Northern Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1859-06-23 00:00:00

was illeg

party.in-th;ress, and not only contemplated doing so daring
the voyage, but did keep them so until they arrived in
Liverpool. He was guilty of the assault, in the first instance,
-when ;he received them en board a British ship as prisoners,
no matter in what waters, and he was guilty of the false
imprisonment by keeping them in.duress after they had
requested him to put them on shore at Arica. He received
them from armed parties, and he kept them after they had
demanded to be put on shore. They were illegally taken

on 'beard in the first instance; they -were in a-poation to
claim- their liberty, and they did claim it by demanding_ to

be put on shore at' Arica, or some 'Peruvian port. This.
clearly proved both the assault ane the false imprisonment,
and he contended that the court had:full-jurisdiction to send
the,case before another tribunal. Mr, Deighton said,. all
that was done was done tinder the :direction of the Chilian
government. When Captain Leslie had taken them under
theldirection and control of that government this court had
no:jurisdiction in such a case. The government had them
,previously in custody, and could do what they liked with
then2,:and handing them over to Captain Leslie was perfectly
le6 at, by LliaLhc coLii I nob lac guilty of any wooault on thorn after-
wards. Suppose Captain Leslie wee 'a ear-driver in Chili,
and that the government employed him to drive malefactors
from.one nlace to another, and thatthey afterwards escaped
to England, it could not be said, that if they brought him
into this court that the court would have any jurisdiction in
,such a-,ease. The captain had a right to let his vessel to the
Chilian government for freight, but lie still contended- that
this court had no jurisdiction for anything done in the
Chilianwaters. Mr. Mansfield said, that a person wrongly
imprisoned by any foreign power, on board a British ship,
had redress from the party holding him in custody. Mr.
Deighton said, that Mr. M.`Keima himself had told the
court that he did not intend to land at anv place after he
.requested that the ship should, be turned-back out of her
course. 'He argued that theywere mere passengers whose
passage -money was paid by the Chilian government. Mr.
'Mansfield said, it was clear from the evidence, that they
:were not exercising thir own free-will; when they
were brought on board the ship, and it was
:also clear that the captain was told they were political pri-
-soners before they were brought there.. After some farther
:observations by Mr. Deighton on the sane point, Mr.
Mansfield said he had come to the consideration of this,case
with a tendency somewhat approaching to the view Mr.
Deighton had taken of it ; but the evidence showed that the
captain ;had exposed himself by certain acts, and:it did not
make any difference whether he was in British waters or in
'foreign waters. If his acts were illegal, he (Mr. Mansfield)
had concluded that he, had jurisdiction in the ease. Mr.
Aspinall gave several illustrations of a similar nature, to
show that 'Mr. Xansfield had jurisdiction - after which, Mr.
Deighton. quoted a case in the reign of dueen Anne, where
the ambassador of Peter the Great was taken up in London,
and admitted that there had been a common assault com-
mitted, and called on Mr. Mansfield to decide it accordingly.
Mr. Mansfield said he couldn't do that, as there were some

very thee questions of international law that no doubt
would arise on the discussion of the case. Mr. Deighton :
Oh, we dGu't want any questions at all to arise on it. We
want you to decide it as a,common assault in a summary way.
Mr. Mans 6 eld : I shall certainly not decide an imprison-
ment of ninety-eight days coming round Cape Horn. It
would be an unusual way of deciding a common assault.
Mr. Deighton said, under the 9th Geo. 4th, it was a com-
mon assault, .F.nd that was all the court htd to do with it.
Mr. Mansfield said, it was ,riot a common assault in his
mind, and he would not deal with it. If he were wrong,
the defendant would have the benefit of a trial by a supe-
rior tribunal. Mr. Deighton said, the question would be
raised of a common assault, and in that his Worship had
summary jurisdiction. Mr. Garnet, chief-clerk, said,. the
case was not brought nnder the eammon assault act at all.
He had given special directions to be clerk to fill up the
summons under the -" Assault and False Imprisonment Act,"
not under the common assault summary judistiction act
Mr. Aspinall said, it was astonishing, now that an assault and
false imprisonment had been clearly prowd, Mr. Deighton
tried to get his client out by pleading guilty to a common
assault, which, of course, could not he admitted. His
Worship said he would send the case for trial at the assizes,
but he would accept of two sureties -in £3OO each, and
himself in £6OO for his appearance.

--0--

THE FESTIVAL

CHORAL• SOCIETY AND
TS BALL.

ST GEOR(

TO THE EDITOR OF THE NORTHERN TIMES.
Sir,—ln thanking you for inserting my letter in
your paper of Friday, I have to crave a little further
space, after which I shall not further trouble you.
On the 15th of June, my opponent wrote, in refer-
ence to our secretary's circular, that the cause of our
being unsuccessful at St. George's Hall was " the
nature of our productions" failing to please the public;
and accusing us of condemning St. George's Hall,
as a bad place of sound, without having good cause
for so doing,

In my letter in the Northern Times, of the 17th,
I did not attempt to give my own opinion on the
accoustic properties of that hall (not feeline, myself
competent to do so) but I gave the opinion of parties
who are competent to judge thereof, including some
who have performed at concerts there not given by
I do not tliiP3, your correspondent is
ire not competent to
give an opinion on the suoject, especially when our
honorary secretary, who composed the " circular,"'
has had experience of all the halls in Liverpool, and
many elsewhere, for upwards of 20 years.
Your correspondent gives us "fall credit," in his
letter of the 21st, for our " desire to advance and im-
prove the, taste for the good old masters." I, there-
fore, am satisfied that the main object of my letter
ha; been obtained ; and; therefore, "shake hands'
(flaurai;vely) with my oponont„ and sign myself
A MEIIPRII or TUE F.C.S.
22nd June, 1859.

our society

quite just in saying our society