The Sun.
London, England, 1801-09-22 00:00:00

tiered a man of the name, Atexander Brooks to be
called, who, not immediately appearing, he pro-
ceeded to examine several Witnesses, who came
forward to the Prisoner's charafter. At length
Brooks appeared, and entered into a detail, the
greater part of which was in eat contradiction to
the testimony of the Witnesses for the prosecution.
—He said the •Prisoner was one of six or seven
Lumpers, of which he, the Witness was chief, who
were engaged in discharging the Vessel that even_
ing.; that he did not leave the Vessel, and that he
was astonished when he saw ,:the Prisoner in the
custody of the Police Officer, and he did not
know, for what it was, until after he had taken
him away. He described the tortoise-shell to
be placed in such a way as that the Prisoner could
nor, on account* of the way he was engaged, have
deposited it there.
• The Police Officdr was then called up again, and
on seeing the Witness, deposed, that he was the
identical person whom he saw at first in the boat
with the Prisoner ; and in this fart he was in a
great degree corroborated by the testimony of one
of the other Witnesses.

' "On Brooks's cross-exaatination, he admitted, that
he-had not interfered in behalf of the Prisoner at
the tithe; although_ Ile asserted, he knew him to
:have been innocent of the charge :--and, also, that
he had not attended at any of the examinations be-
fore the Magistrate in .his favour. •
The Jury had little hesitation in finding the Pri-
soner Guilty ;—and the Court ordered the Witness,
Brooks, into custody, •in order that a Bill of In-
dietnient might be preferred against him for Perjury.

CLERKENWELL SESSIONS, SEPT. 19.

OFFENCE AGAINST TILE FISH ACT,

The case.of the Appeal of Henrick Albert against
a convidion upon the Fish Aa, for not selling his
cargo within eight days, conformable to the Statutes
igth and 33d George 11. came on to be argued.
The only question was, Whether the Appeal should
be allowed, the Defendant not iniving given
.eight
days notice, as the Ad direEled ?

Mr. Kt.TArr observed, that these Ads were highly
penal, extending even to the forfeiture of the ship ;
and ir would he extremely unjust, by a strid con.
strudion of the Clause allowing the Appeal, to de-
prive the Subjea of his right to it. It was true,
the Ads required, that eight days notice should
be given previous to the next Sessions after the
Conviaion ; but it had been-determined, with re-
ference to the Poor Laws, and the principles on
which Ads relating to them were construed, that
the next Sessions war to be understood to mean the.
next possible Sessions---the Legislature never in.
tended, by requiring an impossibility, to deprive a
party of his right of appeal. If, therefore, a per-
son was =tided within eight days of the corn.
mencement of a Sessions, the evident meaning and
spirit of the 'Ads afforded a proof that the notice of
Appeal referred to the subsequent one.
Mr. WATSON insisted, that the Ad was impera-
tive, and that its direetions not having been com-
plied with, the Defendant had forfeited his right of
appeal. The Conviaion in this case had taken
place on a taturday, and the notice, which might
have been given that day, had not been given till
the Monday, which was only seven days before the
Sessions.

Mr. MA.INWAR ING was of opinion, that the
Clause'of a penal 'Ad of Parliament, giving a party
relief, ought to be liberally construed, and an equi-
table latitude 'allowed granting the benefit of it.
A party convided-ought to have a reasonable time
to coma fOrward with his Appeal. This Convidion
was on the Saturday afternoon ; it wao necessary
that the Defendant should have time to consider
what steps he should take, and whether an Appeal
lay. By delaying his notice till Monday, it be-
came too late for the Sessions, Which commenced On
that day week. Unless, therefore, 'a notice Might
be'given for the-next Sessions, the Defendant would
be deprived of hi! Appeal altogether.
The Court determined thliVAe Defendant might
give a fresh notice for next Sessions, w-hen the me.
rits of the Appeal;will be argued Anti determined.

COUNTRY NEWS.

EXETER, SEPT. 16.