The Sun.
London, England, 1839-02-13 00:00:00

AND OTHERS.

The Loan CHANCILLOR gave judgment to-day in this case, the
arguments in which were concluded yeskrday. Our readers will
recollect the matter came before the Court upon motion to
discharge an order of his Honour the Vice-Chancellor, direct-
ing the committal of the defendant Pratt to the Fleet for a
breach of the injunction of the Court. His Lordship in giv-
ing judgment, said that he had again read through all the
affidavits, and paid that attention to them which it was absolutely
the duty of the Court to do, particularly in a case where the liberty
of the subject was affected. His Lordship agreed with the observa-
tions of the Counsel for Mr. Pratt, that no'attention ought to be paid
to any statement of declarations of Mr.' Pratt which took place
previous to the injunction being granted, except for the purpose of
seeing the situation in which he stood with reference to St. John's
College and the poor people of Bagley Wood. There could be no
doubt that Mr. Pratt had taken a very active part in asserting what
was represented to be the rights of the poor people of Bagley Wood,
for he had not only asserted those rights, but had assumed a sort of
lead in carrying on the contest with the College. That being the
case, the question was whether Mr. Pratt having beeen served with
the objection on the Bth of September had or l'ad not, on the
14th of December done that which amounted to a breach of it ?

The injuetion prohibited him from cutting down, destroying, or
carrying away any trees, saplings, or underwood, then growing in
Bagley Wood, and there could be no doubt that the wood carried
away on the 14th December was wood standing and growing in
Bagley Wood at the time the injunction was served upon Pratt, and
the question was, whether he aided and assisted in carrying it
away. It was true, that he did not manually or corporeally act in
carrying away the wood; he did not drive the cart, or put the wood
into it; it was not necessary that he should do so to come within
the scope of the injunction, it was quite sufficient if he was present
aiding and abetting. That he was present there could be no doubt,
Pratt admitted it himself, but he said he was there for another pur-
pose. Now, the facts totally denied that statement, for it appeared
that Pratt, having been informed that the workmen employed by the
College were about to remove wood that had been cut, he was found
going to the wood, and was present at the committal of the act,
which the Court, by granting its injunction, had declared to be un-
lawful, He distributed beer among the people, who were resisting
the College; and it was proved, from the evidence, that he stated
to them, "Don't. interfere with the College.men, if they don't in-
terfere with you." What was the inference to be drawn from that?
Was it not clear that he meant to say, " If they do interfere with
you, you must interfere with them." That was assuming a super-
intendence—it was taking upon himself to direct. He must have
known, and the other party must also have known, that he
was acting as their leader • that he was so, was clearly moved
by what he had further stated, because he had observed to
the assembled multitude—" If you make a disturbance, I will
leave you." That was equivalent to saying—" lam your su-
perintendent, you are under my control, and if you make a
disturbance, I will leave you." He was, therefore, leading and as-
suming a control over them, and it would be a mockery of justice,
if a party who had placed himself in the situation of Mr. Pratt, was
allowed to countervail the orders of the Court by saying that he was
not there for the purpose of inducing a breach of the injunction : It

was the duty of the Court to vindicaie its own own orders, and if
Mr. Pratt, as he had stated, was ignorant that he was violating the
orders of the Court, he must take the consequences of the law. But
what was the answer to all this ? why, Mr- Pratt stated that he was
there for the purpose of preserving the peace; if he was
so, he was doing that which every good subject ought to do,
but unfortunately for Mr. Pratt, the evidence of the case
proved the contrary; every allowance, from what Mr. Pratt had
stated, it was clear that he was present, not for the purpose of pre-
serving the peace, but to prevent the wood being carried away by
the servants of the College. If his object had been the preservation
of the public peace Mr. Pratt would have persuaded the persons,
who, there could be no doubt, were under his control, not to go on,
but so far from that,he encouraged them to proceed. His Lordship con-
sidered that he should be abandoning all the principles of criminal
and civil law ifhe did not hold that a person who had acted as Mr. Pratt
had done, was liable for the consequences of what had taken place.
He was satisfied that it was his imperative duty in the present case
to vindicate the orders of the Court, and such being his opinion, the
judgment of the Vice-Chancellor, directing the committal of Mr.
Pratt must be affirmed with costs.

Tna NEW MASTER.—It was generally believed in the Courts of
Equity to-day Mr. Duckworth, the Member for Leicester, will be
the new Master in the room of Master Cross, resigned. Should
such be the case, there must be a fresh election for Leicester.