The Sun.
London, England, 1849-04-30 00:00:00

QUEEN'S BENCH.—(THIS DAY.)
(Sittings in Banco.—Before Mr. Justice PATTESON, Mr

SUstice COLERIDGE, and Mr. Justice ERLE.

TIM LAW OF TILE ISLE OF MAN.-IN RE CRAWFORD.

In this case a writ of habas corpus had been issued
by the Court, calling upon the gaoler of Castle
Ruahin, in the Isle of Man, to produce before
the Court the body of John Crawtord, who had
been committed to prison by the authority of the
Judge of the Court of Chancery in the Isle of Man for
contempt of that Court, by writing and publishing an
Article in a newspaper published in the island, the Mona
.I;erald, tending to scandalise and bring the said Court
into contempt. The Court had at first committed Mr.
Fatt.er, the responsible editor of the paper, when Mr.
Crawford rose and avowed himself to be the writer
of the article. The Court then committed both
Mr. Crawford and Mr. Father, the latter on
presenting a petition and apologi.ing to the Court,
was, after sixteen days' confinement, set at liberty; but
Mr. Crawford, who refused to apologise, still continued
in custody. The judge of the Court of Chancery was
the Hon. Charles Hope, the Lieutenant-Governor of the
island.
Mr. PEAcocx had moved for a rule to quash the writ
of Habeas Corpus on two grounds :—first, that the writ
'would not run into the Isle of Man; and, secondly, be-
the affidavits on which the writ had been moved
'bowed that he bad been lawfully committed, and that
this Court would, therefore, only remand him after he
was brought before it.
Mr. ARCHBOLD, in support of the writ, contended
skit it could extend to all parts of her Majesty's domi-
nions, as it was a prerogative writ, and also that a man
could not be imprisoned for an indefinite time for con-
tempt of court, but that a sentence of imprisonment
must be passed on him for a certain period of time, or
that he trust be fined; for an indefinite imprisonment
was contrary not only to the common law, but to the
law of the Isle of Man. Neither could the Court com-
mit a person for contempt for anything that was out of
that Court.
Mr. Justice PATTESON said that as at present advised,
he was inclined to think that the writ of habeas corpus
would run into the Isle of Man since the passing of the
s,:h George 111. Before the passing of that Act
it was said that the Ile of Man was not part of
the dominions of the Crown of England, but was
held as a feudatory of England. It was granted to
the Eari of Derby by James the First. The kings
of England appear to have been superior Lords. Then
comes the sth George 111., and that transferred the Isle
of Man to the then King of England, his heirs and suc-
cessors. The right of the Crown was made inalienable.
It is now to be taken as a part of the King's dominion,
and as such where a writ of habeas corpus would run.
The first objection made is, that this is not a commit-
ment of the Court of Chancery of the Isle of Man. In
the first place, looking at the affidavits altogether,
it might be collected that the writ was an act of
the Court of Chancery of the Isle of Man. His
Lordship was therefore of opinion that the rule
Ahould be made absolute to quash the writ of habeas
corpus.

,Mr. Justice ERLE was of the same opinion, and Mr.
Justice PATTESON announced that his brother Coleridge
was of the same opinion.
THE QUEEN V. CHARME AND OTHERS.'
The defendant and others were recently found guilty
e selling a cadetship. This was a motion for a new
OW or arrest of judgment.
Tile reading of the documents occupied the Court till
its rising. The further hearing of the case was then
adjourned until Thursday.

BAIL COURT.-(THIS DAY
(Before Mr. Justice COLERIDGE.)
THE QUEEN v. _ PARISH OF BASING.

Mr. BnamWELL applied to the Court for a rule, under
the following circumstances:—An order of removal was
made from the parish of Basing, in the county of South-
ampton, to the parish of Basingstoke. Against that
order there was an appeal, and upon that appeal the
order was confirmed, whereupon the Counsel for the
appellant applied for a rule, which was peremptorily
refused. Two or three subsequent applications were
'Bade with no better result, but the Court would be sur-
prised to learn that since theta a certiorari had been
granted, a certiorari issued, and a return made to it, to
the efi'ect that the order of removal had been confirmed,
subject to a case which WAS mutual, and the present ap-
plication was for a rule to show cuuse why the return
should not be quashed.—Rule nisi.

