Please wait. Contacting image service... loading

Article text

TIIUISDAY, JUNE 2ND.
The ease of the King v. Cole and Otherswat
agaili brought before the Court this morning. His
I-onor Mr Justice Kinchela observed, that nocom-"
promise between parties under sucn, citrcumnstances
could he recognised by t, e Court where the Crown
Of)icer's had hot beeh made acqutinted with the
lacts ; it was clear that the greatest inconvenrience
and expence had been incu|rref by theUrown, arislog
tr'om the general practice in this respect The
Crown-Officer'.j-in -such cases being kept in, the
dark as it were up to the last motument. applied
themselves under all the dis.adlantages to which it
,gave tise ; it was irmpos.'ihl Ior them t, know that
tlhe case bad been settled, to which they had not
been a party, The Court could not rerotnise .
comprolnise entered into between individuals having
for its object the defeat of pIblic justice; and were
of op nion-that, tile matters set forth by the defend.
ant had not been satisfactory --Executio n to isue.
Allan v. Bull. This case was again brought
before tile Court this morning, the arguments on
both sides were renewed, scilen their Honors.
directed that ncn parties amust go to trial with the
Jury.--Strndckfor the trial of the Case in lastl Trn
Levey v. Knowles. In this cae defendant had
been arrested' for, the ?tt of £40., but on the trial
of the case an.eyrdict had been ,given for 48-onlyI
it appeared on the-t inl that plainriff must liave beel1
aware that he had arrested defendant without a
reasonable: or probable cause, and on thisgrounid
the ipretsnt' motion was made' to the Court Ia
order toL have ;ts decision. as to whether plaintifl
was entitled to his costs in tile action under such
citrcumstances* Afldiavits were submnitted to-th
Court on both sides; on the consideration of which
their Honors decided that plninliff was not entitled
to his costs, the arrest having been osade withot
reasonable or.probable cause, -
$