The Sun.
London, England, 1854-11-14 00:00:00

LAW INTEL.

'THIS DIY.)

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.
QUEER V. ALISON.
Mr. Huddleston applied to the Court for a writ of
habeas corpus to bring up the body of a gentleman named
Alison, who had bee* committed to Stafford gaol for six
meaths, under the following circumstances. It appeared
that Mr. Alison was a surgeon in extensive practice at
Burton-upon-Trent, aid a short while ago'he was sum-
moned under the 16 and 17 Vic., chap. :0, for the better
prevention of cruelty to women and children, charged
with having ill used his son, a lad of seven years of age.
The magistrate also beard the case, convicted him of he
offence, aid sentenced him to six months' imprisenrnint
with hard labour, and he is now undergoing that
punishment, working in the treadmill of Stafford gaol.
There was, however, a defect in the warrant
of commitment, because it did not specify in distinct
terms that Mr. Alison was convicted before two justices,
sitting at petty sessions held in the place where such
ceurts usually were held, and on that ground the learned
counsel moved for the habeas corpus, with the view of
having him released from prison.
Lord Campbell observed, that though the warrant a
commitment was bad, the conviction might be good,,
and therefore the Court ought not to interfere.
Mr. Huddleston did not know whether the comic►
tion was good or bad, as he had been unable to obtain &
copy, but this was a very hard case. Mr. Alison was a
gentleman in a large way of practice as a surgeon, and
simply because he had corrected his son to cure him of
a filthy habit, he was now suffering a degraded punish-
ment.,
Lord Campbell said if the learned gentleman could
not show that the conviction was informal, the Court
were bound to assume that it was good, and they
could not disturb it on the ground of any defect in the
warrant of commitment.
The application was accordingly refused.
Mr. Huddleston subsequently applied to the Court of
Exchequer for the writ, having in the meanwhile fortified
himself with authorities to show that the Court of
Queen's Bench would not assume that a conviction
was good unless it could he distinctly shown to be
bad. But he contended that although the conviction.
might be good the defendant was entitled to his release,
because the warrant of commitment did not fulfill the
conditions of the Act of Parliament.
The Lord Chief Baron asked if there was no appeal
against the conviction ?
Mr. Huddleston replied that there was none whatever,
The act specifically prohibited an appeal.
' The Court, after a brief consultation, refused to issue
a writ of habeas corpus in the first ilk itance, but granted.
a rule calling upon the committing magistrate to show
cause why one should not issue.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.
QUEEN V. SWABY.

Mr. Watson applied to the Court for a rule calling
upon the Attorney-General to show cause why the right
of Lord Dunasey, in this case, should not be ascertained
by the Itemembrancer of the Court. It will be recol-
lected that the defendant is a large defaulter to the
Crown, he having appropriated to his own use the funds
of the High Court of Admiralty, of which he had bees,
treasurer and accountant-general. A writ of extent was
issued immediately after his default to ascertain the
amount of property he was entitled to, and under that
writ it was ascertained that he was entitled to eight fif-
teenths of a valuable mine in Durham, of which Lord
Dunasey is a co-proprietor. His lordship and the other
partners contend that Mr. Swaby's interest in the mine
has been over-assessed, and hence the necessity for the
present motion.
Application granted.

BOW-STBEET-(THIS DAY.)

THE BETTING HOUSES.

This morning the 114 " sporting characters" were
again placed before Mr. Jardine at this Court, charged
with acting contrary to act of Parliament passed last
session.

Mr. Huddiestone appeared fn• one of the defendants of
the name of Ryan, and Mr. Parry for the others.
Mr Jardine asked under what act the defendants were
charged.
Supenntendent Pierce said the act passed last session.
He was of opinion the whole of the defendants now pre-
sent had rendered themselves liable to penalties laid.
down in that act.

Mr. Huddlestone contended that the act in question
was one passed not to prevent betting, but to suppress
bettindhouses, shops, &c., where it was proved that the
owners or occupiers betted themselves. In this case Mr.
Morbey, at whose house the defendants were arrested,
had not done- so.

Mr. Parry addressed as few observations to the ma-
gistrate of a similar nature.
Mr. Jardine said the superintendent was perfectly
justified in acting as he had done, and the question now
was, having arrested the parties, what was to be done
with them.

The magistrate having heard the opinions advanced
by the learned gentlemen present, decided that the act
did not apply to the individuals present, and ordered
them to be discharged.
Ryan, the person who acted as a sort of check-taker,
was then charged with aiding and abetting in conducting
a common betting-house.
The evidence of Superinteudeot Pierce, Inspector
Mitchell, and Marehant the police constable having been
read or,
ve

Mr. Huddlestone addressed the magistrate at great
length, arguing that the defindant was no more liable
to be convicted under the act than the person. who
acted in a somewhat similar situation at Tattersall';s. He
was clearly of opinion that the defendant did not come
within the meaning of the act.
Mr. Jardine said he thought the constructi.on put
upon the act by Mr. Huddlestone was too lenient. He
thought the defendant was clearly within the meaning of
the act, for there could be no doubt but that he was
aiding and abetting ix the conducting of a betting•house.
He should, therefore fine him 501. for the offend!, and,
in default of payment, order him to be imprisoned for
three months.

FLOATING BATTERIES FOR THR
BALTIC SEA.