LAW INTELLIGENCE. COURT OF KING'S BENCH. MONDAY. JAN. IS. IDLE AND A NoTHER V. SOLLIS This WAS nn action of (rover by the plaiutitls, assignees of a bankrupt, named Finch, to rn over from the defendant, the Itiotkrupt's mother-in-law, the value of cell:tin furniture which she claimed as her propel , but v. hie t he plaint ill's said belonged to the bankrupt at the• time of his bankruptcy. The furniture in qmistion oas in rt home at Nita) land.point, occupied by the bank tapes family and the pit:sent defen dant conjointly, and the th fend:int contended that the pro perty WU§ kl%,14:111 , i1 to her previous to au act of bankruptcy being committed. It nitprattil 1111.% ever that up to the time of his bankruptcy Finch suns a!inwrd to use the pro perty its his mill ; and \I r. Scarleit non tit:intended Ihat the circumstance, wider tbe Statute of James, aas sufficient to entitle toe plaintitlS to a verdict. The Statute of J attics said, if any site allotted another to use his property in stich a oay its to in•lncc the mold to believe that person the owner, and th •i eby give him a false credit o Olt the world, and t thVillll.ll so using ibc property Wahl become a bankrupt, the pioperiy wouk immediately vest in the assignees of such li.rnkr opt. The Learned Counsel called witnt7sn to prove these tarts, and the Jury found • * vehlict fur the pluititith for SISI. BON•ollt V. CUNTIII AND OTNERS Mr. Scarlett stated, t I his was aii act ion by the pin in. tlff, a respectable stationer, to recover from the defendants 23801. for paper sold to them. Two of the di fendatits, 31r. Curtis and Aliss Richardson, bad denied their liability.—The other definelaiit, Coiner, a hooka 11. r, pleaded that he had been a bankrupt 'Mee the d..ht aryl ued, and had obtained his certificate. The defendants had entered into MI agree• meat, founded on a literary speculation, namely, the pub lication of rr work in be runt d the Encyclopedia Metro politaid„" by which agreement it was settled OA the defendant Curtis, a CiCr2) titan, r. siding at Caiiiherw ell , wits to cooduet and qiyer tariff', or edit the work, for which he ut.s to ri.e. is e a 3 ear to a rein.iner:.; Mr. Fenner was to publish it in numbers or parts, and to lase 10 per cent above the allowance of the trade to puldisher ; but .as an undertaking hise this entail not be carried 00 without considerable funds, hi is:. if icliardsonoi • elation of 311 . . Fenner Was invited to become a ;rimir, a,d she agreed to advance .2,4001. as occasion required, fur a Inch she si as to receive interest at the tale of five percent.; and sifter ill tht se allowances and thouctions, the parties were to divide the pr slits of the trot k. agreement being entered into, the pl was applied In, requested to runtish paper, for the work, which he did to the aintaint of the sum which he stow sought to recover from the Jorv. The Learned CUIIIIISCI !hell Call ed w itnesses to prove this ease. For the tlefmdants Mr. Gwelee put in the commission and certificate of Penner, us a defence in the action. The Solieitar4ieneral, foe the oilier two dekndants, Con tended they a err not liable, they having nothing to do pit h the order given to the plaintiff, Mr. Fenner bting the pub labor of the work and the path• dealing tt kb Mr. lion-on. Alter going thrntizh the ease on both sides, the Jury found a erdiet for the defendant Fenner, and for the plaintiff, by eonseol, for f ,4001. a.liinst the at her two defendants. The Chief Justtce uhserst d, the defendants had made a prudent adoptia 'Lubin u. LOVGIIN•N. This was an action upon the case: the facts lay in a •ery narrow compass. Mr. Loughnan, as on lour ota ship called George the third, by charter-party dated Oct.:JO, 1817, granted that vessel for a term to Mr. Fisher: the voyage was from London to 31ault as, and Lark, the con sideration paid was 1,0,'01. Mr. Fisher, who comminuted the George in pet son, shipped the plaintiff a. his surgeon