The National Register.
London, England, 1822-11-17 00:00:00

•
• '-‘it 'l4l lb
• -4r- ' • Sft.•o6.
THE NATIONAL REGISTER •

in Christ Church, Dublin, by the then metropolitan of that
archdiocese.
4th Document was the evidence of bis installation and enthrone-
ment in the Cathedral of Ferns, in September, 111011-
11th Document wee the attested copy of his tranelation to the
See of Clogher. •
6th Document was his installation and enthronement in the
Cathedral of Clogher.
7th Document was the attested cope of the late Primate's
patent.
Sib Document was the impugnant's admission of canonical
obedience to the late Primate, as his metropolitan, bearing date'
October, INTO.
6th Document afforded proofs that the late Primate acted as
such.
10th Document was the oath of canonise! Obedience sworn by
impugnant to the late Primate, as his metropolitan.
litli Document was the proof of the late Primate's triennial
visitation at Aionaglian, in and for the Diocese of Clogher, in
August. 1040, and of the Bishop of Clogher having attended
there as the suffragan Bishop of that diocese.
12th Document afforded proof of the impugnant having left
the palace of Clogher in July last and never aim returned there.
lath Document was of considerable length, and went to estah-
blish the criminality of the impugnant when in London, on the
19th of last July, in association with John Aloverley a private
soldier in the Ist regiment of Guards' in the public house of
Edward Lee, situate in St. Alban's palace, in the city of West-
minster, and county of Middlesex ; and the sreiciee contained
were supported by the testimony of James Clark. watchman ;
John Plant, shoemaker; Hubert Gleeson, and Robert Gregg,
watchuieti.
14th Document was the evidence of Jobe Latchford, the con-
stable of the watch, to prove the note written by the Bishop uf
Clogher in the watch-house cell; and the proof of the hand-
writing to be that of the impugnant was testified by the Rev. Air.
Storey, And At r. Patricksom
15th Document proved that the Earl of Roden is nephew to
the Hon. Percy Jocelyn.
16th Document. proved by Ale Michael Fitzpatrick, clerk to the
Sitting Magistrate Mr. Dyer, was the arrest and bailing of the
impugnant, and his acknowledgment that time of Ins name and
dignity', and place of residence in London.
17th the Document proved the auction of furniture. lac. at
Clogher, on the 16th of last September, and subsequent days.
lath Document proved by Hugh Lyle, olOsks, in the county
of Londonderry, Esq. that the person arrested in London was
the then Lord Bishop of Clogher.
Other documents were also read as to Wealthy, and to show
that the libel charged occurred in the moiety of Middlesex.—
'f he libel contained 51 articles.
When these several documents were all read and entered,
Sir Henry Aleredyth stated to the Court that the evidence had
closed.
The evidence being thus closed, Dr. Staples, on the part of
the office, observed upon it, and particularly upon the law
which regulated the proceeding, and established its propriety
and necessity nearly in the following terms :
We have now, My Lords, gone through the evidence in this
very distre sing case, and as we conceive have folly borne out
by proof, the offences eborged by the articles against the uu•
Intonate person accused. Some increased difficulty has been
mposed mem us by the peculiar circumstance of the inpug-
nem not having appeared. Ile is not before your Lordships
either in person or by proctor, and thence has arisen the neces-
sity of much evidence to identify Percy, Bishop of Clogher, as
the person guilty of the em retitle& alleged. That some person
committed these offences at the time and place stated, is not
questioned. It is now soy duty to 'hew your Lordships, by a
few observations on the evidence laid before you, that that per•
son was Percy, Bishop of Climber.
Having spoken for mine tinie he concluded thus:—
Having now, as we conceive, established the facts charged
against the :individual chanted, and also the jurisdiction of the
Court, it only mitains to pray for your Lordships 'sentence.—
This is a duty I tun aware must be most painful to the Court ;
yet, however distressing the case may be, I am coofident your
Lot&hips will conscientiously and boldly pronounce that sen-
tence which the law demands.—You will cut off this pestilential
member, and discharge your duty to your country and your
God.
His Grace the Lord Primate, after some conference with his
brethren, requ•sted that the Court should be cleared. Sir
Henry Meredyth. before he retired, tendered to his Grace
a written sentence, for his perusal and approval, referring
to and founded upon the evidence in the cause. The sen-
tence was and is, sentence of deprivation and deposition.—
His Grace received and took possession of the sentence. His
Grace and Brethren remained for some time in confetence. It
was then announced that the Court was opened, and that the sen-
tence of the Advocates and Proctor of office was expected. 'Piney
accordingly attended, and thereupon his Grace the Lord Primate,
in the presence and hearing of ma Brethren the Lords Bishops,
of his Vicar General, and of other distinguished personages, rose
from his seat, and the entire of the auditory then standing, and
the Bishop of Clogher being then thrice called, but not apptari•-.;,
and his contumacy being accused, according to the law of the
Court, his Grace proceeded to read the sentence in open Court.
He read it in a MOSS impressive and dignified manner, and in a
tone of voice that manifested his extreme feelings and delicacy in
the discharge of this painful and important duty. When finished,
he signed it in open Court, and directed it to be lodged in the
Remstracy of his Diocese, where it now remains a record of these
unportant proceedings, and of their perfect consummation by the
absolute deprivation and deposition of Doctor Percey Jocelyn
from the Biahopric of (Aught', and his Episcopal Outer and
Authorities.

