The Sun.
London, England, 1839-11-23 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

TICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT, Nor, 22.
Short causes, unopposed petitions, and pleas and de-
murrers, occupied his Honour the VICE-CHANcELLoz
the whole morning.

COURT OF QUEENS BENCH, Nor. 22.
THE QUEEN V. THE POOR-LAW COMMISSIONERS.
This was an appeal from an order of the Poor-law
Commissioners, directed to the guardians of the poor
of the Union of Alstonfield, in Staffordshire, and com-
manding them to appoint a clerk to the guardians of
the poor, and an auditor of accounts. The guardians
=fused to obey the order, on the ground that the
Union being under the provisions of a Local Act (Gil-
bert's Act), the Commissioners had no right to inter-
fere with the appointment of officers.
Mr. EZLI was yesterday heard in support of the
appeal ; and
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL, Sir WM. FOLLETT, and
Mr. TomuNsori addressed the Court to-day at great
length in support of the order of the Poor-law Com-
missioners. The arguments turned principally upon the
construction of certain clauses in the Poor-law Amend-
ment Act.
The COURT took time to consider its decision.
CRIMINAL INYORMATION.—THE QUEEN V. HOWARD.
In this case a rule had been obtained, calling upon
the defendant, John Howard, a Magistrate, of Hyde,
in Cheshire, to show cause why a criminal information
should not be filed against him, for having corruptly re-
fused to receive the informations of Samuel Charlton,
Clerk to the Justices of the district, and to grant a
warrant against his own brother, Mr. Charles Howard.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (with whom was Mr. M.
CHAMBERS) now appeared to show cause against the
rule. Mr. Howard, the party against whom the pre-
{ sent application was made, was a gentleman of large
property and an extensive manufacturer at Hyde, and
he was charged by Mr. Charlton with corruption in the
1
1 office of a Justice of the Peace. The circumstances
! under which the application was made were not a little
,extraordinary, and would be found to reflect very little
credit upon Mr. Charlton. He would give their Lord-
ships the statement of the case in Mr. Charlton's own
words, and as they were embodied in his affidavit.
lie stated that he was clerk to the Justices at Hyde, and
: there being in the month of May last some excitement
among the population, an association was about to be
it formed on the 13th May,which Mr. Ho ward at first agreed
to attend, but subsequently withdrew from. Mr. Charlton
I then gave at great length a conversation that occurred
between himself and Mr. Howard, in the course of
which Mr. Charlton communicated to him that his bro-
thers, Charles and Thomas Howard, had given five
Ipounds to the Hyde Institution to repair the damage done
by th,l late storm. The Hyde Institution was estab-
lished by the Chartists, and Mr. John Howard imme-
diately said he would stake his life that it. was not so,
and then they shook hands and parted. On the fol-
lowing day, when the meeting was to be held, Mr.
Charlton called at the Clergyman's house, where it
appeared Mr. John and Mr. Charles Howard were.
He was invited to come in but declined, end after leav-
ing the house he saw Mr. Charles Howard running
after him. Mr. Charles Howard was very much
excited, and asked what he meant by making
false charges against him ? Charlton said he had made
no false charges, upon which Howard said he would
half murder him. and knock him to atoms, if he did not
eo back to the Clergyman's house with him. He at
,_
1 length consented to go back, being frequently threatened
i %site) personal violence en the way. On arriving at the
1 house he found Mr. John Howard sitting there, and he
immediately requested a piece of paper, and drew up in-
, formatioes egainst Charles Howard, and requested John
Howard to receive them, and te procure sureties of his
brotilier to keep the peace. He was then examined at
sonic length by Mr. John Howard, who said, whoa he
had concluded his evidence, " I dismiss your case."
Charlt.m requested his information, or a copy of it,
which Mr. Howard refused to give, stating that he
would a. tend at his (Charlton's) office in t'ne course of
the ti.iv, but he (Charlton) refused to attend. He subsa
quently obtained a copy of the informations and evidence,
and a week afterward, tie obtained sureties of she pea.:e
from Mr. Charles Howard. He subsequently required an
,iioology from Mr. John Howard, but in a most extraor.
