The Sun.
London, England, 1825-11-29 00:00:00

THE. XING AND OLDFIELD

Mr. DENMAN moved for a rule, calling on the Marshal of
the Ning's Bench prison to show cause why the defendant
should not be restrained within the walls of that prison. The
defendant was some• time back convicted ofkeeping a common
gambling-house, apt" the sentence of the Court was, that he
should be inipri3Oned, and pay a fine of MOW. It was fur the
payment of the tine that he was in custody. The present .me-

PRICE SEVENPENCE;

tion was founded on an affidavit which stated that the defer=
'dant-had been seen out of the rules of 'the prison, at a sale in
the city. The fact had been comnsttnicated to the Mirshal;
who had given no satisfactory explanation on the subject. -..
The. Coun.T.—Take the rule, and serve it on Oldfield. as
well as the Alarshal.—The Court did not rise until after sever
o'clock.
COURT OF COMNION PLEAS, Nov. 28.
nExxri.r. v. THE BISHOP OF LINCOLN AND OTHEB4.-
This was anction in which the plaintiff, as administratrtfof .
her husband, the late Prebendary of South Grantham, claimed
the right of presentation to the
,Rectory of Welby, on the •
grounds that it had belonged to her husband in virtue of hia
office as prebendary—that the rectory had become vacant in his
life time-,that he liad neglected to fill it up, and hawing died
intestate, that the right descended as a chattel to his adminis-
tratrix; This claim was resisted by the defendants, who con- . ~).:
tended that the presentation was vested in the holder of the
prebend, as such, and that the former prebendary having ne-
glected to fill it up, that right devolved necessarily to, his-suc-
ces.or in the prebendal stall. In this case the question came
for the opinion of this Court, and was argued at' great :length
by Counsel at both sides, on two or three days in laitt and ,t,e
I preceding term.
i[vreTtic:}eal issbe.ennlehoArn: itntigmerejthuwedageseosaudrdetifilip:erroreeendeceedfieloderirtoopwreie:iitio:enner
rjopibesudpgemitotire:sg.'.l,lnis
, dating.

Mr. Justice GASE LEE began. He held the right orpres'et-
tation to be a personalty which vetted in the personal . -
tative of the late prebendary, and therefore he thoug t that
judgment in the cattle should be entered for the plaintiff:
Mr. Justice .11111111OUGH, Mr. Justice PARK, and Lord
Chief Justice BEST, followed in the order in whichtheir names
Are given. Their Lordships all concurred in the trpiiiiiSn, that
the right of presentation to the rectory was purely ecclesiasti-
cal, and vested in tbe.successor to the prebend, and therefore
that the judgment must be entered for the defendants.
In delivering their opinions their Lordships (particularly
Mr. Justice Park) entered into a very lengthened history of the
nature and character of these presentations in the early ages of
the church in this country, from which (they observed) it was
Most clear that the intention of the church in esta hing such
livings was, that the presentation of them should belca All times-
within itself, and not be transferred to lay hands.
In the course 'aids remarks Mr. Justice PARK took occasion
to observe that the office of archbishop was an anomaly. in the
church,. introduced at first in imitation of the authority of the
Papal legates, and afterwards retained in the form of church
government, in consequence of the length of time which it had
existed. _ _

Judgment was ordered to be entered for defendants.
IN THE MATTER OF W. S. CARPENTER, AN ATTORNEY OF

THE COURT.
The hearing of Counsel in this case, which was an applica-
tion to strike 111 r. Carpenter off the rolls of the Court for im-
proper conduct, was fixed for the second day of next term.
SOAMES Loan COCHRA'Nt-
Mr. Sergeant WrLDE had obtained a rule on behalf of the'
defendant to plead several matters. The action was for seizing
a vessel, and the defendant wished to plead—first, the general
issue ; and secondly, a justification. as Commander in Chief of
the Chile fieet.—The rule was made absolute, no cause being
shown.—This was the last day of term.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER, Nov. 28.,_
The Court was occupied with motions relative to points of
practice the whole of the day. 'Nothing of interest consequently
appeared.
HIGH COURT OF ADMIRALTY, Nov. 23.