:~

ABBEY v. C•ter.
Mr. Searlett said, that this was an action against the return-
ing uMcer of the borough of Aldboroagb, tried before the
Lord Chief Justice at the last assizes for the county of York.
He bad been itiatrocted to look at the case in all its herrings,
in order that be might find some ground of motion for a new
trial if any 'aimed ; but he must confess that there did not
appear to him to be any. Ile would not, therefore, trouble
the Court on the subject.
CRIMINAL INFORMATION AGAINST THE COI, ATT OF BERKS.
Mr. Taunton said, that he was instructed to move the Court
for a new rule to shew cause why a criminal information shook
not be granted against the inhabitants of the county of Berke,
for the refusal to repair a bridge situated within the county.--
The bridge lay iu the direct line of the turupike road, and bad
always be n used by the public. It will built across the river
leis, in the road from Aston-Line, in Oxfordshire, to Ferring-
don, in Berksh.re. In 1778 it was erected by the trustees of
the roiniq part of tLa expenee of its erection b iug defrayed
out of their fends, and part by voluntary contributions. In
1779 it was taken down, and the prasent bridge was erected
in its place. The 'Admits stated that this bridge war in Berk-
shire; that it had been completely adopted by the public;
and that it had gradually fallen to decay and become even den-
gerous to passengers. At the Spring Sessions in list year ap-
plication was made to the Magistrates on the subject ; they
appoiuted two gentlemen, named Blandy and Mills, to inquire
of the state and local situation of the bridge ; and on their
report that Me bridge was is a state of dilapidation, and situ-
ate within the county, they made an order for repairing the
bridge, but directed that payment should not lie made until
the question of liability should be decided. Some repairs,
Ilierelbre, were dose, but so payment made on account of the
expenses. A bill was preferred against th • county at the last
Lent Assize.; and though four witnesses swore to the local
situation and condition of the road, the Grand Jury threw out
the bill. At the Midsummer Sessions another bill was pre-
erred, which shared the same fate. Again at the Michaelmas
Sessions, a bill was preferred, which certain cireumelanc
occurred whirl, he (Air. Taunton) would rather read from the
affidavits than trust himself to detail, as they were of a roe-
fiar nature, sod involved individuals of high station and
character.

The Lord Chief Justice.--Why need you state the. at all
In the evrnt, your bill was, I presume, again throwu out ?
Mr. Taunton.—Yes, my Lord.
. . .