di: ary way, the party applying serving Mr. Howard
wit:, a neeice, at the same time that a criminal informa-
tion :,vould he moved for ag iinst him in the Queen's
Bench, Scrub was the case Mr. Charlton presented to
their Loy.dsh;ps, and a more extraordinary one there
could no be nrou,llit forward. What case was there
in al. that `Or the interf,rence of the Court ? The al-
iegat;on was, that Mr. Howard had corruptly refused to
receiv., articles of the peace aglinst his brother ; but
Mr. Howard, as :t Magistrate, would not be justified in
doing so. Mr. Cn:triton's conduct in taking up a sheet
of paper, drawing up informations, and then swearing
himself to the truth, was most improper. The answer
of Mr. Howard would be found satisfactory to their
Lordships, and would show that there was no ground
whatever for the present application. Mr. Howard
.was a Magistrate of Hyde, where he had a very exten-
g;vo manufactory, and he stated that during the preced-
ing eight months the neighbourhood was in a state of
very great excitement. Ms. Howard then entered
into a full explanation of the meeting which
was to have been held on the 13th of May, stat-
ing that at the time he expressed his intention to
attend it he had not seen ihe circular calling it, and
supposed it was an association for the protection of life
• end property. Instead of that, he discovered that it
a .as convened in terms which would create great ex-
ci.tement and dissatisfaction, end would be objectionable
f to, a great portion of the middle classes. Under the
I ad vice of other magistrates, his friends, he declined to
att and the meeting. With respect to the statement
of his brother having subscribed to the Chartist insti-
tution, he had asked Charlton for his authority, and he
replied that it was a person in his (Howard's) employ-
ment who feed told him. On the following morning
he received a letter from Mr. Charlton stating that he
i could not recof!eet the name of the party who gave the
information, thus withdrawing his authority and leaving
the charge still in full force. His bro-hers, Charles and
Thomas Howard, strenuously and positively denied that
they had subscribed 5/. or any sum to the Chartist In-
stitution. The affidavit then described what had oc-
curred at the clergyman's house. After Mr. Charlton
Jead drawn up the informations and administered the
o sth to himself, he demanded a warrant against Mr. C.
H oward. Defendant took the paper from him, and laying
it on the table said, " Mr. Charlton, think what you are
doing—l am going down to the Magistrates' office, and
you can make your complaint there." Charltoes
1 manner was very disrespectful to him, and he desired
,) him to stand up and treat him as a Magistrate. The
,1 whole of Charlton's evidence being to the effect that if
he (Charlton) did not return, Charles Howard would
i commit some personal violence, and that being set at
rest by Charlton having returned, he (the deponent) did
not think himself justified in taking the information.
4 sEharlton's manner was throughout extremely dicta-
t.rial and impertinent.
it ,Lord DENMAN—It strikes us that be ought to have
1
taken the informations, because if there was not likely
to be any breach of the peace in the Magistrate's pre-
sence, he coald not tell what might afterwards occur ;
but can it be said that this was a corrupt refusal ?
Mr. JERVIS—The Attorney-General is not stating all
the circumstances.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL—I am proceeding to do
,so if you allow me. The affidavit further stated that
ibis refusal to take the informations was not the result
of any vindictive feelings towards Mr. Charlton, or
from any corrupt motives. He had also the affidavits
)
ri, of the clergyman and others, fully substantiating the
1 statement of Mr. Howard. Mr. Charlton was a soli-
citor, and had acted in the most ingenious way for the
purpose of entrappinc, Mr. Howard, but he trusted the
i attempt would be defeated, and that the Court would
think the rule ought to be dismissed with costs.
Mr. CHAMBERS followed on the same side.
Mr. JERVIS was heard in support of the rule ; and
after going through the facts of the case at some
,length, observed that the statement of Mr. Howard in
kis affidavit having gone to the extent of swearing, that
I, he had, in deciding the case, acted bona fide, and with-
-1
'? u!' any personal feelings towards Mr. Charlton, and that
beingv all that Mr. Charlton had ever required, although
it :vas a
wish vindictively
that he required an apology, he (Mr. J.) did
n
1 h vindictively to press to have the rule made abso-
lute, but he trusted enough had been shown to their
tl' Lordships to call upon them to make it a condition the
discharged rule should be only on payment of Mr.
,Charlton's costs.
The COURT, after n
confer ' g together, said it was
cle sr that Mr. C. Howard conferring
acteds very intempe-
rate ly towards Charlton. It was motermojufd
theicious in
the party to have applied to the broth
who had so conducted himself,
in notbuth ehaving
to act, had acted improperly,receiving theinfor-
mations. On the whole, however, there could be no
ground for charging him with acting corruptly, and
Itherefore the rule must be discharged, each party pay-
iing his own costs.
1