The Sun.
London, England, 1822-07-05 00:00:00

HABEAS CORPUS.

Mr. CULLEN moved for two writs of Habeas Corpus, to
bring up on Tuesday two persons who were in custody.
The Loan CHANCELLOR—Why are these applications
made to me ? Before my time the practitioners of this Court
never thought of making such applications here. The Legis-
lature, for the purpose of relieving this Court anti the Court of
King's Bench, passed an Act lately, to enable any one of the
twelve Judges to issue such writs, and hear and determine them
at Chambers. There are nine Judges now in town unemploy-
ed, and why are not these applications made to them ? their
being made to me is only defeating the intention, of the Legis-
lature. I cannot refuse such applications when they are made
to me ; for if I did, I should be liable to a penalty of 5001.
for each refusal, and also be incapacitated, as long as 1 lived,
from holding any office under his Majesty.
Mr. CULLEN.—Then your Lordship will allow the writs to
be returnable on Thursday next ?
The LORD CHANCELLOR.—I have no option ; 1 cannot re-
fuse the applications ; but if they are continued to be made to
me, I shall consider it my duty to apply to the Legislature to
adopt some measure for the purpose of carrying the intention of
their Act into effect.

TUE DUKE OF BEDFORD V. TILE TRUSTEES OF THE BEI

TISII MUSEUM.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL asked the Lord Chancellor,
whether his Lordship would be ready to proceed vr.th this case
on Saturday next?
The LORD CHANCELLOR said, he had sent to the Master
of the Rolls to inquire if his Honour would find it convenient
to favour him with his assistance on that day.

THOMSON V. TROTTER.
Mr. Trotter was again brought up to-day by Habeas Corpus,
in the custody of the Marshal of the King's Bench; for the pur-
pose of being heard upon his Petition, complaining of irregu-
larities attending his committal under an attachment for a con-
tempt of Court, in not answering the proceedings filed against
him on the part of the plaintiff.; and praying that he might be
relieved from such attachment, as he was unable to pay the
costs and have it set aside in the usual way.
The LORD CHANCELLOR pronounced his decision at some
length, and said that when a party came into a Court of Equity to
make a complaint against another, he ought, in order to entitle
himself to the favour of the Court, to come in with clean hands.
The petitioner, therefore, before he complained of the irregu-
larities of others, ought to show that he was himself regular ;
and ought not to expect to use the authority of the Court
against such other persons, whilst he was acting in disobedi-
ence to that authority himself. With respect to the petitioner's
inability from want of funds to puree` himself of the contempt
in the usual way, he was sorry for it; but that was only a sub-
ject for the consideration of the other party, and not of the
judge, who was bound to act according to the law. Under all
the circumstances, his Lordship felt- it his duty to dismiss the
petition ; but would reserve the question of costs in the hopes
of its leading to something advantageous to the parties.

IN THE CASE or PRISCILLA STREET, A WAIII3 OF COURT,

Mr. HORNE recalled to his Lordship's recollection an in-
junction granted by the Court last term, restraining the infant's
mother and a young man named Horatio Reeves of Exeter,
from having any intercourse with the infant. He (31r. Horne)
had now to move for the committal of those parties, for a con-
tempt of Court in disobeying such injunction. The' Learned
Counsel then read a number of affidavits, from which it ap-
peared, that notwithstanding that the order of the Court had
been served upon the parties, the defendant, Horatio Reeves,
who is a druggist, and the son of a pawnbroker at Exeter, con-
trived, with the assistance of his brother George (from whom
the former is personally distinguished by asast in his eye), and
with the mother's permission, to carry off the infant; the
mother ha,ving,declared that her daughter should marry the de-
fendant in spite of them all, or she would be d—d if she would
not shoot her; and' the defendant having statetb, when served
with a notice, from the plaintiff's solicitor, of the infant having
been made a ward of Court, that that (the notice) was only
something for him to laugh at. His brother George also, on
being cautioned against the consequences of such an affair,
treated it with levity, saying, that if committed, he could get
the rules of the Flea ; or if not, he would easily contrive to
give them the slip. It appeared from the affidavits, that the
fugitives proceeded from a public-house called the Flower-pot,
in a car, as far as Paington, and thence by the stage to Bristol,
where they were to have gone on board the Guernsey packet,
the defendant's brother George having engaged the after-cabin
for their accommodation. But it was not stated in the affida-
vits, or at least so much of them as was read by the Learned
Counsel, what had since become of the parties.
The Loan CHANCELLOR said he would first grant an or-
der for the parties, namely, the infant's mother, Horatio Reeves,
and his brother George, to attend this Court; as it would not
be right to commit them in the first instance before they were
afforded'an opportunity, If they chose to avail themselves of it,
of being heard. 'Should it be found impossible to serve de-
fendants, H. and G. Reeves, with a copy of this order, he would
then consider service at their father's house sufficient. " But,"
said his Lordship, " take care that the old Lady does not come
into Court with fire arms."—(Laughter.)

