The Sun.
London, England, 1838-11-24 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, Nor. 23.
THE QUEEN V. THE REV. MR. DOBSON, CURRIE, AND
OTHERS.
Mr. V. LEE stated that he appeared on behalf of a per-
son named King, to mere for a rule to show cause why a
criminal information should not be filed against 'four Magis-
trates of the county of Berks. The first affidavit on which
the application was founded was that of William King,
who was a labouring man, and was possessed of a cottage,
adjoining a wood called Bagley Common Wood ; that part
of this common was inclosed, and belonged to St. John's
College, Oxford ; that another part of it was uninclosed,
and that he and other cottagers claimed the right of cut-
ting fern and underwood on the uninclosed parts. This
right they had claimed for many years past. That this
right was now in dispute in various proceedings in the
Courts of common law and equity. The deponent, in as-
sertion of his right, bad cut a piece of whitehorn and
maple in this wood in the early part of November, and
'the sth of November he was served with a sum-
mons to attend before the Magistrates. He did at-
tend, and an information was exhibited against him,
and three witnesses were examined in support of
the information. These witnesses stated that there had
been claims, as of right, to cut underwood on the
commonable part of Bagley Common Wood. A clerk
of Mr. Frampton, a respectable solicitor, also attended
before the Magistrates, and said that this was a case in
which the act was done with the view of trying a right, and
that the party was willing to enter into any terms for the
purpose of asserting that right in a Court of law. The
Magistrates, however, took no notice of his statement,
and called on the information in the usual way. After it
bad been heard the attorney for the applicant submitted
to the Magistrates that they had no jurisdiction ; they
would not listen to the objection, but proceeded to adjudi-
cate. That the case itself was heard before three Magis-
trates, but that towards the concluding part of the hear-
ing a fourth came in and asked what that was, and on
being told, was heard to say, " Oh, give him his full
time ;" that the Magistrates on that directed the ap-
plicant to pay a fine of 6d., that being the value
put upon the thorn which he had cut, though it was stated
on his part to be worth much less. That Mr. Currie, the
Magistrate, then addressed the applicant, and said,
" You are convicted of this offence, and unless the 6d. is
paid, and one guinea for costs, you will be committed to
prison for two months." That that was the whole period
which the Malicious Trespass Act allowed in a conviction
of this kind. The affidavit went on to state that after the
applicant and his attorney had left the room, the Magis-
trates added that he was to be kept to hard labour during
the time of the imprisonment : that the applicant was im-
mediately taken into custody, and committed to prison in
default of payment. That while he was so committed to
prison an application was made by his professional adviser to
the Magistrates for leave to see him, but that such applica-
tion was refused until the sum of 11. ls. 6d. was paid. The
affidavit of King was corroborated by the affidavit of wit-
nesses. The information was laid under the 7th and Bth
Geo. 111., c. 30, s. 24. By the 20th sec. it was provided
that if any one should maliciously cut or destroy the whole or
any part of saplings, shrubs, or underwood, the injury done
amounting to Is., every such offender should pay a fine not
exceeding 51., as the Justices before whom he should be con-
victed should think fit. The 24th section provided that,
if any person should wilfully or maliciously commit any in-
jury to, or spoil any property whatsoever, either of private
or public bodies, for which no remedy was provided, every
person, being convicted, should pay such money as should
appear reasonable for the damage done. There was a fur-
ther provision with respect to public property, that the Ma-
gistrates shculd have the power to cite the offender before
them, and to adjudge him to certain penalties, and might
commit him to the House of Correction or other common
gaol for any period not exceeding two calendar months, un-
less such sum and costs were paid. It was, however, pro-
vided that that sum should not extend to any case where
the party charged with the offence claimed to act on the
assertion of a right. The Learned Counsel therefore sub-
mitted that the Magistrates had no jurisdiction in this
ease ; first, because the Act required for that purpose that
the injury done should amount to one shilling, whereas
here it was only sixpence ; and, secondly, because the act
was done in this instance in the assertion of a right.
Lord DENMAN asked whether the affidavits distinctly
stated what had been done by each of the Magistrates ?
Mr. LEE answered that the first-named defendant was
perfectly aware of the facts attending these disputed claims,
but Mr. Currie was a gentleman of Edinburgh, a member
of the University, on whose grounds the alleged trespass
was committed ; and the affidavit specially described the
conduct of those, as well as of the other Magistrates, who
bad taken part in the proceedings.—Rule granted.

BAIL COURT, Nov 23.
THE QUEEN V. DODSON.

Mr. V. LEE, on a former day, applied to the Court for
a rule calling upon certain Magistrates of Berkshire to
show cause why a criminal inform ition should not be filed
against them, for illegally committing a person named King
to gaol for cutting timber in Bagley Wood, on which occa-
sion his Lordship desired he would make the application to
the full Court. Mr. Lee now applied to his Lordship for
a rule to show cause why the coniiction should not be
quashed, on the ground that the defendant having acted
as he did in the assertion of a supposed right, the Magis-
trates had no power to commit him.
Mr. Justice LITTLEDALE granted a rule to show cause.