and the prosecutor cannot interfere. Mr. can show your Lordship cases— The Lord Chief Justice.—At prevent that is the rule of the Court. If you can by ancient eases show that rule to be wrong, conic prepared next term and we will hear you. At present we can say no more. Mr. Hunt.—l am happy to see your Lordship so well after so long an absence. The Judges then left the Court. As it was the last day of lend, they remained until all the motions were disposed of, which, with the application of Mr. Hont, prolonged their sit • ling until Lalt-past seven o'clock. FRIDAY, NOV- 29. Sittings after Term, before the Lord Chief Justice. WA VTE V. LADY CARR. The plaintiff, furrier to his Majesty, brought this action against Lady Carr, for baying by the negligence of her coach man, driven her carriage against the plaintiff's chaise, in con sequence of which the plaintiff ofd his wife were thrown out and mud. injured. The question was whether the accident hap pened by reason of any improper conduct on the part of Lady Carr'► sere ants. It appeared, by the evidence, that the defendant's carriage had re.urned to town from Ealing on the 27th of May last. — The defendant's daughters and Mr. Perceval, her son, were in side. They were driving along Piccadilly with the intention to go to the carpet warehouse in Leicester-fields. The coachman drove on the left of l'ireadilly. IA hen they reached the Re gent's Circus, ■ hackney-coach was drawing across the street to fall into the coach .stand. The coach came on the right side of Lady Carr's carriage, and at the same moment the plaintiff attempted to drive his attire across the horses beads The coachman pulled up his horses, and the pole passing over the wheel of the chaise, overturned it. The plaintiff find his wife were thrown out, and the chaise broken to pieces. Mr. W. got op with a severe bruise on his eye. His wife received a contusion on the head. She was taken up by one oflibe persons who saw the accident, and was conveyed home. Mr. Vs syte asked whose carriage it was, and said, do not go away. I in slat on knowing whose carriage it is. The coachman ;one bins no answer. Ile applied to the footman, but could out obtain