The Express.
London, England, 1861-02-14 00:00:00

IN RE PRESTON, A BANKRUPT.-HABEAS CORPUS.

In this case, which was argued on Friday last, a writ of
habeas corpus had been moved for to bring up the bod 7 of
William Anthony Freston. a prisoner in the Queens Prison,
for the purpose of his being discharged. F reston was ad-
judicated a bankrupt on the 17th of September, and surren-
dered. The 6th of November was fixed for his last email.
nation, but it was adjourned to the 3rd of December.
Before that date an application was made to the Court of
Bankruptcy for what is termed a B A certificate, by which,
under the' 67th section of the Bankruptcy Consolidation
Act, he was arrested on the Ist of December. Other certi-
ficates of the same kind were obtained, and detainers lodged
spinet him. With one exception, all the writs of execution
were issued out of the Court of Exchequer, but that one
was issued from the Court of Queen's Bench. A motion
was made in the Court of Exchequer for the discharge of
the prisoner on the ground that a bankrupt was pro-
tected from arrest until the day of his last examination,
and that in this cue an adjournment had been made
until the 3rd of December, and he had been arrested
on the Ist of that month. The Court of Exchequer
decided that the arrest was illegal, and that the other
writs and detainers which had been issued since were also
void, and ordered the discharge of the primmer. When,
however, an application was made to the Court of Queen's
Bench, out of which jurisdiction one other writ had been
issued, for a habeas corpus, that court refused to grant it, on
the ground that the prisoner was properly detained under
the writ iambi; out of that court. The two courts of com-
mon law being thus in direct conflict, a motion was made to
this court, and a writ of habeas corpus granted, the writ
being made returnable this day.
Yr. Gray, of the common law bar, appeared to sup-
port the writ ;Mr Colerid e. of the common law bar, was
on the other side.

Their Lordships basing taken time to consider their deci•
sion, now delivered judgment, and held that the original
arrest having been illegal the detention of the prisoner
under any other process, however regular, was also illegal,
and they ordered that he should be discharged.

COURT OF QUERN'S BENCH.—Fza. 13.
&Wisp at Nisi Prina at Westminster.—(Before the Lord
Chief Justice Cockburn and a Special Jury.)
COSTERTON r. RIR E. LACON, BART.—LIBBL.

This was an action against the defendant for having
falsely and maliciously uttered slanderous words concerning
the defendant. The defendant pleaded not guilty.
Mr. Serjauit Parry, Mr. Ribton, and Mr. Griffita were
counsel for the plaintiff ; and Mr. O'Malley Mr. E. James,
and Mr. Conch for the defendant.

