The Sun.
London, England, 1807-12-01 00:00:00

when he appeared ~neither the tlaititifr,
Thomas Ark, nor nny:igher person, opposed his
clischargp,lyet hejtaf,ternanded.
The, court inquit;ed for what rause he, w.rs irn-
prisou,ed, and upon being told that he Watii I execu-
tion for damages , for an aCtion of 01.„u1,:jr, the %%tit
.was relused.7—Tertn ended.

•
SERtEANTs'INN ItAtt. Nov. jp. '
HI, KING
This day the objeEftaiS taken by' the Defendant's'
!Counsel to' his convittiOn for embezzling.his effeEts;
the ' being &lily declared tt4lenkrupt, were argued by
IM 'llOr.eorii, Wore L'oftEctexilottc:tlon (Chief
I,litstice), the Chief the CI rts of Cotii7
ithin Pleas and •EiChe4iierl.atitt the rest of the
.Inci;es, Sir Git.tS BoOi 'E'd4c4fed. holicht abs(ilf
throegh indisposition, The Learned; Counsel Said,
his objections Were feturiennmber, and contended
geliAlifty; that -,the infliCtMent -must be
.sieashed,
sontOf the material atlegatThit'r not tiirefeg Made Out:
itfevid6ince. MrSt,'-it was alledged, "'that a Cottii
mi§sion nnder the Great Seal of the United Empi(e,.
etas" tlttly awarded ligaitist''James Bullock." The:
piendigtitin 'of the insfrUinetft hoWever,.pro‘ ed
!it to have' been issuecl tinderAte'..Qrearqeal of Great
. The. allegfitiott,',he•lSitl, being a material
one; the variation 'wa'S 'falai. *Neither . cbuieithe
ComrnisSion itself be' supported, 'as the Great Seal
‘e:e; impreperl degeribekif IS•Ling, -since the ifnion
‘('t h fieland, the; Great'Silit'ofttle, Vnited tnpire,
no %Os- a parrt bf
that. Etitpire second obje6tion was, (v that it
proved at the trial t hat the Petitiohing‘Creditor'4
dAit arose after' an r:.e(::t of. Lianitruptcy had •beenconi"-
Mitted;' and
_Lords "l'albet and Hardwiche, and
Other itidges', had laid it doWit law, thet no per-
den was authorised to sue' out a Cominission of
unless' he could be relieved. iinder' it
it ‘vaS therefore that the debt must arise prior
to the Commission, and that not being the case With
the ' Commission- nutter enquiry, the Defendant
could not 'be said to have -bee,ddeclared a, Bankrupt
iii 'One form. third•etijedien was, 4‘lb:it the
Pifelehint had been' deaintd.tt Bankrupt "by, the
•C(3linnisioner4 upon this'evidenee of an ioconipetent
Withe,3," indiametit. itliedged, that the
ladant was in due firm end manner, and:upon
good'proef, detlared a Bankrtipt ; nuw upon the
trial it appeared, that the 'Witness who gave evi-
dence, befoie 'the Conunislsioners of the' att of, brink'
ruptcy on 'Which the.Counnission isStied, was a Cre-
ditor of ihe Defendant's', consequenitly intereAed in
the matter he? was •deposing to,' 0110 hrthe. law of
the land- wits an incoftVetent Witness.' :'By' the 5111
a 'Geo. 11. C 30. the eVidence of an interested iWit-
ness could not be receitied its a' Court of Justice; it
was the same, hevauld-contend, before the Com-
missioners cif Bankrepts;and' the evidence a 'hided to
having -been' 'reeeived, attd a. CoMmisSien issued
thereon, the Defendant had :not been declared
upon good- prOlf. His fourth and last
objeetien was, " that the'Cottituission was not duly
stamped,"'in*inuchr.as it had only an e4liteen-pehny
stamp, .tviietiqn point of' legal propriety it should
have been a hiailip:" • 'He knew it might be said
that the Connuissi,citirecipired no stamrat).lll,.that
aright, be. true, but iitrtheplirties,whh had concluded
the Presecution, t hough t 'preper tb atiji stamp,