and purser; and Mr. Plumb, in the latter capacity, issued stores, and made pecuniary advances to the clew during the voyage. The rptestion now was, Mr. Fisher having become bunktupt, whether Mr. Loughman, as owner ell the vessel, was not liable to indemnify the plaintiff. A commis%iuun having issued to examine witnesses in India, the deposition of Captain Fisher was put in and read. Captain Fisher declared that he had engaged the plaintiff, Mr. Plomb, upon his ow n personal account ; and also that he haul shun n hint the chin ter party. The char ter patty was next produced: it contained a covenant that Capt. Fisher should be liable for all wages, charges, and expenses, during the period for %bleb the sessel was chartered to Win. Mr. Searlett, for the defendant, submitted that the plaintiti was out of Court. Mr. Alan yat contended, that there was no evidence of the time at which C ptain Fisher had slaws ii his dialler pity to the plahnitt. It via* for the ile:endant to show 'Unit the information had been given before the expenses w,re incurred. 'l•he Lord Chief:Justice, in the absence of proof to the •outrary, would pit smite the hamlll 4 lo, i ll question to 11 .ve liven givrit at the Ili of the pi:Windt 's engagenteot. lii• Lqrti,ltid was out elrr, lc's% es er, that any such ittfurniation would he necessdt y. 2tll. Fisher wa., dun ing the It int of the chattel pmts, sit toal owner of the vesst I, and there cook' iir Ho 1101141 that :he c o o. tract of the plaint ff would be ul Mr. Fisher, and nut upon Mr. Lougllnan.—YLtintitf• summated. .N14.1101.1.S V. ■'•ll4. 'no, was an action ut a proctor? bill. Mr. Eyres, who is a prize agent, was interested in the condemnation al • a yr set celled lie ,Ila•garita, and the ploceettings in the Court of Adodiaity were eolduett•d by the The clown, as %Arlo os the captors, being interested in all such cause., it is the custom to retain the Al toiney ; such tetaiier, howeseros little else then matter of form, as that learned ram seldom finds it necessary to attend. Mr. Nicholls, pursuing the ordinary course, retained the Attorney General; but Mr. Eyre, after the Call2.i. was over, contended that the learned counsel had den , wattling in the cause, ;mil refused to allow the fees which had been paid to The Lord Chief Justice held that the objection, if taken at all, should have taken palace eat her. Verdict fur the plaintiff—Damages 521. 10s. WEDNESDAY, JAN. W. FEARMAN V. KING AND OTHERS. This was an issue front the Court tir Chancery, di le :led to try the question of exclusive right, on the part Milton, in Kent, the present plaintiff; to the oyster beds and fisheries SilUaltd i.l that part of the hundred of Alt cal'ed the East Grounds. 'rile defendants were the lice fishermen of Milton, and the facts of the ease were a s 6,1:0w free fishermen cf Allison had held the &butes since 170:i, by lease from the /And of the THE NATIONAL REGISTER Mr.. Cartrie who was not assisted by any C ounse l, was then call ed on for her defence. Sue put in a long paper, which was read by the ollicer of the Cour:. In it the defendant justified the original libel by large quotations front Isom sacred and profane history, and concluded by apprising the Jury that a verdict of guilty iii this case would be a great triumph for tire Ministers, whilst, ull the oilier hand, a verdict of acquittal would be a death blow to their power. The defendant called no witnesses. The Solicitor General 111 reply said, he did lint con sider it accessary to offer any aiguinents to prove . 0- 4 • d e , ..I, l l lt 474. _ A Manor, which leases had been renewed from time to time, ou the . payment of the animal rent by the Company of Free Fishermen to the Lord; and no fisherman Wdz, it'll/Wed to enter and fish until he had signed this lease, and paid a certain sum; the sum so paid harmed a fund out of which the rent to the Lord was paid. Ou the expiration of the last lease, however, the Lord being desirous to raise his rent. the li3herlllell turned round and disputed his right to exclude them front dredging, and the result of that refusal was, proceedings in Chao eery, which have been pendiug for some years. 