No business was transacted to-day, except one or two mo-
tions of course, and'one or two proceedings in common form.
No causes were called on for hearing.
Lord STOWELL again took occasion to regret the apparent
determination of parties to protract the hearing of cases to the
latest possible period. He could not understand the reason of
this delay. For his own part, he would have been very willing,
had the interposition of other business prevented him front
sitting regularly during the term, arid from affording sufficient
time to the discharge of his duties in that chair, to appoint sit-
tings after the conclusioft of the term for the dispatch of such
public
business. As, however, this was by no means the case.
and he had sat every Court-day in the expectation of causes
coming on, he certainly would not sanction this sort of delay by
sitting any one day after term, tor the adjudication of matters
that ought to have been brought under his notice during its con-
tinuance. _ .

(It may be remembered, that on a former Court-day, his
Lordship dropped a similar intimation of the resolution he had
come to in this respect, and of his surprise at the late period to
causes were put °Why some. parties.)

SECONDARIES' OFFICE, Nov. 28.

JONES AND HOWARD L. THE SHERIFFS OF LONDON.

Mr. COMYN, for the plaintiff in this case, which was tried
before Mr. Shelton, the Coroner, stated, that it was an action
brought for the recovery of a sum of money, which his clients
had lost in consequence of the improper conduct of a Sheriffs
officer. named Turney. A writ had been issued by them
against a Mr. Rimner, and placed in the hands of Turney, who
was the real defendant in this case, to be executed. Turnev
arrested Rimner, but instead of locking him up, or getting a
bail-bond, he permitted him to go at large, and thus made the
Sheriff's responsible for the whole amount of the debt. It was
well known that iu cases of this description the Sheriff's officers
uniformly took care to indemnify themselves for any expence
that might be incurred, and no doubt Turney and Rimner had
an understanding to that effect. Whatever was the arrange-
ment, it was certain that the plaintiff's had not been paid the
amount they now sought to. recover. The Learned Counsel
cautioned the Jury against the ingenuity of Mr. Colkingridge,
who, although constantly in the habit of sitting as a judge in
that Court, was now an advocate for the defendant; and, no
doubt, was possessed of advantages by that circumstance which
no other person could hope to attain.
A person, who had been clerk to the plaintiff, deposed to the
fact of the writ having been put into the hands of Turney. He
stated, that Turney admitted that he had let the prisoner go:.
and said that he (Turney) must pay the whole of the debt ; that
Mr. Potter (attorney to the Sheriffs of London), said he was at-
torney to Turney; and that the debt and costs should be paid ;
and that time had been given toTurney to pay the amount,
which he failed. to do, t tn. Part of the debt anti costs, how-
ever, had been paid by hurt, and credit was of course given for
that amount.

Another witness deposednearly to the same effect.

Mr. CuLIANGIUDGE said he had undertaken this cause id
order to save the poor Sheriff's Officer, who seas the real de-
fendant in. this case, expellee which he was not able to hear. If
the Jury gave a verdict. for more than mere nominal damages,
Turney would be; in all probability, ruined. He (Mr:
Collingridge), was able to show that no more than hominid
damages ought to be given in this case. The fact was, that. 41r.
Rimner, against whom the writ had been issued, was coon
after his arrest put into prison upon another action ; and his.
pecuniary difficulties were so great, that he found it netessiiry
to resort to the Insolvent Court. Now, hail the.writ, to which
allusion was made, been executed according to the usual mode,
not one farthing of debt or costs would have been ever 'reco-
vered so that' the plaintiff's instead of sustaining injury by
the improper conduct of the Officer, were actually. benctited.,•to
the amount of 601. which he (Mr. Collingridge) thought quite
enough, under all the circumstances. He did not mean to at-
tempt to justify the conduct 'of the officer ; he admitted that
it was most gross,_but he called upon the Jury to be governed
by the damage suffered by the plaintiff; in giving their verdict.
lie expressed his surprise at the evidence given with respect to
Mr. Potter, who had' been represented as having promised that
the money should be paid.; and he said he should call the best
possible evidence to prove that the plaintiffs were losers of
nothing by the conduct of the officer. •
Mr. Rindier deposed, that soon after he had been arrested by
Turney, he was taken upon another suit, and put into prison.,
where his difficulties compelled him to remain until lie was re-
leased by the Insolvent Debtors' Act. Ilad he been imprisoned
upon the writ issued at the suit of Jones and Howard, he cer-
tainly would not have been able to pay any.part of the debt and
costs. He had been in expectation before he was arrested of
14,00 t)/. or 15,0001. from America. hut was disappointed.
Mr. Co ILYN hre read a let er w had. been written by
Mr. Runner to the plaintiff a short time bet Ore he was arrested.
It stated, that he much regretted that it wa-s not in his power to
take up his.bill, in consequedce of the difficulty of disposing of
the wine.upon his bands.
COMYN, in reply, stated that it was impossible the jury
could for a moment .admit the argument used by his learned
friend in favour of the officer. If that were the case, there would
be no secutiry for a man's money.
The Jury assessA the damages to the full extent of the
plaintiff's demand. •