they. ‘c ere bound to attikisbeh-stamp Alk-Lekis-
lature had pointed butes,' proper for Instruments in
theinature of Letters 'Patdnt passing the Great
Seal. I.:he.Courisel concluded, by apologizing for
the titn6 be had consumed, and hoped' the great
anxiety the Unfertuitate liven his represented felt to
hav'e' hiS•case fullethtted.lo 11)4 Lordships, would
tarnish his excuse.,
bIIRNiY, on thepart or.the:Croven,;addiess-
ed' their' Lordships n support of the indittment,
and contended generally that:the Learns& Counsel`,
Mr. tioLeovn, had apt sustained his. objet. ions.
Wish
to thetrht,-"' that the Great Seal was
in ,rudierly diseribed,"llie Sthinte th of QUeeti
Ann, wind) had been mainly -relied upon, did not
warrant the assertiom—Mr..HoutoYD, he said, had
insisted that since the Union with Ireland, the Great-
-Seal., was no longer the:Great Seal
.of Great, Britain,
'but-of the United 'Empire : yet in tee subseqtient
stattites, the. Great Seal had been described as. the
-Great, Seal of Great Britain ; nay, the last Commi-
ssion-signed, authorising certain iNoble Personages to
exercise the office, of Lord High Admiral, was de-
scribed as'being issued under the Gieat Seal of Great
Britain. In point of lad, it would, have, beenje,t4..
dent to have .alledged, that a, commission, under
the Great AS'eal„ was del), awarded against the De-
fendant, and anyi thing further was, unnecessary.. At
all events,, the variance could not vitiate. the indict-
ment. As to its being proved on the trial, that the
Petitioning Creditor's debt arose subseqeent to an
ael'of bankruptcy committed, which was the second
ebjedion, if that was to prevail; theliaekrupt Laws
. would beCome a dead letter, as no Commission could
in thture be sustained. It •is true, that prt?of of a
prior docket having been struck was given in evi-
dence, but it was not, followed up by the proof of
any existing Petitioning Creditor's Debt; and in
point oflfaip the transaatoti was most glaringly frau-
dulent.. That objeCtiqd, therefore, must fall to the
ground. "With respect to the third objeCtion, name-
the inadmissibility of the witness who prayed the
ad of bankruptcy. before the Commissioners,
• should reply, " that it was only averred, _that thee'
Commission issued upon good proof, and it was net
material, to them upon what grounds the
Cgrnmis-
sioners had'-,.formed their judgment, provided they
;were duly authorised 'hut the prosecution did not
rest upon-the act of-the commissioners, as they had
'Most satisfaCtorily proved the net of bankruptcy on
ithe trial; and.the result was, that though they
,'alledgedAhe 'Cemmissieners to have duly found.
.the
Defendant a Bankrupt; they, upbulhe bad
'.dots proved him to have .been, respect
tothe fourth and kist.objthion, that the Cemmission ,
was'not duly stamped, lie should re)iy sr one sen 7..
tenets, Unit it require d
,lii,,e;stiltup at all', and without
lookingtack for a century„.llP would refer their.
Lordsbips,:to the 44th of the *resent:King,, 0, 04,
whiehe, rein ala all s mops:- 'Whattore imion eovutuis-'
siousTol,l3ankrupts: liorthese.reasons lie wottl.dAbt.
snit,that:the objeffians.,were nOt'sustained, and tlialf
the tdificpent; N!qseever good in %Lama.
'the decision and...opinion of the Judges will tie
:made ktowliettiefirsti,daY OF' -the,Olil sei-
,Siolls (t9.liiol.llAiefiailVticaurt. was crowded in,,,the
'extretue..'