'lnc Solicitor General now conducted the cause on the part of tile plaintiff, and produced a multi ude of documen tary evidenCe, from the reign of Edward 111. to the present time, consisting of grams by letters patent from me different Sovereigns to the iamily of Herbert Eal of Penihroke and Mentgoinerie, through whom the present Lord of the Manor claimed. lite establish ment of the Court of Free Fishernieu in 170 b, was also proved, and that the Members of that Court paid a certain fee on admission, out of which the rent to the Lord of the Nlatior was paid—and further, the Learned Cosousel called evidence, amid pia in documents to prove a quiet elijoyment of this right on the part of the Lord of the Manor for upwards of WO years. \lr. Scarlett, on the part of the defendants, went to t he Jury on the general issue, abandoning the sp.cial Ica ott behalf of the fishermen of Milton, and contended the Lord of the Manor could not, by the law of the ( and, have a right, any more thin the ildlertnen had, on t he evidence adduced, to exclude the public. The loyster-beds were overflowed by the tide, and the Crown itself could inn grant such a right to the Lord as gave hint a right to exclude the public. Upon this ground he should contend that a verdict must be entered for the defendants, as part of the public. He believed the Court of Fite fishermen and the claim of the Lord of the Manor arose in 17db, alit of a collusion between the parties, to which the public were to be made a sacrifice. The ChielJustice said, if the claim of the Lord of the Manor was not established by die evidence adduced in tile present case, he was at a loss to conceive what evidence would be sufficient to enable a man to retain possession of his estate or property. Should this property be thrown open to the public, the result would be, that in less than three years there would not be an oyster lea for any one. 1 he Juryy, without hesitation, found a verdict for the plaintiff—Damages One Shilling; the piestion being tried to decide tile rigid, and nut to acme,* damages. Mr. Scarlett said, tLe unfortunate defendants were by this decision reduced to a state of great distress, and lett wholly at the mercy of tile plaionti. The Solicitor General said, he haul no doubt the plaintiff, Mr. Falun:in, who was MA 111 fact the Lord of the Manor, hot the lessee muter we Lord of the East Ground Fishery, would do every cling that was tight fur these unfortunate individuals. FRIDAY, JAN. 19. THE KING V. JANS. CARLILE. This was a criminal information til.tl by the Attorney General against the defendant, 1M the publicanun of a libel in a viper called T he !lepul•Jicau. The Solicitor General addressed We Jury on the part of the prosecution. The husband of the deleitilatit, It. Cathie, was at present sullering for his concern in that publication; the husband being reuloved, his wiie then took up the trade. The libel was contained in a leiter dated from Dor chester gaol, signed " Richard Cathie," and addressed to the Rev. 11 . of Kitte ; Square, Bristol, and pitri.ortecl to be an aii,ker to some questions put by that Use. G.:mit:man m the writer of the letter. Although tile letter bore the Sielaalure Of Carlile, the Crown had not the means of proving it to be his prodoLtion, and the refine proceeded against the seller and publisher. lielerring to the libel, he would abstain from all argu mum to shot• , its mischievims and horrid tendency. 