In the Court of King's Bench, on Tuesday, Sir John

Campbell moved for a rule to set aside a zionsuit in the action of Dewar versus Purday, which was tried in this Court at the sittings after last term. The plaintiff claimed damages for the piracy.of the music of the song of the " Old English Gentleman." The account of the proceedings at the last sittings was accidentally omitted in the Spectator at the time they occurred ; but what follows will put the reader in possession of the facts of the case, as stated in Court on Tuesday.

Sir John Campbell began by saying, the case came on for trial at the last sit- tings at Westminster, before Lord Denman. The plaintiff produced evidence that he was the composer of the music.

Sir J. Scarlett, who appeared for the defendants, then submitted that the proof which had been adduced was not sufficient ; but Lord Denman thought that there was enough to go to the Jury. There was no point reserved by his Lordship—there was no leave given to enter a nonsuit.

Lord Denman—" Oh yes, there was. I took a note of the objection." Sir John Campbell—" I have no note of there having been any point re- served. I am only stating the circumstances from recollection. Well; Lord Denman was of opinion that there was sufficient evidence to go to the Jury." Lord Denman—" I made a note of the objection at the time, and have it

. here."

Sir John Campbell—" There was no leave given to enter a nonsuit in my hearing ; but I will not press that further. The question was, whether this piece of music was or was not an original composition? That it was an original composition, was proved by Sir George Smart and other eminent composers. On the other side, witnesses were called, who deposed to its not being an origi- nal composition, and stated that it contained notes which were in some other musical compositions. No weight was given to their evidence, except by one Juryman, and he stood out against the whole of the eleven. The Jury retired from Court at four o'clock in the afternoon; and when I returned into Court next morning, I found they had been locked up all night. Shortly after Lord Denman came into Court, the Jury came down; and they then informed his Lordship that all but one were agreed, and that that one would not come to the conclusion the remainderof the Jury had drawn, and they believed him to be in- terested in the dispute. Lord Denman then read his notes of the:evidence, and directed the Jury to again deliberate; informing them that he could not dis- charge them until they had returned a verdict in which all were peed. The Jury accordingly retired to their chamber to reconsider the case. Whilst the Jury was in Court, I was present, as was also my learned friend, Mr. Thessiger, who was with me; but when they withdrew, I went to pursue my business in the House of Lords, and I believe Mr. Thessiger went to follow his in the Court of Common Pleas. Some short time afterwards, I was surprised with the information that Lord Denman, the Lord Chief Justice, had directed the plaintiff to be nonsuitcd. I accordingly came down into the Court, and with some warmth, for which I now beg to apologize, expressed my doubt of his Lordship's power to enter a nonsuit after the case had been left to the Jury, and the plaintiff had appeared. His Lordahip informed me, that the nonsuit was recorded, and that he could not then hear me ; but that I might move to set it aside." Sir John Campbell then cited several authorities, in which.it was laid down that the Judge could not nonsuit after the case had been fully entered into and left to the Jury, unless the plaintiff consented. Lord Denman said, that after the plaintiff's case was concluded, Sir J. Scarlett moved for a nonsuit (but that he (Lord Denman) thought it discreet to leave the case to the Jury, though the evidence for the plaintiff was not very strong. He was always anxious to leave the Jury to decide any point which required their decision; and, therefore, he seldom nonsuited a plaintiff, unless It was clear there was nothing to be left for their consideration. At the time, he thought he ought to have entered a nonsuit; but next morning, when the Jury twice came into Court, and said they could not agree, he thought the best way for him to act would be to adopt the opinion he had formed when the application for a nonsuit was made ; and he accordingly directed a nonsuit to be entered, and the Jury were then discharged. Sir John Campbell said that his Lordship had accurately stated the circum- stances; and upon them he humbly submitted that a nonsuit ought not to have been entered.

Lord Denman-L" Take a rule to set aside the nonsuit."

