The Express.
London, England, 1848-01-29 00:00:00

Son. The Atterney-General, on the part of the prosecution,
having given notice that the defendants would be brought
up to-day for judgment, Mr. Cockburn, Q.C., now
moved on the part of Sir William Young fbr a
rule nisi for a new trial, on the ground that Lord Denman,
before whom the indictment was tried, had misdirected the
jnry, and also that the verdict was again/Übe evidence.
The learned counsel said that his client had been found
guilty on the seventh count of the indictment, and Captain
Charretie on the flat and seventh counts. The seventh
OGEES charged the parties with conspiring to bargain for the
sale of the office of a cadet. With regard to Sir W. Young,
there was not the slightest tittle of evidence to show that he
had participated in a single shilling of the transaction, the
only evidence against him being that he bed had recourse
to falsehood and ratifies for the purpose of concealing the nee
tire of the transaction. The evidence uto the office itself
was this, that the sppointment was vested in the
directors, and that each director in his turn bad the privilege
of nominating a party to the office of cadet, subject to such
party having the qualifications which the East India Com-
pany deemed essential, and to his passing an examination.
Sir Wm. Young bad no power to give or to sell the office in
question, the whole extent of his power teeing to nominate,
therefore he ought not to have been found guilty on the 7th
eount, which charged him with selling an office which he
had not the power to sell ; upon no possible construction of
es evidence could it be inferred that he had bargained to
sell the office. If there had been a conspiracy at all
between the parties it could only have been to
obtain the intervention and patronage of Sir William
Young, and there was not the slightest evidence against Sir
William Young as to the original transaction. He contended
therefore that his lordship should have told the jury that the
indictment could not be sustained on the seventh count ; or
that the jury had found their verdict agniost the evidence.
Another oblection upon which he meant to rely was that
this appointment of cadet was charged as an office, place, or
appointment, within the provisions of the Act of Parlia-
ment ; he, however, should contend that a cadet in this
country only acquired an inchoate right to an
office or employment, the person so appointed not
being under the control of the East India Com-
pany until he arrived in India, whither he went at
his own expense, and in whatever way he pleased. On
hie arriving in that country, he received a commission in the
army. there, and then he became possessed of the office er
appointment, but not before. He should further submit
that the finding of the jury was inconsistent, inasmuch es
they had found his client guilty on the seven& count, and
not guilty on several other counts, by which he was charged
with aiding and abetting. Lastly, he contended that the
learned judge should have told the jury that they ought not
to lave taken into their consideration certain letters which
were given in evidence, for although they. might have been
good evidence against Captain Charade, they could not
have been as against Sit Win. Young, and it appeared to
him (the learned counsel) that the jury must have used this
evidence for the purpose of concluding that there had been
a conspiracy between Captain Charretie and Sir Win. Young.
Mr. Crowder, Q.C., moved fey a rule on behalf of Capt
Charretie, and took the same objection as to the appointment
of a cadet not being an officer until the party reached India.
The learned counsel also took genic technical objections to the
manner in which the cents of the indictment were framed.
—Lord Denman: We think I oth the defendants should
have a rule on all the points, except upon the verdict brine
inconsistent. With regard to the reception of Mn.s Stuart's
lettere, they were evidence against Capt. Charretie, but there
does not seem to be any way at all in which they could be
received against Sir William Young.
CHABOT v. THE COMMISSIONERS or WOODS AND
FORInTS.—BATTEIthEA PARE —Mr. M. Chambers moved
for a rule calling on the Commissioners of Woods and
Forests to show cause why a prnhibition should not i, sue,
directing the sheriff of Surrey rot to record the verdict and
the judgment in this case, *Lich was a comp, nsation cause
tried before the assessor of the under-sheriff of Surrey, the
complainant being the owner of property required
for the purpose of the new Battersea Park, about
two acres of which abutted on the river Thames, acd a
small portion, viz , about three roods, being inland: Mr.
Chabot claimed the sum of about 10,0001. as comp( nation
for the same. It appeared that when the complainant
originally purchased the property from Earl Spencer in 1815,
it was a wet timber deck, but he had subsequently filled it
up with rubbish, and made it equal in height to the adjoin-
ing land. The complaint now was, that the asussor had
told tne jury, upon the information of the Attorney-General
and the Recorder of London, that there was a question as to
the complainant's title to the land between high and low
water mark, and they had accordingly found a verdict for
the sum of only 7431., not giving the complainant any com-
pensation for the land abutting on the river, which five re-
spectable surveyors had stated as worth from eight to niuc
thousand pounds, and for which the complainant had been
offered some time ago the sum of 3,oool.—Rule granted.

BAIL COURT.
Sittings to Banco. before Mr. Justine Erie.
Tna QUEEN V. TII6 JUSTICES OF BIDEFORD.—This was
a ease in which it may be recollected Mr. M. Smith applied
for a certiorari to bring up an order made by the justices of
Bideford against the parish of llonkleigh, compelling them
to maintain John Hancock, a lunatic pauper. The matter
bad stood over fur his lordship's con►ideration.—Mr. Justice
Erie said the ground on which this application was made
was this, that on behalf of tho parish against whom the
order had been made no one was present. Ile was of opi-
nion that it was not necessary that any one should have been
present. The magistrates had the power of adjudicating the
settlement of a pauper and of making an order for his main-
tenance, without the party affected by such order being
called upon to appear. Several clauses of the Bth and 9th
Victoria, cap. 126, confirmed this view. He thought the
89th section applied very vroogly to this point, for by that
section, if the settlement of a pauper could not be de-
termined an order for his maintenance could be made on the
treasurer of the county in which he lived. Be thought,
therefore, there ought to be no appeal in this case.—Rule
refused.