11 the bare perusal did nut satisfy the Jury, nothing that he could say would have that effect. Alter some argument tile libel proceeds to speak of the Cato Street conspiracy —that conspirecy which had had the seal of four tritelk. gent juries set upon it. lit speaking of this, the,writer's words were, '• 1 hold the destruction of tyrants by a smiden and vi•.tlelit death, or (if you think 1 am not explicit enough) Ly assassination, to be highly just, mural, virtotitis, legal, and conformable to the law tit nature, which is, or ought to be, the foundation of all law."—Thus any one whom the writer though► fit to say was a tyrant, he openly contended lie was justified its assassinating; but thank God 1 such doctrines were Aril to the breasts 01 The wild goes on to say, " with regard to th.ise persons whom you call Cato Street conspirators, I entirely disapptute. lobject to them, because I think it was cowardly and impolitic to enter into association ldr assassination. whicii hail OW be 'wile!' done lay ally 1111.10 . S single arm unincuinhered 311 d unassisted." The Learned Counsel concluded by observing, that the Jury had heard the libel read, and lie doubted not that they would without hesitation give him their verdict. Richard Samuel Hon'ditch was then sworn and exa mined. 1-1 e proved Mat he bought the paper put Intro his hands, No. 8, of Vol. 111. of The Republican, on the 17th June, t 84% of the defendant, personally, St her shop in Fleet-street. The witness %%es not cross-examined. Tue judgment of the Court of itia's Bench on 11. Cathie was put it: its evidoice. malignity and dangerous character of the libel. If 111 Jury, upon reading the work in qucstion, were not 'a tislicd in its being libellous, he did not ask them to find the defelidairt sudsy. Ile concluded by requesting the Jury to lay aside all prejudices, and dkcide fairly from the work. The Lord Chief Justice briefly summed up, and after alluding to the nature of the defence, which, he con tended, rattier aggravated the libel. told the Jury that if tiiey were S.illblicd that the libel was directed against his lajesty's Alinisters, they would bud the defendant platy. Tile Jury retired for about twenty iii itt utes, and ou their return, brought a verdict of Guilty.—Mrs. Carlisle kit the Court befole the verdict was Otto. HUN lE:t U. ROTHWELL AND OTHERS. Thll3 was an action brougiu by the assignees of Hil liug+worth, a b.iiikrupi, against the lair Siteritis of the city of London and the county of Middlesex, for the improper sale of a quantity of wine, and other proptity, belonging to the bankrupt, which had been seized lit (Attention Au appraiser valued the property and wines at 3,2441. dedneung all expenses. It was sold by auc tion lor 2,8001. and, deducting the expenses, the lieu proceeds amounted only to 2,5631. This was represented to be greatly under the value, and the Jury were called 'upon to gite the uifference. Mr. Scarlett, for the Siteriffs, stated, that he should be , able to prove a concerted bankruptcy, also that no act of bankruptcy was cuiumitted.—Xne Learned Counsel' called w nesses, but Idled in making out his statement. The July found a verdict for the plaintiff—Damages 3,0001. COURT Or CHANCERY, JAM. IS. This was the hest seal beim e term. ' The Laid Chaileellw, alter he had taken his seat uo the Beat: It, tidal nied tae Liar that h.• bad tend all the pa. pets tg the dilleteat e..sl 3 helot t%lititil lel them know tu-mutiust when he would give judisieut iti each of tam. VERGISON V. SERI:ISOIG Mr. Hart asked the Laid ibisliccilol, if the Learned Judge t 4 110 turd the kr.iie had 'cut it cup). of his mitt:, Ins Loidship said, (hut he had tut !received thew, but that he expected them at au earl p. .lad. The rehatihder of the mai hake, wet IlCcupied in a t)tlie caw of no iiderest except to the pahies. COURT OF CO WION PLEAS, JAN. 10. SPECIAL JOH N AND LIP. U. KERUODE. This action stirs brougla to itrover u loss sustained by ig norance or negligence oil the part of the tierendunt. An agreenimit in wilting had been mmle beiween the defen dam oil one pair, ;tad the plaiiitifft on the miter. The el:outwit staled, that the said agreement ea t cult cii into by which tiic defendant undertook to convoy in the brig Hope a cargo of it Me, of the value of blse,i. to IN) de Ja oleo ; that t:,e ship sailed limn Liverpool in 11414, and at lay el took MI I10::111 i,e 5511 W 5% loch it it. to be canal by the deteiidant :teem ding to agreement, tile car g o sold, nod pi iit Cells entitled Loin RI./ J:melto lil lire pivatitl,.