THIS MAGISTRATE`' POCKET BOOK;
O. an EPITOME of the DUTIES and PRACTICE of
be JUSTICES of the PEA E out of SESSIONS.

A small volume under the above title was this
4iieY published by CHARLEs HUNTER, of Bell-
yacd. It is the production of WurAAm ROBIN-
bd*, Esq. LL.D.
The work appears to be a very useful acquisi-
-lion to Magistrates and others, to whom a speedy
end easy reference to the provisions of Acts of
Pii`Oament is a matter of moment, and forms a
-4ry debirable companion to Burns' Justice. The
—Matter being all comprised in one small volume
is easily accessible, and should the provision
sought for be required more at length, a refer-
ence in the margin gives at once the page
ioni volume of Burns' Justice in which it may
be found. Besides being alphabetically ar-
-ranged,'a very copious index at the end aids
-materially in the search for any point which may
-beidesired, and thus the Justice may be said to
have the whole body of the law he can be called
Asocion to execute at one view before him. It also
comprehends the Acts of the last Session of Par-
liament in an abridged form, and hence must, we
conceive, form an useful appendage to the Pub-
lic :Police Offices, and the titbles of the Country
agistrates.

'''Worlys of this nature do not afford much op-
portunity for the display of talent, as the whole
efccellettre consists in arrangement and selection,
and a judicious medium between the prolixity
of the Arts of Parliament and the obscure
brevity of the marginal no!.-s. This happy
medium Mr. ROBINSON has hit, and in doing
this he has conferred a great favour on the
public, which doubtless they 1% ill not fail to ap.
predate. The more so, as the accumulation of
Statute upon Statute, their interminable length,
the total absence of any thing in the least
degree :Tproaching to arrangement, which they
4lemonmirate, and the confusion which prevails
throughout our Statute Law, render perspicuity
and shortness of double importance to all con-
cerned, eitheras practitioners or Justices of Peace.
in point of arrangement and selection, the same
sound discretion seems to have been employed,
and the end in view, viz. an easy reference to the
laws, within a small compass, has been com-
pletely attained.

LIABILITY OF COMMANYERS-IN-CHIEF UNDER

THE GAME LAWS.

The observation in our last paper, upon the
recent adjudication of the County Magistrates, at
Gosport, which declares that our esteemed
,Commander-in-Chief, Sir James Lyon, had for-
feited the sum of 40s. upon the conviction of
two soldiers, who were taken in the act of de-

troyitig game in the parish of Rowney, have ex-
-cited much interest among the military circles.
We, therefore, transcribe the clause of the Act
of Parliament under which the conviction took
•
.place :-
4‘ The 6th Geo. iv. c. K. s. 90.—That for the better preserve-
-on of game in or near such places where officers or soldiers
are quartered :- if any officer or soldier shall, without leave of
the Lord of the Manor first had anti obtained, take, kill, or

destroy any hare, coney, pheasant, partridge, ',pigeon, or any
-other sort of fowls, poultry, oafish, or his Majesty's genie, and
upon complaint thereof shall be, upon the oath of one or more
credible witness or witnesses, convicted before any Justice or
Justices of the Peace, who is and are hereby empowered and
ituthorized to, hear and determine the same; every otlicer so
offending shall for every such offence forfeit the suns of five
-pounds, to be distributed among the poor of the place where
such offence shall be committed : and every officer Command-
-ing4n-(;hief upon the place, for every such offence committed
by any soldier under his command, shall forfeit the sum of
twenty shillings, to be paid and distributed in themanner afore-
said : and if, upon conviction made by the Justices of the
Peace, and demand thereof also' made by the constables or
overseers of the poor, such officer shall refuse or neglect, and
not within two days pay the said respective penalties, such
officer so refusing or neglecting shall forfeit, and he is hereby
.-declared to have forfeited his commission; and his commission

