Court Of King's Bench, We...
Iton, netendant, who was foundFuiltv at the last Middlesex Sit- tings, for an assault on Mordeca,, a 'clothes-dealer in Hollywell- lane, to wvhom his mastcr was a rival, received sentence to pay a fine of6ul., and give security for good behaviour for three years. THIE KING YV FINCStCAM AD COOPER. These defendants, convicted at the late sittings of an assault on a woman, were sentenced, Finebam to pay a fine of 101. and Cooper to peya fine of 61., and both to give secarity for good beMaviour during three years. THE XflVG V. WXLLTAMscN. Cornelius Williahnson, charged with manslaughter, in kill^ng a mam in a putblic-house squabble, was ordered to be bailed in the county of Lanc`ster on entering into a recognizance of 801., and I 2in 201. *each, for his appearance at the next as3lzes. IN; THE SATTER OF DEENETT. a r. CunwooD applied on behalf ota person namued Bennett now a pzisoner in the custody of tbe Mlarshal, that he shoulel be dtte to the benefit of the rules. He was convicted of keeping'a common gaming house, and sentenced topay afineof 1,0001., and to be hn- prisoned for 12 months. The term of imprisonment bad expired, and he now remainetl in castodv for the fine only. The COuwT asked if the appfication wa made on special pouads? MSr. CURwooDreplied, that it was, as there were aflidavits of two medical men that Mr. Bennett was in a verrybad state of health. The COURT declined to lay down any general rule as to the allow- ance of this favour to persons detained in prison for fine, bat di- rected that a special ruleshould he drawn up onreadinsg the affida- vits of the medical men, that the Marshal be at liberty to grant the benefitprayed for to the applicant, tiUthe foarth day of next term. THE KING V. - Mr. D. F. JoNEs moved for a writ of certiorari, to remove a conviction againtt a carrier of goods by avan ftom York to Doncas- ter, for profaning the Sunday by proceeding in his occupation on that day. The learned Counsel contended tbat the driver of a van was no more within the operation of the act than the driver of a mail-coach. The CouaLT held that the party was clearly within the statute, and refused the writ. BROWTN V. 5rtUBRAY. This was an action against Mr. Murray, the publisher of the Quartffly Review, for certain alleged libels on the character of the plaintiff mn that journal. The defendant pleaded the general Issue, and alo a justification that the matters set forth in the article com- iplained of were true. On a forner day a rule was obtained on his behalf to show cause why a comnaission should not issue to exa- I mine Sir F. Hlankey, ana liord F. Osborne, in the Ionian Islands, on a suggestion that they had furnished the information in which the paragraphs were framed. Against thisrule the Cozxrox SERGEANT and Mr. BROUGeAMr now showed cause, expressing ther conviction that thedistinguished persons referred to had not nupplied the matter complained of, and urging that the application was made toolate,as theaction was brought on the 29th April'he,y also contended that, as ithadbeenlaid downby socerejde, t eoe ryu 3ematterdefamatory of theconductofanother,heshouldbeprepared wiLh his witness"eto justifyit, the defendantcouldnot now ask the means of verif ng that which bieadveatured topublish. If, however,the Courtshou d bedis. posed tomake the rule absolute, they trusted it would be on the con- dition that the defendant should adlmit the publication of the article. Mr. PARKE, in support of the rule, contended that the application was made in tirte, as the issue was only joined a day before. the motionvwa made. AB he was proceeding, The COURT intimated an opinion that the rule ought to be made absolute,on te cdefendant consenting to adtnit the publication of the artIcle. Aifr. PAhIxl assented; and on these terms, the rule for a comn- mission was madalbsolute. h IN THE 3lATTERPF S1OBERT BLIGH, ESQ w 'he COXMO SERGEANT, on behalf of this gentleman, who hasbeet bound over to keep the p e towards Lord Darnlev and hsis son (Lord Clifton), and who Is nowa prisoner in the Kinx's Bench', mroed that he should be re-admitted to the benefit of the rules, which he hid unfortunately loist. He admitted that this un-. fortunate gentleman had broken his recognizances in respect of Lord Cliftoa, and that a scire facies had issued against him for such breaqh : hut bis affairs were In a state of rtest embarrassment, and sil 5onlychlance of extricating iamself andTeffecting arangement with his crrtiors depended on theegranof that tindulgence for which bonowprayed. findeed,thiswerenotgrated, h ust probably reman aprisnerfor life The OURTexpesse ther rgretforthe situation i'n which this t~Qt.lmanwasplced bu fet teycould not, consistently with .~Mrdut, gantthe ndugene fr~bich he prayed. Thisbeig te lat dy o Ter, te Curt sat till all the motions wer diposd o, ad dd nt rse illnealyeight o'clock. : COURT OF KING'S BENCH, WEST14INSTER, JULY 7. _ _ _ HTHE KING V. COZllP.