COMMON PLEAS.-(THIS DAY.)
(tSittings in Banco, before Justices COLTMAN, MACLE, and
WILLIAMS.)
COOPER T. PENNEFATHER.
Mr. BARSTOW, on the part of the defendant, applied in sup-
port of an issue on what is called in law a mil tiel record,
and submitted that the plaintiff had failed on the issue.
Mr. JONES, on the part of the plaintiff, opposed the ap-
pZicatien. The action was for debt on a judgment which
sha:yed the recovery of ::0/. for damages and 6.. for costs;
whereas the declaration claimed 26/. for damages for the de-
tention of the debt. That, he contended, was a blunder—a
clerical error. It described the judgment inaccurately; and
he asked fur leave to amend the declaration by rendering it
conformable to the record.

Mr. Justice Ilaumt thought the plaintiff was not entitled
to judgment.
Mr. BARSTOW applied for judgment for the defendant.
Justices Coltman and Williams taking the same view of
the case as Mr. Justice Maule, judgment was given for the
defewhint.

TATTERSALL'S—:THIS EVENING
CIX o'CLocx.

CHESTER CUP.
6 in I agst Joe o' Sot
10 to 1 agst Cossack
10 to 1 agst Halo
10 to 1 agst Blucher
12 to I agst Executor
25 to 1 agst Cast-off
100 to 6 agst Chanticleer

DERBY.
16 to 1 agst The Eluut
16 to 1 agst Vatican
30 to 1 agst Chatterer
50 to 1 agst Langton—taken

CHURCH LESSEES.—(THIS DAY.)
A public meeting of Church lessees and others in-
terested in Church property was held at the Bridge-
house Hotel, London-bridle, this afternoon, to take
such steps as might be considered necessary to represent
the nature of their interests to the Royal Commission
now sitting, which has been appointed to consider the
tenure of Church property. William Potts, E:q., pre-
sided.
Mr. PAYSTER, who was a large lessee under the see
of Winchester, proposed the first resolution, to the
effect tLat a Royal Commission having been issued to
ascertain whether the present mole of dealing with
church leasehold property might not be improved for
the benefit of the Church, it was most important to the
lessees and sublessees, that in any measure affecting
the property in question their interests should
be fully considered. lie said they had no desire to in-
jure the interests of the Church, but simply to obtain
justice for themselves; and he believed that, unles., they
came forward and stated their claims to the Commission,
the same gross injustice would be done to them as had
been done to those whose property had been brought under
the control of the Ecclesiastical Commission. The
tenure of property in the see of Winchester was
for threw lives, and when one life dropped, the Bishop
demanded a certain fine, which was calculated ac-
cording to established rules, for putting in a new
life. That tenure had existed ever since the time
of Queen Elizabeth, and under it large sums of money
had been expended by lessees and sub lessees
in erecting buildings and in otherwise improving the
property which they held under the Church, and it
would be nothing but robbery and spoliation to refuse
granting renewals of lives if some compensation was
given to them. In the see of Winchester alone hun-
dreds of thousands of pounds had been spent in improve-
meets within the last fifty years.
The resolution was seconded and carried unanimously.
Mr. CHARLES PUTT, proposed—That the tenure of the
Church leaseholds, under the sees of Winchester and
Rochester, was of an ancient and peculiar nature, and
had prevailed in its present form for centuries,
upon the faith of which a very large amount
of capital had been expended by lessees and sub-lessees
in improving the property, and in full confidence of the
permanency of which the leases under those sees had
teen purchased, settled, and mortgaged upon proportion
able valuable considerations down to the present hour.
The resolution was seconded by Mr. ROBERTS, and
also carried unanimously.
Other resolutions were then proposed, and a com-
mittee appointed to watch over the interests of the
lesser' and sub-lessees, and to lay such information and
representations before the Commission as might lead to
a settlement of their just and equitable claims.
A vote of thanks was then passed to the Chairman,
and the meeting separated.