The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1806-09-03 00:00:00

Lan&ld. inspealiag trield Officer of Yeomanry..
The corms of his dismissal would appear in evi-
dence ; an they were of that nature, that had he
been lameght to trial, conviaion. disgrace, and
sestet e pnnlshment, must have been the consequence.
—The Plaintiff being thus dismissed from His Ma•
jesty's service, Mr. Peter Stephens, of Philipstown,
was appointed to succeed him as Permanent Ser.
rant ; and application was made to him by Lieut.
Lonefield, and also by Major O'Neil, to give
up his arms and accoutrements, which he positively
refused to do, though he was compellable by Aft of
Parliament. In consequence of this refusal, and
in pursuance of the Aft, information upon oath
was made before the Defendant, as a Magistrate
of the county, stating the refusal of the Plaintiff ;
and the Defendant, as it was his duty to do, in
consequence of the information. and in pursuance of
the statute, issued a summons to bring the Plaintiff
before him to answer the complaints. At first he
refused to comply—at length he appeared, and the
statute was read and explained to him. This sta-
tute enafts, " that if any yeoman, being dismissed,
refuses to deliver up his arms, accoutrements, or
clothes, he shall, on conviflion before a Justice of
the Peace, be fined in the sum of 101. to be levied
by distress on his goods or chattels, or be commit-
ted to the county gaol for any time not less than
six months." The complaint being proved against
the Plaintiff, he said he had no goods or chattels,
and desired to be committed : he was accordingly
committed, but for what time f he was committed
for only seven days ; and for this lenity shewn to
him by the Defendant, who had authority to com-
mit him for six months, he had the ingratitude and
audacity to bring an anion, demanding 5001. da-
mages. He was regularly committed under a war-
rant, but it might be presumed there was some
irregularity in the proceeding, as the Chief Justice,
a few days after, at the Assizes, discharged him ;
not, however, without observing, that there was no
blame imputable to the Defendant, who had done
his duty, no doubt, to the best of his still and
knowledge.
Mr. MAC NALLY, for the Defendant, here offered
?a evidence a conviation in writing. He said, that
to -avoid cavil, he would admit that this conviaim
was not made up immediately after the trial of the
Plaintiff before the Magistrate, but had been re-
cently done. However, he submitted, that the Ma-
gistrate was not bound to make up his cnnviaion
tin ordered by a writ of certiorari, where such writs
lay, or by notice of appeal. A conyiaion, he said,
WA, a record. as such it could not be impeached ; at
least, it had the s inaion of notes taken by the
Judge at trial, which never were questioned, and
therefore he offered this document under the hand
and seal of the Magistrate, to shew that the Plaintiff
had been regularly conviaed, under authority of the
Aa of Parliament.
The Court, however, were of opinion, that the
eonviftion having been recently made up, ought
not to he read; it was withdrawn, and witnesses
were called.
Lieutenant Thomas O'Neil said be bad been Ma-
jor of Brigade to His Majesty's forces, and was pre-
sent when the Plaintiff. George Odium, by order
of a letter from the Lord Lieutenant's Secretary,
was publicly discharged from the corps of Philips-
town cavalry. He stated, that the corps had
been guilty of great neglea in not appearing on
parade, and gave a variety of instances wherein the
Plaintiff had dereliaed his military duties, and fcr
which, if tried by Court Martial, be must have
been punished.
This gentleman underwent a long cross-examina-
tion, which tended to shew, that he had been com-
mitted by the Magistrate to gaol. without any war-
rant of distress having issued, and that be offered to
give up the clothes and accoutrements before he
was sent to gaol.
Mr. Philip Sherlock said he was a Lieutenant of
the Philipstown cavalry, and was present when
Liratenant Colonel Longfield, after the dismissal
of Serjeant Odium from that corps, demanded of
him to deliver up his clothing and appointments,
which Odium refused to do.
Lieutenant Colonel Lonafield proved his demand
of the accoutrements, and the Plaintiff's refusal,
and also that he had been dismissed far gross mis-
behaviour as a yeoman. He produced the written
charges that had been made against the Plaintiff,
by which it appeared, that he had been dismissed
for insolence and disobedience of orders ; irregular
unsoldierly conduft, and wilful negleB of duty.
Peter Stephens deposed, that he had succeeded
the Plaintiff, Odium, as permanent Serjeant to the
Philipstown Cavalry, on the 14th of July last, and
had not received his clothing and accoutrements.—
On cross-examination of this IVitness, and of the
Constable. it appeared. that he confessed the faa of
detaining the clothes and accoutrements to the Ma-
gistrate, Mr. Smith, when brought befnie him—that
Nit.. Smith convitted him in the penalty of ten
pounds, as.direfted by the statute; but Odium say-
ing he had neither goods nor chattels, a warrant was
made out, direfled to the gaoler of Philipstown, di-
reßisig him to detain Odium in Isis custody, for the
spare of one month.
Mere the case closed on both sides ; and
The Loss COMO Jerr ma charged the Jury.—
His Lordship regretted that this aztion had been
brought, because, though in point of law there must
be a verdift for the Plaintiff, yet he came before
the Court without the smallest claim to damages—
of course, if the Jury found a vet did for him, which
his Lordship thought they were bound to cis,, they
would give such damages as were merely nominal.
The imprisonment, his Lerdship thought, could not
justified, because no convistion had been made
up that could be even is evidence. The direaions
of the statute had not been staidly pursued by the
Magistrate; the warrant to commit the persoe
should not have been executed till after the warrant
of distress had been issued, and until after it ap-
peared that there was nn distress upon which the
fine of 101. could be levied. That the Magistrate
had abed in error, must he admitted--eit.dced it had
been admitted ; but then there was not the slightest
evidence to ground a presumpeon that he abed
under the influence of malice or oppression—on the
contrary. he committed the Plaint,ff for one month
only, w:.ereas the statute extended his discretionary
authority to sit months. imprisonment.
The Jnry, tinder the direction of his Lordship,
found a Veidia tot the Plaintiff of 6J. damages and
4d. costs.