— The that bt cacll was that the Capia u , tiii ill* antral at Ilk/ de 'hint 110 did Wit lieluvcr any phrt ut the • toga , 1.111 after willag front ' , apt) landed part of it at Pero:maw( o, whe,e it was sold 'l be neat breach nits Ihu t the vessel Was not kept tit for the voyage, but uas w itimut boats and I iggiug„ mot Walled to be leaky, damaged, au., out Of repair. Tae crew nos:rho devtail,ed to be uuskillul, and nicapuble of maamting our YebWi. - tv..vci al of Cie st illiesses for the plaintifft, particularly Capt. itoliertson, ot the 'f tinily House, C..ptain iioihs , of toe Royal :Sas), anti C .plain Ednaids, gave their up .. I . of the log of the //ape, that the Captaio had steered ail im proper course which brought him tutu difficulties, and led to the nuslin tunes in the voyal.e. Ots the part of the deletidant several Captains also slated, that the COLlise sleet ad 11) the Captain was u proper course. It was also g 'wen in evidesice, that the Captain applied to the British Cutout al Pero:imbued to raise atone, before he disposed of the n time, and %%as told Ill.it the Consul never eti ga ,ed in mercantile tronsactioas. The Captain was refer red to the house of Litatlsay unit Co. hut failed 111 Ills appli cation to those parlie.. tie a. as then compelled to sell part of the csrgo to pay tor rt pans. When Ise Cal I led the rest of the wale to 800 the Janeiro, it pi used 10 be such as the Portuguese would not drink, and he could 110 d no sale 10i 11. 'foe Jury found a s.,rtlict fur the plaeutilli--Datuages 11,15a1. This cause occupied the whole of thi• day. FRIIIIAN, JAN. 10. INJUNCTION.—TI - IL FINE ARTS. NOME'S NATIONAL MEDALS. JAMES INEDRE v, EDWARD THOMASON AND C. JONES. Mr. Hart stated, this W.lB a notion (Ur iiiitniction to restrain the defendants lions using the dies of the plaintiff, and from disposlog and exhianing medals struck from the dies by them, without the pernile , sion of tile He d tills under au Act of Parlia ment passed in the reilis u. the late King, tor toe better protection of 11'e fine arts. It appearLd twat lile plaintiff some nue previous to tne year 1816, tiiiticitook to lurin an additional sr nes of ma dab, to Ti cord the principal events of the late war, and to coniii•ii the bust O the first fpperson of sem mock.. The Vainudi cot ployed the.tle endanis, who are me d a l 111.1111i..ictur,rs at B iiii inghain, o manufacture the medals, and the plaintiff delivered t hem several tires, from which they were to be ,trued, which were deposited in a box secured by a lock and key, with an understanding that the dies simidd be kept locked up. except whilst in use litr strikin,r elf medals tor the plaintiff when ordered by Ilan. Lt 1820 the defendants caused a large ornamental sideld to be exe cuted, and had 21 half 1111:11313 struck ilOlll :he plaintiff's dies, and decorated the shied round the burner with dieni without the knowledge or consent of the plaintiff; tile defendants advertised the shield in the British Press on toe Wilt an I 13th November, 1820, and in outer dewspapers, 'cling forth lit it it war clesiaited by the defendant Tiiiimasuat; that the border was composed of 21 stellated compartinents, and contained the cele brated victories tit Ili:wheal succession, from the land ingot the Britista army in Portugal to taie capture of Prrio, and the fixing of Lition,iparie at Si. Helena, which the !deltoid charged to be struck from his dies. The Lord Chancellor observed, as the defendants were employed by the plaintif f to manufacture the me dals for hint alone, and the fact of their having maws- • -- -vr