The Lord Chief Justice.—You have stated enough to en-
title you to a idle to chew cause. Do you propose to serve it
on the Clerk of the Peace 1

Mr. Taunton.—Yes ; and on two Magistrates to whom the
affidavits particularly refer.
The Lord Chief Justice.—Take a rule to sbew cause.
TUESDAY, NOV. 12.
TIIE KING 0. HULSE.
Mr. Sergeant Pell moved for a new trial in this prosecution.
It was an indictment tried at the Bodmin Assizes for Ml.
The plaintiff was charged with bribery at the St. Ives election.
The learned Sergeant alleged as the ground of his motion, that
the defendant had been taken by surprise, and obliged to go ms
trial unprepared for his defence. The attorney for the prose-
cution had given him reason to suppose his trial would not come
on, and in consequence of that representation he did not pro-
cure the evidence necessary for his defence. It was also urged
that the principal witness for the prosecution, a person named
Dunn, bad been convicted of perjury since the trial.
The Court were of opinion that the aSdavit of the defendant
required affidavits in answer, and upon that ground they allowed
a rule to shew cause.
PENN V. STAZICoTE AND OTHERS.
The Common Sergeant moved to set aside the verdict in this
ease, on the ground of a misdirection.
It was an action to recover d-meges for false imprisonment,
tried before Baron Graham, at Warwick. The Jury found a
verdict for the plaintiff. with one farthing damages. There
were two pleas ; first, the general issue : the second was •jus-
tification under a late statute, the first of Geo. IV. which gives
authority to any constable or owner of property, without the
warrant of a magistrate to seize, apprehend, and take before a
magistrate any person or persons commiltiag damage to pre-
mises, garden, fences, plants, crops, and other properly. In
this use the defendant endeavoured to prove, that the plaintiff.
on a Saturday night, left a public house with a loaded gun,
which he fired into the window of a public house opposite.-
3 he wife of the shop-keeper and several customers were in the
shop at the time, and they narrowly escaped personal injury.—
Twenty-four panes of glass were broken. On the Monday fol-
lowing the plaintiff was taken before a magistrate, who felt
some reluctance in committing him under Lord Ellenborough's
Act, but recommended the parties to proceed on the Ist of
Geo. IV. °flaring at the time to commit him for maliciously
breaking windows. They did not adopt the magistrate's sug-
gestion, and the plaintiff was discharged. Ile then brought
' his action, and the defendant justified upon the Act of Pat lia-
anent. The plaintiff attempted to prove an alibi. Ile alleged
that be was in the public house at the time the gun was fired ;
but the defendant had evidence to show he was leaving the
house at the time the damage was done. Notwithstanding this
fact, the Jury found a verdict fur the plaintiff, The misoireel
two on the part of the Judge was, omitting to state to the Jury,
that the defendants were justified under the Act of Parliament,
ifulependent of the general inane.
The Lord Chief Justice.—The question et the trial seems to
bete been, whether the plaintiff was the man who fired the gas.
Common Sergeant—Yes.
The Lord ChtefJustice—Perhaps a constable is not justified
in arresting a man, unless there is at least a etrong suspicion
that a felony has been committed.
Judge Bayley-1 thick you bad not proof the plaintiff was
the man who did the act.
• The Common Sergeant then said they had proof of that fact.
A quarrel between the shopkeeper and the plaintiff had taken
place previous to the injurious act. The Court granted a rule
to 'thew cause.

TIIE RING v. FIELDER AND asortir.n.
Mr. Adolphus said, be was ready to submit his objections
in favour of the defendants, and move either to enter a •erdict
for the defendants, or to obtain a new trial.
It was an indictment against the two defendants for keeping
a gaming-house, in Bennet street, St. James's.
Mr. Adolphus at the trial objected, that the house was not in
the pari►h of St. James, and also that no evidence proved the
defendant was the keeper of the house at the time one of the
witnesses for the prosecution swore he *O.W him acting an such.
—The learned counsel was asked befor.i he made bin motion,
whether the defendants were in Court ? Ile snawered no.
Judge Bayley-1 dont't know whether you can move if they
are absent. Tha Court may wish to know whether judgment
has passed on a former conviction. There is a rule in c,itunial
cases which precludes counsel from moving fur a new
unless the defendants are in Court.
Mr. Adolphus—Will your lairdship give me leave to loca-
tion the application when the defendants are in Court