The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1822-11-28 00:00:00

101 W INTALLIGENCII.

COURT Or KING'S BENCH, Watery's.Tait,
EIDAY. Novenas& t 7.
TILE XING v. ANDERSON.
the Defendant was brought up in receive the
judgment of the Court pursuant to their Losrlships'
order. We stared the particulars of this case in our
Report of yesterday. The Defendant having taken
his plaice on the floor of the Court--
Mr. Justice B•eure proceeded to pronounce
the judgment of the Court, and in doing so com-
mented in strong terms oil the enormity of the of-
fence of which the Defendant had been guilty.
The sentence of the Court was, that upon the first
iiidictment the Defendant shmild be ioaptitoned
four months, and on the second two months, in the
House of Correction Coldbath-fields, and further
that he should pay • fine to the Kmg of 3001.
HABEAS CORPUS.
Mt. iSRVIS said, be had now to shew their Lord-
ships cause against • role for a Habeas Corpus, di-
rected to the Commander df his Majesty'. slop
Gloucester, commandiug him to bring up the bo-
, dies of two men convicted by the Dover Magi...
trates of smuggling. and sent on board the Wow-
curet. ander the provisions of the 45th and 57th of
the late King. The offence in this ease, he was
ready to admit, was committed within the main and.
port of Folkstone, and the conviction was befdre
two Magistrates of the town and port of Dover..
Mr. Justice Baartee....." Then it is said, I sup-
pose, that the Duvrr Magistrates had no juris-
diction ?"
Mr. Jaavts—" Yes, my Lord ; hut I am to con-
tend that they had. 'the Act asp, the Magis-
trates of the port to which the boat is taken.
Now here the boat, I contend, was taken into the
port of Dover. The men were apprehended on the
3d October, within the limits of the port of Folk-
atone, and were conveyed to one of the soartello
towers on the coast. Here they were detained no.
til the sth, and then taken, together with the boat
and cargo, to Dover, and the Dover Magistrates
convicted. Folkstone was acknowledged to he a
port of exclusive jurisdiction for all porpases except
those connected with the Customs ; but in all such
cases the jurisdiction was given to Dover, there be-
ing no Costom•house or place to deposit contraband
goods at Folkstune. The words of the statute
gave jurisdiction to the Magistrates in or near the
place into which the boat was taken, or near the
place where the parties should be arrested."
Mr. Justice Herr asked what were the words of
the statute, which declared Folkstoue a distinct
jurisdiction except in cases relating to Customs?
Mr. Jetty's said he had no statute declaring it to
be so, but it was stated on affidavits.
Mr. Justice BATLEY observed, the conviction
in this case did not set forth, as it ought to have
done. the jurisdiction of the Magistrates convicting,
or the authority under which they convicted.
Mr. Jewels submitted, that under the words of
the present statute this was unnecessary.
Mr. Justice BAYLEY—" There is nothing on
the face of this conviction to shew that the Plinio.
testes of Dover had any thing whatever to do with
the case."
Mr. LtretenaLE, in support of the Maw,
Corpus, contended, that the landing of the goods,
and detention of the men in the martetfo tower.
within the limits of the t two and port of Folk-
stone, took away even the shadow of jnriadtction
from the Magistrates of Dover. Ile also 'Omitted
that the Habeas Corpus must go, even on the omis-
sion on the face of the conviction of stating the
authority of the hlogistratcs to convict.
The CHIEF JUSTICE üb,trvrd, there were two
considerations for the Court to this case
whether the Magistrates of Dover had jurtsdtction ;
and secondly, if they had. whether the omission on
the face of the conviction was not • fatal one. The
goods had in this case been seized within the !Anita
of the port of Folkstoue, and the men taken on
shore there, and detained two days, bat afterwards
they were again put on board, and taken to Dover.
If this might be done great abuse might follow, for
it would be difficult to say, tinder such an inter-
pretation of the Act, that they might not have been
taken to the most northern part of the kingdom.
If necessary for him now to give an opinion, he
should say such • thing could not be done. But
he was not now called on to declare any opinion on
that point, as he was decidedly of opinion that the
conviction was bad. as it ought to have stated the
jurisdiction of the Magistrates convicting, which in
this case it did not, and therefore he was of opinion
the rule for the Habeas Corpus must be made
absolute.

The rest of the COURT agreed in this opinion.
The CHIEF JUSTICE observed, he had no doubt
but the Admiralty would in this case act with its
usual liberality, and order the men to be discharg-
ed, without calling for the expense of the Habeas
Corp**.
Mr. JERVIS said the expenses of the application
should be defrayed according to his Lordship's di-
rection, and the men liberated immediately.
THE XING V. RIDGWAY.
Mr. Serjeant HULLOCIC said he had to shew their
Lordships cause in this case, against a role obtained
• OE a former day by Mr. Brougham, calling on Sir
'John Sewell, John Atkins, E•q., and James Mur-
ray, telteitor, to shew cause why a writ of Certiorari,
obtained by them, should not be quashed; and why
they should not pay the expenses incurred by the
Defendant, in consequeuce of their not going to
trial at the last Lancaster Assizes • together with the
expenses of this application. Had the rule been
confined to paying the expenses of not going to
trial, it would not have been opposed ; that object
might have been obtained by a side-bar rule; but
here the Defendant sought to set aside the C'ertio.
aryl. The Learned Serjeant was proceeding to
state affidavits in support of the Certiorari. when
The LORD CHI sr JusTics asked Mr. Brougham
whether he would not ht satisfied if the costs of not
going to trial, and of the present application, were
paid ?
Mr. BROUGHAW—." Certainly, my Lord ; but
still we shall he subjected to the inconvenience of
the Certiorari."
Mr. Justice BAYLEY-•-•41 They have •aright to
remove by Certiorari."
Mr. BROUGHASI-0 Yes, my Lord; hut we
charge them with an abuse of the authority of this
Court, and with surprise."

The Loaf, Cuter Jusrics observed, whether the