is hereby declared to be null and void."
We understand that the Magistrates, as well as Sir James
. Lyon, have taken the opinion of Counsel, upon the forfeiture
being affixed upon the Commander-in-Chief, resident in Ports-
-, Mouth, and on the officer in command at Gosport, under whose
- immediate orders the soldiers were : and these authorities, se-

- verally concur in the opinion of the Magistrates, that the obi-
,• <Nit), of Sir James Lyon is co-extensive with the limits of his
-coMmand ; anti that, in strict conformity to military usage,

the officer commanding in chief is assumed to be omnipresent
upon every place within his jurisdiction ; so that the opinion
we expressed is correct, that, as the law now stands, Sir James
. Lyon would be liable, ex-officio, as Corumander.in.Chief,
to a like forfeiture for every such offence committed by a
soldier, even though he should be quartered in the City of
Bristol, which is comprehended within the South-West Dis-
trict. There is also much peculiarity in the severe penalty
- attached to the non-payment of the forfeiture. But, whilst
the Act may be intended to prevent his Majesty's service
from being injured by the confinement (by the civil authorities)
. of Such soldiers as may .commit these offences, and to connect
„the highest officer intimately with the men under his command,
so that no offence of this nature may be committed, without
. .

being reflective upon the whole body (thereby encouraging
-strict discipline and an espirit de corps necessary and useful in
military life), yet we presume that there is an omission in the
Act in not stating the manner by which the Officer Command-
ing-in-Chief is to be reimbursed, and the mode by which the
penalties may ultimately be visited upon the persons who ac-
Wally commit the offence& We are informed that the question
/•-has been submitted for the consideration of the Commander-in-
-Oriel, and that his Royal Highness has graciously signified his
-intention of communicating with his Majesty's Government upon
thesubject, in order.that the law may be revised or corrected.
.--(11-aptputtse Telegraph: )

PRESIDENT OF THE. UNITED STATES AND

THE DUKE OF S-IXE-WEINIAIL.

...Yesterday, at Boon, Charles Jared Ingersoll,
Eq., read, in Dr. Chapman's spacious lecture-room at the
University, a very interesting discourse, as the orator of the
Society for commemorating the landing of William Penn.—A
more intelligent and distinguished assemblage of our sexcould
scarcely be collected within the same space anywhere in the
•United States. It is to be regretted that the proportion of
ladies present was so small. (Jr. the same platform with the
Orator were, the President of the United States. the Duke of
Saxe-Weimar, and the Judges of the Circuit Court.; and the
, the benches below several strangers of celebrity, and a crowd of
,citizens eminent in the various professions. When the Presi-
-•deat entered, the large audience rose and greeted him twice with
general acclamation ; and a like display of regard occurred
when he was about to retire. The discourse of Mr. Ingersoll
consisted chiefly of details on the progress and resources of
Pennsylvania, and illustrations of the merit of her principles
and efforts. It will, no doubt, be printed, for the gratitication
and instruction of the country. The President dined yesterday
with the Penn Society at the Masonic Hall. Judge Peters
.presided at the repast, which was brilliant and satisfactory in
every respect. The company exceeded 71) in number. Judge
-Peters prefaced the regular toast of " The President of the
United States with some terse and complimentary.remarks, to
which Mr. Adams replied in a short but emphatic address ; ex-
pressing his deep sense of acknowledgment and lively esteem
--ftttlie objects of the Penn Association. He had reason to be
pleased with the manner in which he was heard, and the car-
.--reapondence of feelint that was universally manifested. The
.-Dake of Saaa6Weimar, when named, delivered a speech in
French, that language being more familiar to .hit than the
English. It redounded highly to the credit of this estimable
• stranger, in both its purport and. diction.--(Philadetphia
-:Paper, Oct. 25.)