'COU4T '()F. Cyii4.4"olZ.
• EY v. I?l,,svoNTitilig.

This was :in aeliott.for 00 gUiThias," as the ()rice
of-. a horse, alledgedto have,, been sold under,the fol-
Pnwing vircumstatE:e :---The Plaintiff left the horse
at fitlit..3 Livery Stables : the Defendant called on
Hull, on Stinday.i he I eth of April, and asked leave
•to try. the horse for an hour, which was permitted.
thetntisked' HUH, if he Might take hirn 'io Ma-
ijor 'Mackenzie, -of Tower-hill, who waited such
fa horse. _•,fittil,'perinitted him to do so, with. this
i „,
'positive njunction---“ must either bring me
the horse,.or 1001. by two. o'clock at farthest," The
horse was; taken upon ;these terms, and not returned.
till eight, !,Hull hen.:refesed to,take hint,, and con 7.
sidered the horse as sold.. The case at•the trial was
home out entirely by the positive testimony vf,Hell
and the Jury believing that evidence,found a Nerdit*.
fur the Plaintiff.
Mr. Serjeatit SEMPAIERD. had obtained a eon:-
chtioual Itide to ,set .aside • this verdict Oa two
!goods That.- the !evidence of 11 oil was
most. improbable in itself, and (L; i. oet_s-uppert the
declaration as to the sale and ,2dlv, that if there
was a sale, such sale would be void. by Ole statute of
Charles 11. •
Mr. Serjeant. Best SlleWeacsuse against this
As to the credit of [lull, that was a question for the
Jury, and if they believed bisfPvitict)(;e, 1 here was no.
doubt. thatthere was a sale, The second objetion he
conceived to more. inipprtantl: but agitinst that
jeelion Ice
,must 'c )attend, that n:it her the common
last'; rgnitit)l stOtute,' so Mille all sales made on a
Suntlay.,, - This At of Charles li, cmikagtl,.‘‘ That.
ttadesmen, nrtifieers !Jabonrers, or other pe:..sons,
shotdd not ,exercise their ordinary
.avocat iotis,on the.
Lord's Day ; hnd,that tie , person should
cry, chew forth, O'r.. expose to. sale, ;Tapy *args, or,
wrchandize on Sunday, under the; penalty. of .tor,
leitipg. the , The 'statute La conVeiyett ‘O
apply merely to the publia exercise of trades,
Hot to private sales. There was.a cake in t'st Strange,
702, where a perison,had been indided fer.
meat Suliilay,,atidit was rifled tiOi to be an of-
fence indidable at common law. The,ecelesiasti=.
cal ,law„, indeed, required that 'eVerypersou should
Iftend divihe .service on a Sunday, and 'it WaS
Otinsextuently exPeaed tint they were to iiehavti
With deeency and deCoeum at church, and it would
evidently be a great breach of decency to make con-
tra,7ts about buyJng horSes when in church, and
when one's mind,ought to be dire6ted to other tub-
Jewish JAW indeed ntade void all con-
traEts 'entered into on the cpHy' pl. their Sabbath, but
the Jews obscene& their Sabbath with u rigour that
had not been adopted in this col tntry. 'Whether or
not the Plaintiff had been guilty of any Offence
o;;;iinst the 'ecclesi;lstical law, in selEng the horse on
it Sunday, still that would not 'annol tlic contract.'
Sir JAMES AIANSFI.ELI).—" Certainly, according
to tho ecclesiastical VieW of it, 'a Man's mind could
not he supposed to be: abstra(stf.d from worldly at
fairs, and 'propel ly
.engaged 'in ion?' when
ilie
W:l4 thMking about .sullin;; horse for tod
guineas. The old cases in Ciook, Eliz. declaring
that, anionsmight be illegal, and yet nut void,
would not be Considered as law at present, a 3 every
day's experience proved, in the case. `W.' sales of
struggled goods." •
Mr, Serjeant Baser said, he meant to contend that
every thing was 'lawful which was Mit prohibited
expressly by some law. The Act of Charles 11.
could not he meant generally to embrace all pro
; Ihr. the Lord Chancellor may n.)kv excr-
ijsethe important duty of putting the ;x:it Sal to
„it Patent on a Senday, and he did bet conceive that
the confirming a new. title conlil be' said to bean
ai:t Of moot) greater necessity than selling a horse:.
There was an Act passed in the reign of James I, to •
preVent shoemakers from exposing 'their goods to
sale on a Sunday, and imposing -severe penalties bn
them for so doing. ~,This Aet,.Lowever, as
the Act to prevent drovers front driving their cattle:
on that day, slimed that' it was not an offente at
common law, or otherwise there would have 'beeti
no occasion: for the Statute. Formerly fairs of cat-
tle used to be held on a Sunday. lhe Learned SO-
jeant then argued at considerable length, that what
thosu:Statntes meant to prevent, Was the indecorum
of the public exercise of trades on a Sundajr, and
the 'disturbance that it might occasion to those who
wisneil (Nisi theied;ly for those purposes to Which
it is peculiarly set apart ; but that it private 'sale did
not Coin within then. inc!lning, and that the goods
so sold could not be' said to tie expo,en to sale, as
Mentioned in the Stattite.,
Mr. Serjeant SgEPHERD said, that. that part
of the Jewiati Law which was contained in
the Ten Commandments was completely adopted
in the Christian Oode, and that Ow Fourth
Commandment vv.ot4lti always be considered obli-
gatory in every .;;liripiatt country. His Learn-
; ed Friend Jilid appeared to .censider; that, until
the pas Sing of those statutes, no: other offence
existed. The words of the granite , were, how-
ever, different, for it begah.by stating : " Where;is
abominable Offences are committed against Almighty
',.God aud.the Saints;, by;the profanation of the Lord's
Day, 'therefore be it enacied,"'ac. Althaugh' the
Act enatted -additional penalties and • prohibitions,-
yet the. praaices which it meant to suppress were
illegal;before that time. If the law was against ex-
'posmg to sale, and all the other. things which were
to bring about a sale,' they must be against the sale
itself., The Learned Serjeant therreentended, that
Hull, the horse-dealer, was, in the strictest sense of
the word, a tradesman eetereising"his trade upon the-
Lord's Day, and that the 'lerviingthe horse out for
trial, and then .selling hitn, iWal, to, all intents and
purposes, exposing it fbr sale, and direaly within
the meaning ol the Words cif the statuteolCharles IL
{-I)ultltitillele7ethledl'epnocein,C)foHf utlilledieditit.°Jiperoavlse9a°s°aillete.U.,edj:
'Mr. .Serjeant Butt tollinne&on the'Sarne'side.
JAME'S MA Nrsi,ri,ln said, that as 'to the Sale.!of
the horse, it Hull's
.test imony was to bebelieneil (and
the Jury had believed' it), there, &did be no doubt
flue sal
t lei
itb'e was a
oiigvciiscia,lea; Ibtbteillelirdpeoiontt ti
i, aslb.int!
day! 'that was a ne:4 poilit, • acrd the Court .would
Consider of it.

Tlic City Seisioos yesteradY - .before
()rdy thre,e trials took plac-:e,
of them tilfictcialy, ititere.2ang for detail.