The plaintiff, Mr. Frederick Samuel Costerton, was an
attorney and solicitor who had practised twenty yearn at
Great Yarmouth, and the defendant was Sir Edmund Henry
Lacon Bart., M.P., who carries on business in the same
borough ass banker and brewer. The alleged slander arose
out of a severe contest which took place in Yar-
mouth at the general election in April, 1859. On
that occasion Mr. Watkin and Mr. Young were
candidates on the liberal side, and Sir Edmund
Lacon and Sir Henry Straoey were on the conservative side.
The last two were successful, and after the election the
liberal party, being under the impression that bribery and
corruption had prevailed among their opponents, formed •
committee for the purpose of promoting a petition against the
return of the conservative candidates on that ground. The
plaintiff and several of the other principal inhabitants of
the borough composed the committee, and having collected
subscriptions to meet the expenses, the petition was lodged
be due course. It was expected to be heard by the select
committee in July following, but it did not come on until
the 24th of February, 1880. Mr. Finch, • solicitor and
parliamentary agent, was employed to conduct the petition.
Mr. Costerton acted gratuitously on the local committee, but
• week before the parliamentary committee sat he was
appointed local agent to serve the Speaker's warrants, kc.,
and received payment for his services. The committee
decided that Sir Edmund Lacon and Sir Henry
Stracey were duly elected, but reported thirteen
cases of bribery, and said they believed that a
witness named Henry Fayerman hail been guilty of perjury.
The perjury consisted in his stating that on the 18th April,
1859, Sir Edmund Lacon during his canvass gave him a five
pound note, and that on the 28th of the same manth Mr.
Reynolds, the agent of Sir Henry Stracey, gave him another
five round note, and both notes were produced before the
committee. Subsequently a public meeting of the conser-
vative party was held in the Theatre Royal, Great Yar-
mouth, and both Sir Edmund Lacon and Sir Henry Stracey
attended it. At that meeting Sir Edmund Lacon, the defen-
dant, uttered the words complained of, which were as follows :
" This is a public meeting for the purpose of celebrating
the triumph of Sir Henry Stracey and myself—of celebrat-
ing, I cannot call it an escape, but our having come out of
one of the most vile, wicked, base, and unmanly plot..
'Such epithets are not too hard for the vile conspiracy which
two mouths ago we had to undergo. I don't think there is,
perhaps, so much blame to be attached to the unfortunate
fellow who came up to give his evidence against me, and
who fancied that with half a•doren words from his mouth
be would crush me for ever. I don't think much of him.
Everybody knows the unfortunate being and knows that
.he was the dupe of a party Of course I don't want to go
into the evidence, which I have no doubt you have all read.
You all know what perjury the unfortunate being com-
mitted ; but unfortunately we were not then in
possession of proofs of some of the perjury he had com-
p mated before the committee. He positively swore, not
only once, twice, but half-a-donen times, that he
was never promised • farthing for coming up to
London, but that he did it from bin own free will, as
he said he thought he ought to do it. We were not then
, prepared, but before the close of the sitting of the COM -
mittee we had proof from his own handwriting—a letter
sta ''ng he had been promised a large sum of money to come
up to London and give evidence against me • and after he
stated on oath he never was promised a farthing, whereas
he bad been promised a considerable sum by the liberal
party in this town to come and give evidence against me.
I don't perhaps put so much blame upon the unfortunate
being, but Ido put blame upon those parties who were the
makers and inventor, of those two bank notes which were
to be most crushing to me, and after tho production of
which I should never be able to show my face again in any
society in this country. You all know nobody knows how
they were done, but there cannot be a question that
they were done, and that most unskilfully ; but they were
like all rogues, who generally when they do a thing
leave something or other by which we come to a
discovery. But not only do I blame the makers and in•
vectors of this discovery, but 1 most condemn the eiders
and abettors of the conspiracy. The alders and abettors of
it were a party of gentlemen—God Almighty knows who
they were. (Here persons in the meeting called out, • Cos-
terton.) They were a sort of committee who were manag-
ing the petitions, and they were the gentlemen to blame.
They knew, as well as I do that I stand here to-night, that
the whole thing was a conspiracy ; they knew the evidence
they were going to bring against me was one tissue of false-
hood ; and I do think when you find a committee of persons
calling themselves geotlenice, who can meet in this town
day by day, and knowing such evidence well, can sanction
proceedings being taken on the evidence, nobody can under-
stand what the feelings of the Tarty can be. The hand
of contempt and scorn must be on those gentlemen, and I
hope they will read the wonls I utter to day. The
hand of acorn and contempt will be upon them, and I hope
and trust they may have some honour left and remorse."
The learned counsel said that two members of the committee,
Mr. Chalk and Mr. Close, wrote to Sir Edmund Lateen, de-
manding an apology, and that the secretary of the local
committee wrote • letter, which was published in the news-
papers, giving a fiat contradiction to the statements he had
made. Sir Edmund Lacon refused to give an apology, and
Mr. Chalk and Mr. Clone brought actions against him, to
which he pleaded a justification. Ultimately, however,
the justification wail withdrawn, and Sir Edmund Lacon
made an ample apology to those two gentlemen. Fayerman
was prosecuted by Sir Edmund for perjury, but acquitted.
The plaintiff in this Mill applied on the 7th Dec., 1860, to
the defendant, through his solizitors, for an apology for the
charge of subornation of perjury brought against him, and
he received the following reply from Mr. Cory, the agent of
the defendant :—" Sir E. Lawn has placed in my hands your
letter, from which it seems that you and some friends of Mr.
Frederick Samuel Costerton consider that the speech attri-
buted to my client on the occasion of the dinner on the 12th
of April last, at the theatre, Great Yarmouth, pointed to
Mr. Frederick Samuel Costerton ; and, if so, that it was
calculated to injure his reputation. I should have thought
that if Mr. Oratorios imagined that his reputation was in-
jured, or likely to be injured, by anything that occurred is