The Sun.
London, England, 1808-01-30 00:00:00

under which a coati wa _ formerly taken from the
bar, when he refnsed to plead to an inditiment, and
presSedand starved to dead;. .
Lord ELLeonottotiou, C. .L—That is, supposing
he had no 6iwretionT to authorise torture or net.,
Mr.. DALLAS then, went into the ,authorities- of
the Law of Nations, as, cited by' Lord Coke, in
Culvin!s case, to shew, that upon taking possession.
t,l 'a Colony by, cession orciptulation, that the
terms. must be observed, and
_that •outil.„the King
inipOsed other laws„ the ancient laws wore to prevail
016 Colony, with the exception only hi. laws
.against nature and the law of. God, which, nu man
citn, loud himself to obey':
HH glen-referred to. Hall w. Cambell, cited' by
Mr. NotcAls,•mo herein 'Loa Mansfield States, that the.
ancient laws Must be observed; and must beequal to
all the subje&s, whether .English or natives ; since
• wheever goes to a Colony places 'lllMSelf under the
laws there. And here Mr. DALLAS freely admitted •
what Mr. Not,or seemed to demand With a tri.;
uniph, that
.a 'Ail Englishmen going to Trinidad
mu6t, be subject to Torture, if Torture' is the Law
there tinder the old' Government." He then •
contended that there was -no diamm in the law
oholo', that in cast) of a conquered country the King
_bad no newer to continue such a law. He then
oticed the observations upon torture which had
been cited float Fortescue de Legikus, and said that
they-were taken from a chapter in which Fortescue
states the inconvenience of trial by testimony of
Witnesses,, and shows how-often they are suborned,
and draws rather tufavourable conclusion towards
the Civil Law which admits of torture. He then
referred to Lord Coke, who gives the history'of the .
Itack, was first lntrothiced into the ToWer
b) the Duke of Exeter, and washence called the
Duke of Exeter's Daughter, and says that the Duke
:intended to introduce the Civil. Law. When lie
Conies to speak of Torture itself, he says it is not the
law of England, not .because. it is against the law of
Cod, ,but because, having been of so recent intro
duaioo, it is not the ,gene England from tiMe im-
metnorial.• Lord COke, how,•ver, said Mr. DALI,AS,
is hut a had authority against torture for in the
Countess of Sho-wsbury's case he makes a sort of
complaint upon the lenity of Queen Elizabeth, that
she had put no one to the rack in the earl of Essex's
cast. Mr. DALLAS then referred. to the case of
Feltuni in itushworth's CoticLl ens, to show that
the opinion of the twelve Judges there v.,as`founded
upon the same view of the case, namely, that it was
illegal in Englimd only because it was nut autboriied
by ancient custom.
Mr. DALLAS then alluded to an argument adopted,.
)))7 ML. GARROW, who, instead of citing cases or
!authorities, referreitth none. during the argument,,
but put what he called- a parallel case—saying the'
King cannot authorise slavery in England, which is
against the law, and every man is instantly free
when he comes to England ; so neither eau he' by
the law of England authorise torture. Now, • said
Mr. DALLAS 1 adopt this parallel case,, and say,
that although' the King cannot authorise slavery
here, yet where it has been lawful before, as-in the
he has adopted it, and it is praised and
allowed there still. •

On the case of Fabrijas v. Martyr, Mr: DALLAS
Cited the opinion of Lord Chiat' Justice. De Grey
against torture in a conqttered Colony of Spain, but
admitting that it was ;16:1inSt him, yet he said it wasbut.the ext ut-judieia 1 opinion of a single Judge,
against which he had a legislative. authority.—At the
Union of Scotland the civil
.law obtained there, anti
thatanthorised thelaw of torture. The Union to*

place in I 706, and no provision being made with
respca to torture, a moron was made in. the Corm
1110liS CollCertillig it; and a Bill. passed in 1708, for-
bidding torture mbocxercised alter a certain day.-
-So that hero was a case Wherein a Country became!
united With England, baving th law of torture pre-
vious, and yef it is cOntinued against-the authority of
Lord Chief Justice De Grey, and the principles con-
teoded for by Mr. GAnaaw and Mr, NoLtN, " The
Learned Counsel was going upon another head of
argument, namely, bow far Governor Piaon was
answerable for a jUdiCial aa'in a jndicial.capactiy,
When be was stopped by T..0rd.41-esuottatiGit
(Chief.luitiCe), who was ohliged toga to the Sittings
at Guildhall.

JANUARYS.

poitss V. TUE ASSIGNEES Mr. WILLIAM LIMINE.AND
JOHN sTArroim,•BANisZKLIPT6.
This was a paint saved upon a ilia! at Nisi Prins4
Th6.questiou was, whether a person giVing another
a show of property, so A to induce persons in trade
toive him credit, did not make that property sub-
.je& to a Cominission of Bankruptcy ?-r-The cir-
cumstances of the ease Were'these :
John Horne was in partnership At William.
Borne in a Distillery; the stills, ratty, and, in ta6t,
tbu whole eoncern, 'were ,the property of the Plain-
tiff, John Horne. ithati become a 10,itig.concern,
and the Plaintiff' let if to William MIliC ,and..Staf.
ford, in partnership, for an annuity of 6001. for bis
M life and his wite's 'ei there was a proviso in the
agreement, that William Horne and. S.tatiordmight
(mange and *alter the concern as tire)%l4ased, but if
Ow), did at any time fail in, the payment of the (3UOI.
a year, then it'..ShOuld be lawful for John Horne to
re-f nter. the-preiniss and take possession. WilliaM
Horne and Stafford becante liankr9pts, and their
Assignsci seized` on the distillery,. and sold it 'for the
benefit of'their creditors. -
Mr..Serjeant WILLIAMS, for the Plaintiff, and the
ATTORNEY-GENEEAL, fur the Defendants, argued
with their Usual ability-.
The Court was Of opinion, that the Plaintiff ought
to be 'paid for the aanal fixtures of the concern, as
‘t was couttnot, '‘u brewertes Or .aititillerles, to hire
those aittcles., but all other (pods and articles that
were not frantes ought to be sold miler the %Mute
el Bankruptcy, although they were the aaual prop
perry of the Plaintiff, because he was assisting the
blitukrtipts in a frand,', by. holding out lb the public
that. 'those articles were their property. These
things operated as au inducement, and so far as he
'Was'a partaker in the fraud,' so far he ought to be a
partaker
_in the loss.

The Judges are to assist in tll4 Court of Chancery
on Monday next; when-a decision, it is tipetted,
will be given on the question arising out of Bullock's
Baukcuptcy•