The Express.
London, England, 1857-06-13 00:00:00

MATTER Ur WILLIAX...COIIIiETT.

Mr. Sturgeon moved fora writ of habeas corpus to being
up William Cobbett, with a view to his being discharged, on
the ground that he was illegally imprisoned. The facts of
the we were theser—Mr. Cobbett was •• creditor of • turn-
pike trust in the neighbourhood of Winchester, and white in
London he discovered that the trustees had net Med their
va stty
ammo,,accounts, pursuant to the provisions of the net al parliament.
He purchased the act, and attended at the Wisetherilme
fur the purpose of suing out a commons las
parties. and inflicting upon them the linetropoesd dr ad.
fhe usetrates thought that no portion of thermal wan
within the borough, and recommended in appilesies le dim
county megistrates. One of the county nmerfnelim kip-
pencil to be present, and he et once granted lbannesmnat I
Mr. Cobbett then nornediately returned by lesin b tiallia,
end alighted on the platforn at the Viouchei deign et dia
South-Western Railway, when he met • einffillrs tamer,
who erected him upon two writs. It weasel imam Om
affidavits, and was not denied, that the elw Mame yes
used for the purpose of his arrest.
Lord Campbell said that would not vary the law.
Mr. Sturgeon—But it showed that the defendants had •
band in his improper arrest. Mr. Cobbett resided at Bat-
tersea, end the k auslgull gallon was the nearest ono to his
house. Ile WM taken to prison by the sheriff's officer, and
had several times applied to judges at chambers to be re-
leased, on the ground that, under the circumstances, he was
privileged from treat ; but they had declined to interfere,
end the me was eceordingly brought before the full court.
Mr. Sturgeon referred to tho etatutes bearing on the subject,
and souse authorities, and eubmitted that Mr. Cubbett WAS
entitled to the protection which was granted to all the officers
of this eonrt for the sacred purpose of forwaraingjustico.
Lord Campbell—The question mined to be, whether a
common informer going before a magistrate fora summons
was protected in going, staying, and returning.
Mr. Sturgeon noel, although all their feelings end preju-
dices were agamat a common informer, he was a very wiefed
person and should have the protection which was granted to
others.
Lord Campbell—Do you contend that • common informer
is privileged in going fora summons ?
Mr. Sturgeon— No; only while he is staying and re-

taLod Campbell, without calling upon the counsel en the
other side, raid he hoped this court would ever be tender
with regard to the libertv of the subject, and where any person
was illegally imprumned, take are that be was immediately
restored to liberty; but they roan also see that thia privilege
of protection from arrest was not abused. Mr. Sturgeon
rested his claim on the proposition that a common informer
going to have a summons was not privileged, but that be
wee privileged when he was returning home after be bed ob.
tuned the snmnione ; but he had cited no authority in sup-
port
of that distinction. Hitherto, wherever a person was
privileged in staying and returning ho wee also privi-
leged in going. Three necessarily attending for the
administration of justice enjoyed a privilege from
arrest, but in the present case that privilege was
claimed for a common informer who voluntarily sought
to put the law In motion, and woo in the same situation as
any of her Majesty's subjects who had no right to emit a
privilege. He was not a witness in a case but a voluntary
proereutor, rind the doctrine that any person might Require
the privilege against arrest by a creditor, either on meant or
final promos by simply suing out a writ before a magistrate,
won a pure novelty, and would lead to the most inconvenient
consequences. It would enable him to set his creditors at
defiance by becoming a common informer. and reeking to
recover penalties in a vexatious manner. For such a mo-
ceeding no authority had been given, nor any principle laid
down on which the court could act. He believed there had
been no solemn decision by the court sitting in bunco upon
this point, but it hal been brought over and over nom
before the judgee at chambers, who had decided that there
was no such my Sege in • ease like this, and ho was of opinion
that they had rightly derided.
The other judges king of the same opinion, the application
was refused.
WALLER (Pr 'Lir OTFICCR) r. (OFFICIAL
14 ANAOLR):TIPPERAII,I LANK.
Mr. Bovill showed cause against a ride which had been
granted to eet aside w judgment which had been obtained
by the plaintiff, who was the public officer of the Neeemale
Commercial Banking Company, against the racist manager
of the Tipperary Bank. The proper question in the case was,
whether, under the Irish Banking Act, a judgment entered
up .igaim-t an ofileial manager had a like r ttect and operation
in England. as if it had been entered up against the compeny ;
or the public officer, or other person duly authorised by law,
to Wailed on the pit of the company.
Mr. Bonin, on the pert of the plaintiff, contended that it
made no difference whether the judgment was against the
official manager, under the Winding-up Act, or the public
other of the company.
Mr. Milward was beard on the other side.
Lord Campbell said the court adopted the view contended
for by Mr. Bevil'. He was glad the rale had been made
returnable on the last day of term, as it would have been in-
expedient to bare allowed the case to go over the long vase
eon, and thus to have defeated tbejust tights of the creditors.
The court thought there were no grounds far the application,
sad the role =at be dischagred with costs.