The Sun.
London, England, 1813-11-03 00:00:00

IVISTAIINSTLII ADJOI;IINCI) SkSSIO.:4S.

ttA4ttg.

The decision of the (Ammon the appeat froiii the
, conviction against Mr. Candy, under the Act of
10 Geo. li. d. 28. for actin„,,, sepresentlng, or
perforMing, of Causing to be acted, &c. at this
Theatre, for " gain or eewlird," the' opera of
the Cabinet, having stood fur yeaterdify,
Mr. MAINWARING delivered his opinion atcon-,
derablelength: Having gOne through the dif-
ferent clutises in the Act of Parliament, try wLkh
the offence is created ; by' ~Dial, the jurisdiction
as to the pecuniary penalties is cOnferred on the
.Ikistices ; and the mode of levying those penal-
ties, and thstributing them between the informers
and the poor of the parigh, is provided for ; and
.haviiags also read tho.,conviction,...with . the evi-
deuce on which it proceeded, he t hen went on to-
deliver his opinion. Ait limber of objections, in
the course of arguing the appeal, had been
taken to this_conviction. First, T. the caption,
that it was not sufficiently definitive, that the,
Justices bad not given themselves a sufficient
jurisdiction. 2dly, That instead of being laid as
against the form of the Statute, the offence ought
to have been laid as against the form of the Sta-
tutes. :idly, That the conviction did not set
'forth the mode in which the penalty,was to be
.divided, &c. Now the caption bore. the.convic-
tion to be fur the city and liberty of Westminster,
in' the county Middlesex. lie was at a loss to
know what was the effect intended th be pro-
duced by the caption, if it was not-that, of spew►
ing where the offence taken cognizance of in the
conviction kalif been committed. If that was the
Meaning of it, then was this Meaning fully an-
swered in the present instance, the caption being
sufficiently explicit to point our thelact that.the
offence Was committed in the city of Westminster.
It was said that, looking at tire COMmission of
the Peace, the Court would find What was the
proper description of the Alagistrates. That,was
the work, however, of the Cask/ Ro4ntertinl, to
whom they had no right .to prescribe, Bat he
should go to the Statute: Book, and see how
they were described there; that being certain-
' .ly higher than any other denomination of au-
thority.' He should first look what the Le-.
gislature called them, and should then see what
sort of captions ehich had been ,sent from this
Court to the Court of King's tench to be review-
et' arid correettA, were Giought by that'Coort ;o
be good. This would have been a laborious task
to go' into, 'but he had an opportunity of, being
furnished with a few cases of each kind which he
should state to the Bench., He then read a num-
ber of citations from various. Acts of Parliament,
from the 7th of Elizabeth to the 44th of Geo. 111.
relating to the;city of Westminster, in which it is
alMost uniformly referred to as the " city and
li-
berty of Westminster," and, " said' city and li-
berty." lie then cited a variety.of cases, .where,
in appeals from judgments of that Court, the Court
of King's Bench, hid held '' 'city 'and liberty of
'estminster" to: be a sufficiently ample descry-
tion'; and, upon the whole, 'Wits fully satisfied
that the conviction was stiffieiently explicit, both
as to the captlon and the venue, as to neither of
which he could see any objection. With respect
to the conchision of the conviction, by which it was
ordered that the
,penalty should' be diyidcd or ap-
portiOned, as the law directs; he confessed 'he
could see no objection whoever to this' conClu,
slog, tsar did it appear to him that
.the Justices
could hive come to any other conclusion upon the
subject. In doing this, they liad only done their
duty; they had no power over' the penalty ; all
that was completely disposed cat and left 4; be ad-
jnsted among the private parties as the law direct-
ed ; tire mo.nent their decision a 4 to guilty or, not
guiltywas made, and their conviction 'vas pronoun-
ced, they were ft/ilea:officio. A m'ore material objec-
tion than anyof these, and one which hadheen seri
ously insisted,-ivaS"thii, that. the Art of the 10th
Geo. 11. c. 28. had been repealed by the Act of the
17th of the same reign. It appeared to him,
however, on -the fullest consideration', that there
was no ground ,for the objection. The two Acts
seemed to have been pissed. for very different pnr-
poses, and, in his opinion, had Very little to (It)
with 'each other. The Act of the 10th Geo. IL'.
concerned the King's prerogitive, and.. seemed
also to have for its object the peevention-of impure
and immoral performances ; and the -restraining
of. improper persons from interfering in, the per-
formance of them. The Act of the l'ith of the saute
Reign, on the other hand, was 411 Act of a very•ge—
neral and multitarions nature, applying to cases of
ercry4lescription of yagrancy. Was it then to be
conceived for a moment, that thelegislature could
mean, by a side wind, to repeal an. Act whiCh. hart
been passed for such important purposes, and that
too.by a clause in a magazine amid) multifarious

matter as was the Act of the 17th Geo. The Act
of the 10th of Geo. 1,1, therefore, in his Opinion,
stood untouched by the Act of the 17th of. the
same King. This, of course, went !Asp to tlis-
- of the. objection that the Information was
improperly laid as_ against the form of the St*-

tute, 'lust-cad of being against the form of the,
Statutes, hlad it been so laid, in his opinion,
it would bare been wrong. if the Court,
therefore, was of his opinion, they would hoLd
that the conviction in all these res,pects was good,
and that it wits agreeable to law. The only other
question then was this, was the performanee, &c.
specified in the conviction, and for the exhibition
of which the defendant had been found guilty, and
convicted, within the description contained in the
prohibitory clauses in -the Act of Parliament 'in
question ? Mr. Lundy had made no defence, but

. _
had 'endeavoured to shelter himself on this head,
under the authority of the License granted to, bins,
Loy the Magistrates at the Michaelmas Quarter Sei=
sions. He was decidedly of opinion. that the I.4i—
cense of the Magistrates had no such:poiver as.that,
which Mr.Cuntly would seek to give to ft, If so,that
would amount to ,a denial, arid a destroying of the
Act of the 10th -Geo. ii. without any appeal of it,
expressed or implied. :It would go tho 44104 at
destroying the' views and purposes- of that Act.—
This was': his opinion>, and as such he was.:'biyund to
gay, that .Mr. Cody, in conducting' himself in
the manner he had done, had !nought himself
wlthin the operation of the Act 10, Geo. If, and