The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1824-11-30 00:00:00

COURT OF KIVGIS BENCII—Nov. 29.

IN THE NATTta or CARPET?.
Scant.rirr wet tie*ifollll Or ad tressing the Court relative to
• report which had obtainer, circulation through all the newapaprni,
that 31r. Chitty had obtained a Habeas Corpus to bring up the
body of Sar..h Harnett. This Jody was confined in the gaol of
Suffolk, by a wentence of the Ecclesiastical Court, for contumacy.
She was alleged to be • lunatic, end there was now an ap-
plicativ f.ar a writ of lunacy against her, which was not y dia.
posed ea by the Lord Chancellor. The report had got into the
papers in • manner calculated to asperse unjustly the character of
the husband of this lady.
_ _

:11 r. Justice Itav ILL y said, that the motion had been matte before
hint. Ile certainly understood it to be a rule to show cense why e
writ of Habeas Corpus should not beg/Lir:tea : he did 11,4 unuer-
stand it to hare hero applied for upon voluminous affidavit.. It
was granted upon the detect of the specification. It should there-
fore be confined to the specification.
Mr. SCAIILCTT saitl, It wan drawn up as if it were doubtful
whether the husband could be found, yet it was well knows ring
where he resided the rule was served on him last Friday.
Tnel.onDtartre•JLarlcttsaid,he did not know how the
Court could interfere. The cane
.WAS before the Lecle.iastical
Court. and this Court had no juristlution in it.

Mr. CULT r r hoped that the justice and generosity of the Caurt
%mod permit him to mote the pawns which induced him to adopt
the course he pursued. The lady had been three ye.ws in gaol ;
she 114.1 tiler: undergone great pnratiuns ami satTerinp ; she was

said to be a lunatic, but her own affidavit, on which he moved, was
in her own handwriting. And at the same time that he pointed
out the defect in the specification, he also accompanied it with those
affidavits, which, In the exercise of the discretion that belogi.a to a
gentleman of the bar, he thought *he had a right to do, as the case
was not an ordinary one. The voluminousness of the affidavits was
occasioned by suppm.ng it necessary to support the affidavits of
this Court by affidavits from the Cuort of Chancery. In proceed.
ing in this case, lie way fortifi-v1 by the precedent of amuse of
the King ie. 31avhee. Ile had there obtained. a similar rule under
similar eirculinitancea, and ruccetiled in i„:tting it related to one
of the Judges in chambers Ile trusted that this case might, in
like manner, be referred to one of their Lordships.
The Lotto Cittgr .11.,3711::L said, that as lie undersbod the
rule, its effect would be to reverse the sentelice of the Leclestainical
Conti.

Mr:CHFFTT 'insured the Court that it wntsid not.
The Lonn JFiTICC said that at all events the rule
must be enlarged; let the rule be enlarged fora week, arid let the
mater be argued before anv of the Learned Stidges at e .ambers ;
if a region for further enlargirg should appear necessary to the
Learned Judge, lie 101 crilat,:e it for another week.
Mr. SCARLETT said, that if the Court enlarge.: it, ho would
prefer it to be enlarged for a fortnight.
Mr. CHITTY suggested that a vt,ek was sufficient. The lady. it
should be recclleced, had already been for three years and a half in
prison.
The Lono Cuter it:sitez desired that the rule should stand
as he proposed it in the first instance; he would leave it to the dis-
cretion of the Learned Judge to give further delay or not, us he
should find it expedient.
Rule enlarged for a week, and cause to be shown in chambers.
TURNER V. THE HUNDRED OF WINTERSTOKE.
Mr. F. Wt Luaus showed cause against the rule obtained in
in th.s cause.