On the same day, Sir John Campbell moved for a rule for a criminal Information against the registered proprietor of the Morning Chronicle, for a libel on Mr. Gregorie, the Magistrate at Queen Square Office.

The libel was alleged to be contained in a leading article in the Chro- nicle, wherein Mr. Gregorie was charged with having decided an omni.

bus case without hearing both sides of the evidence. Lord Denman granted the rule, on the ground that "the article charged Mr. Gregorie with deciding cases without hearing both sides, and with forsaking the first principles of justice."

On Thursday, the Attorney- General moved for a writ of certiorari, for the removal of the record of the conviction of Garside and Mosley to this Court ; and also for a writ of habeas corpus for the removal of the Prisoners, so that they might be brought before this Court, that the Court might give such award for their execution as it might deem fit. It will be recollected that the individuals in question were convicted at the Chester Assizes of the murder of Mr. Ashton at Stockport, and received sentence of death ; but that the Sheriffs of the city and of the county of Chester have, in consequence of a legal difficulty arising,

Which makes it doubtful on which of them devolves the office of seeing the-criminals executed, refused to carry the sentence into effect. The

Attorney-General cited various cases, in which the Court of King's Bench had caused the removal of a prisoner from a particular county, in order to his execution in another ; and the Court, after hearing his arguments, granted the writ as prayed for.

Yesterday, the Court granted two rules to show cause why two im- portant verdicts should not be reversed. The first was in the old affair of Alderman Scales against the Aldermen of London; so that the right of the Aldermen to reject him will again be tried. The other referred to the important will cause of Admiral Tatham versus Wright, which was tried at the last Lancaster Assizes; when a verdict was given for Mr. Wright. The rule was granted in this case on the following grounds, as stated by Sir James Scarlett-

Notwithstanding the extreme care which (owing to the bias supposed to exist throughout the county on the subject of this will amongst those gentlemen who were likely to serve as jurors) had been taken to select the Jury from amongst such persons as were likely to be unprejudiced, yet during the trial certain of the jurymen had been in constant communication with a gentleman named Sharp, the attorney and only living witness in support of the will, with a young gentleman named Lister, immediately interested in the issue, and with a gentle- man named Birkbeck, a banker, and leading witness on the same side.

In the Court of Exchequer, on Thursday, Mr. Sergeant Talfourd, moved for a rule to show cause why a verdict which had been given last term against the publisher of the 1Veehly Police Gazette should not be set aside. He grounded his application on the assumed fact, that the paper in question was not a newspaper within the meaning of the act that requires newspapers to be stamped. But Lord Lyndhurst referred to several articles, headed " Seizure of Goods for Taxes ;" " A Letter from Daniel O'Connell ;" " A Weak Ministry," Ike. Baron Parke asked if such a paper did not answer a political purpose' Sergeant Talfourd replied, that it contained no account of the prices of Stocks, Deaths, &c. ; and that no one would consider that a newspaper which wanted this species of intelligence. Lord Lyndhurst said that the objects of all newspapers were not alike, and that this publi- cation undoubtedly served some.—Rule refused.

Mr. William Blanchard, the comedian, came up from the Fleet Prison to the Insolvent Debtors Court, on Wednesday, to he heard upon the =acts of his petition and schedule. The schedule filed by Mr. Blanchard for the inspection of his creditors, exhibits debts to the amount of 509/. I5s. 7d., and it did not appear that he had any credits or property to give up towards their liquidation. His debts commenced in April l827; he had thirty-Mine creditors, some of whom were twice entered. The cause of insolvency Mr. Blanchard attributed to heavy law expenses, and to his trip to America. He had been engaged to perform at New York for nine months at 30/. a week ; and he remained the stipulated time, but only received 451., besides his passage-money home, and 100 dollars on his departure. When he cancelled the engagement, he considered that he lost by it 1,0131. 3s. 441. Mr. Blanchard received his discharge from the Commissioners.