The Express.
London, England, 1867-06-04 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

(THIS DAY.)

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.

Sittings in Banco.—(Before the Lord Chief Baron, and
Barons Martin, Bramwell, and CluanelL)
THE ATToMNLI-GENERAI, r. DAKIN AND OTHERS.

This was an information of intrusion by the Attorney
..ocrJ against the sheriffs of Middlesex, for having
in her Majesty's royal palace of Hampton Court,
writ of lied facias ut the suit of one Ferdinand Hirsch-
M, against the goods of Lord Henry Gordon. This pro-
ioding was decimal a violation of the privileges of the
and the facts having been stated in the shape of a
case for the opinion of the court, the matter was
argued at considerable length last term. The court now
proceeded to give judgment, and there being a difference
of ..pinion among their lordships
Mr. heron Mailmen delivered his judgment first. He
was of opinion that Hampton Court was not a royal resi-
dence in the sense necessary to render the privilege con-
tended for on the part of the crown applicable. The palace
w.O once a royal residence ; but it had long ceased to be
; and this was • privilege, not of a building,
but of the person—a privilege that the place where
the sovereign resided, not actually at tho moment,
lot oc,isionally, or usually, should not be invaded
by officers fur the purpose of executing a process of this
kind. lie thought the royal prerogative would suffer if it
were pushed to such an unreasonable extent as to give a
privilege to the bricks and stones of Hampton Court, and
sloes to deprive a creditor of his remedy against his
debtor.

Mr. Baron Martin. in concurring with Mr. Baron Bram.
uid he was disposed to give the privilege which
protected the person, residence, and property of
the crown the widest possible application, and be
would extend it not only to Buckingham Palaee,
11 indoor Castle, Osborne, and Balmoral, if it were in
Etwiand, hut to every place where the Queen actually
red.led. or what was ordinarily understood to be her
dwelling-place. But when a palace formerly occupied by
the crown ceased to be entirely a royal residence, and
when there was no probability of the Queen ever going to
live there—and thus was so in the Glad of Hampton
Court- in his judgment no privilege attached to it. Her
Ilaje.ty had thought fit to appropriate the palace to an
enun•ly different purpose from that of a royal residence,
and had divided it into 70 different apartments for 70 dif-
ferent families lie said judgment should be for the de-
fendants.

The Lord Chief Baron said he was of opinion that the
immunity of a royal palace from the execution of civil pro-
cess was not lost because it had ceased to be a royal resi-
dence for a considerable time, if the sovereign had not
abandoned possession of it. He thought this privilege
still existed at Hampton Court and at every royal
had
in which the sovereigns of this kingdom
had once resided and might come to reside again, and
which was actually in the occupation of, and kept up and
maintained at the expense of her Majesty. On that
ground he thought the intrusion of the defendants was
unlawful, and that judgment should be for the crown, but
as his learned brethren were of a different opinion, judg-
ment would be for the defendants.
Judgment for the defendants.
Mr. Baron Channel! did not hear the arguments and
took no part in the judgment.

MIDDLESEX SESSIONS.

(THIS DAY.)

(Before Mr. Bodkin, Assistant-Judge.)
HOW ?Hi FURCHASIRS OF COAL ARE ROBBED.
IrdGam Bates, 22, carman, was indicted for stealing two
sacks of coal, value es. 6d., the property of Daniel
1111:arthy, his muter.

The pi:WCtutor is a coal merchant, carrying on his busi-
ness at No. 37, Waverley-road, Peddington, and the pri.
toner was in his service as carman. On Tuesday, the 14th
of May, the prisoner was sent with two tons of coal to be
delivered to the Lord Craven public-house, in the Keno*li-
med. The coal was contained in twenty sacks. When
the prisoner delivered the coals at their destination, he
asked the potanan to count the sacks to see that he had
delivered the proper quantity. The potman accordingly
counted the sacks and said he could only make nineteen in
stead of twenty, and upon this the prisoner said there
must be some mistake, and accordingly shot down another
sack, and then went away, there being then three or
four sacks of coal remaining in the van. The prisoner
bad not long quitted the Lord Craven public-house
when he proceeded to the house of • Mr. Spencer, of
Elgin-mews,agrocer,andcorn and coal-dealer,where he saw
Mary Ann Spencer, a little girl, and told her that he had
brought some coals: The little girl said that her father
was not at home, but the prisoner said they were very
cheap coals, that they were 65., and shot the sacks of coals
in the stable, but it appeared he only obtained two shillings
for them.

In answer to the asaistant-judge, the prosecutor said the
prisoner only left the wharf with two tons of coal and the
whole ought to have been delivered at the Lord Craven
public-house.

The prisoner, in his defence, said the coals he sold at
Mr. Spencer's did not belong to his master, and that they
were some he bad purchased from a man while he was on
his way to deliver the others.
The jury found the prisoner Guilty.
The Assistant Judge said it was a delusion for pur-
chasers of coal to suppose, they got the proper quantity by
counting the racks. This robbery had been committed
with considerable ingenuity, for although he bad appa•
rently shot 20 sacks of coal into the cellar, two or three
sacks still remained, and these he had sold to another per-
son, and the proper purchaser was defrauded of that
amount.

The; prosecutor said he bad frequent complaints from
his customers that the coal they received was exhausted
much sooner than they expected, but be was unable to
explain how it could be, am the proper quantity was always
emit out.
The Aseist.mt-Jutige having again commented upon the
artful robbery the prisoner had committed, sentenced him
to be imprisoned and kept to hard labour for six months.