It appeared from the affidavit, and the statement of the :.earned
Counsel on behalf of plaintiff, that hie client's house hail Itec ma-
liciously burned, and that a special Sessions was held pursuant to
thestatute, weletermine plaintiff's claim againet the hundred for the
injury sustained by him, which teas under SOL The plaintiff's wit.
noises were examined, but the Justices conceiving tea offence to have
been committed within the meaning of the Act, inasmuch as he
failed to prove that the persons who burned the house had their faces
blackened, dismissed the claim. This decision, it appeared, arose
from a curious misinterpretation of the thh Geo. I. by which the
offence is created. The first off'enee centre! by that statute (com-
monly called the `• Black Act,") is the assembling of persons,
having their fates blackened or otherwise disguised. After fixing
a penalty fur this, it proceeds to create other offences, such as the
destruction of property; and amongst other provisions, it makes it
unlawful to send a threatening letter; now the Magistrates con-
ceived that it was neem.sary in all the subsequent offences, as well
a. the first, that the parties committing them should have their faces
blackened, so that in order to make it criminal for a person to send
a threatening letter he must have his face blackened. Aiesinst title
decision of the Sorel d Sessions an appeal Ives made by the plainthF
to the General Sessions: but the 31agietrutes composing it refused
to entertain the appeal, inasmuch as there was nothing to appeal
against ; fur there was no written order made be the Special Sea.
sion'. Although it appeared that tempi the three justices assembled
at the Special Sessions, had given a certificate setting forth that
their dismissal of plaintiff's claim arose solely front a mistake of
the law. The_plaintitfi having no tithe- mode of redress, applied to
the Court of King's Bench, and obtained a meltdowns. directing
the Magistrates of the General Sessions to enter up continuances
in plaintiff's appeal, and to hear and determine on it. This man.
danous was issued in Laster Term, and in this (the subsequent nee)
a rule was obtained to set it aside, on the ground that clue notice of
it had rot been sieved on the part: es, although the usual practice
of serving such no: ices hid been adhered to this instance ; namely,
serving the Chief Constable of the !Limited, and two Justices.
Mr. itc ex•an, in support of the rule. proceeded to show that
the Magistrates could rot hear the appeal fur the reasons alleged
by them. If there had been a decree against the hundred, it
would be competent for it to appeal ; and the same rule applied,
he (Mr. B.) contended, to affiliation, and many other cases. Ile
further said that the third Magistrate commming the Special Ses-
sions, was by no means a patty to the certificate sent in by the two
other gentlemen to the ( ieneral Sessions.
Mr. Justice BAY try suggested to the Learned Counsel that the
rule had been obtained solely on the grogird that the notice of the
meedateur was not properly served, and asked if it would not be
better that he should confine himself to that point. l'he Learned
Judge said, that on referring to the officer as to the practice, it ap-
peared the usual mode of service had been adhered to.
Mr. BERNARD submitted that notice should have been given
to the Clerk of the Peace; and, further, that the Magistrates
served were those who in the first instance dismissed the claim,
and were, of course. incompetent to decide on the appeal.
TLe Loan Cuter JUSTICE asked if the Learned Counsel
meant there could be no appeal but when ran order was made, or
that a mere dismissal is not an act done within the meaning of the
Statute ?

Air. 13ER VART) replied. that that WWI his view of it; and added,
that the proper mode for plaintiff to proceed, would be to hare the
mandamus tuned to the Special Sessions, and not to the general
obe.

The 1.011111 Cuter JUSTICE said, that the Seßsiors must be
holden within thirty days, and that if that course were adopted,
it was possible they might expire before the Justices could be corn_
gelled to re-assemble. Ilia Lordship then proceeded to give at
considerable length, the decision of the Court, which was, that the
rule be discharged with costa.

liING V. TAYLOR.
The LORD CHIEF Jere tcr. gave judgment in ibis case to-
day. His Lortl.hip, after showing at length the practice with re-
gard to pleading in civil cases applied to misthimcwiors, said
that the Court were uranimous in declaring that the judgment
should be final. His Lordship added, that u deviation from this
',rattier, was allowed in caws of felony, but that thzre it was dune
infinvirem vile.