The Sun.
London, England, 1801-02-10 00:00:00

LAW RE,poßr.

COURT OF.kiNG's BENCH, Fit. §.
wipcokiA)A, I$Q. LORD,WY.COMIIII.

MR. GARROW stated- that the ,trial of this
cause hadl been already postponed on account of
the absence of a material witness on behalf of the
Defendant, and which witness then resided in
Paris—He was under the necessity Of moving
that it be further delayed on the sable reason, for
they had riot been able, hitherto, to get at that
witness, although they .were not deficient in dili-
gence ; considerable difficulties arose on the ac.
count of some' passports which were necessary to
be obtained in this case:

The Court granted a Rule to shew cause why►
the Trial should not stand over till the Sittings
after the next Terms

.•
TtlR KING 'iv. SUtIOESi
This was a Case on the return to an Habeas
Corpus, which was, " Thai at the time of his
trial, the person above-natneci, John
was a Gunner of An Artidery Corps stationed
at Gibraltar, , and Law
. subjea to the Military
of that G:lrrison—That he was tried by
Court Martial, duly authorised, 'and held thereunder an AA of Parliament ; and "that he was
there sentenced by that Court as follows :—Thaf
the eiS-arge baying been heard. ;i.o-d the evidence
for the 'prosecution, together with what the Pri.
soner brought forward for his defence, and the
guilt of the said. fully
,proVed;
that he did receive several pieces of. broad-cloths
he knowing them-to have'been stolen, and there;
fore the said Court Mettial did order that hen i
minsported beyond the seas tor fourteen Years, to
such place as Piss Majesty by the aviee of his
Privy Council should, be pleased' to. declare and
appoint that this Sentence of the Cputt Martial
was approved of by the Governor' of Gibraltar
betbre whom it was laid; and that the Prisoner
was sent over to this Country anddelivered info
the custody. of Sir Wm. Pitt, the Qovernor of,thtt
Garrison of Poriatriouth, and that was the cause
of the detention of the said Suddes."
- Mr. ERSKINE had obtained this Rule to bring
up this man, under the idea that the detention
of him was contrary td Law, and on the ground,
that the Court-Martial had not power to sentence
this man further than * Court of Civil Justice
had in England i and that,..as ft did not appear,"
on the face of the proceedings, that the principal
Felon, namely he who was said to have stolen
the goods, was convicted ; and if that was not
proved, the other. Felon, that is the Accessary
after the fan, which the ReceiVer is, could not
be found guilty qi- this felony, Isrld therefore h:ts
offence, rat most,• could amount only .to a
meanout, and*Tdi which no Civil equrt of Justico
in this Country had power, by the I.* Of' the
Land; to order him to be itaris)itirt,:d
Coult of Justice
.had no such power, a, Court.
Martial could not possess it—for the Court-Mir..
tial had only power to sentence 'persons, for of:
fences " according to the_ nature and degree or
their respective ()Onus," which degree and na. •
ture were described by the Law. the Laati,
and beyond which neither Court-Matiial nor any
other Court could pioceed -in - raj' of the dorm«
nitaii of 'the' King of- these Realnis.
Mr. Aeatrr contended; that the sentence -a
the Court MArtal Was conclui.‘tt in tans Case;
for that they Were not bound' to
'pasS extretly•thi
same sentence on this Prisoner asa-COtirt of-LaW.
would do in this Conntry.
Secondly,- If they were so bound, diet/ Lord;
ships were now bound to presume, • that the trial.
of this man was proper, and the sentence she., tin,
less something appeared to the contrary.
Thirdly, admitting this sentence to be correak
which they were bound to dOunless something to
the contrary appeared, their Lordships would not
repeal or reverse that sentence, because the Court
of King's Bench was not a. Court of Error to
corred the proceedings of a Courr Martial.—
This Prisoner was now in military custody Under
the sentence .of a Court of Competent Jurisdie.
tion, and therefore must so remain until the
King's pleasure should otherwise dispose of that
person.
Lord KEN YON delivered a very ablejuclgrnent,
in the course of which he, obseri+ed, that the
rules of .Law as well as substantial Justice had
been observed in this case, for the punishment,
was exaaly that which the Law would have
direCleda Civil Magistrate to pronounce on this
person, if tried and eonvided in this Country.—
His Lordship quoted the opinion ,of Lord HALE
upon the subjel, the practice of giving way to
points of technical distindion which went by the
merits .of a case, and by which some ofhthe most
atrocious Offenders escaped the'punishmeni which
was clue to their crimes.

As far as Courts-Martial proceeded in the ab..
sence of such minute and Senselesi distin6tions,.
They were right ; for he owned, that stating, an
offence, for instance, by way of Tr;.ire, as it was
called, to be in the Parish of St.' Mary-la-Bow,
in the Ward of Cheap, when the offence was
committed in the East Indies, he owned, be said,
this sort of. pradice was a.disgra,o4,the Law of
this Country.. However, it - was, perhaps, a
,praaice too inveterate to be altered. Not that he
wished to say any thing against the general Laws
of- this Country, they were, in general, cer.,
tainly the best in the world. His-Lordship was,.
hoWever, quite clear, that this Convielion and
Sentence ,were'. right, and such is an .English
Court of Justice would have. Plsseti,r-tthat the '
whole. Case was perfealy, red tiar, and that,
therefore, the Prisoner ought tithe remanded—he
said this very much at his eae :because he rellea.
ed, that every other
-Court in ,Westminster Hall,
was open to another application for this Writ, in
the event of the Party being dissatisfied with the
determination of Allis Court.
The other judges
.conciped, and-therefore the
Prisoner was ordered to be.. rernanded.,...lt was
afterwards ,said, that the principal who stole these
goods, was convided and hanged fi r it.

Mr. Gzsas moved for leave to file a Crimin'at
infor.mation'against a Mr. Wm., Hutchins, of