COURT OF XING'S BENCH, JULY 4.
PEARY V. GOULD.
. _

The plaintiff in this case was a child of nine or ten years of
age, who, by his guardian, sought to recover damages for an
assault, in which his thigh was broken. It appeared In evi-
dence, that the little boy, with ten or twelve other children, was
playing in an empty waggon of the defendant, when he came
up and called out to them to desist. The plaintiff was attempt-
ing to get, out at tbe back of the waggon, when the defendant
took hold of him by the leg to pull him down ; upon which
he fell upon a heap of bricks and fractured his thigh. Gould,
at first, seemed to suppose that the accident had been occasion-
ed by some one throwing a stone ; but on the child saying that
it was caused by himself, he expressed his surprise, said that
he did not intend it, and called to another lad to convey him
home, and to take care not to hurt him. A medical gentleman
proved the extent of the injury, and that its probable effect
would be a contraction of the limb during life.
Mr. SCAILLET T addressed the Jury for the plaintiff on the
grievous nature of the injury ;_ and Mr. NPLAN, for the de-
fendant, contended that the misfortune was purely accidental,
and that the justice of the case would be satisfied by very mo-
derate damages.
The Loan CHIEF JUSTICE, after stating the substance of
the evidence, observed, that it was clear, the defendant never In-
tended to do the serious injury complained of ; but that still
the plaintiff was entitled to some moderate recompence. In
this action the Jury 'could not take into consideration the
surgeon's bill, as the father, and not the son, would be liable
to pay it.
The Jury found a verdict for the plaintiff—Damages 101.—
In order to prevent litigation, it was agreed that the amount of
the surgeon's charges, 51. ss. should be added, and that further
proceedings should be stayed. The verdict, therefore, was
taken for 151. ss.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, JULY 4.
DOVE V. DOBBS.

Mr. Serjeant. LENS stated that this was an action brought
against the defendant, the proprietor of a sulphuric acid manu-
factory, near Norwood, for a nuisance in the emission of the
vapour. The Learned Serjeant called several witnesses, who
proved the nuisance.
Mr. Serjeant VAtionAN, for the defendant, proved that the
manufactory' had existed since 1799, and that the plaintiff had
come to reside on the spot in question in 1805, since which time
the nuisance had been materially lessened instead of being in-
creased, by an improvement of the condensers and the retorts,
by which less vapour escaped, and more acid was produced.—
It was clearly the interest of the defendant to prevent the es-
cape of the vapour, as he would then obtain a greater quantity
of acid at the same expence.
The Jury seeming disposed at once to find a verdict for the
defendant, Mr. Sergeant Lens chose to submit to a nonsuit.

, . RENNIE V. ROBINSON.
Mr. Sergeant TADDY stated this to be an action of use and
occupation, brought against the defendant, to recover rent due
in respect of certain apartments occupied by him in the neigh-
bourhood of Fitzroy-square. it appeared that Robinson had
taken possession of the apartments by agreement with a Mr.
Williams, and that Williams had' subsequently assigned the
house to the plaintiff, and gave the defendant notice of the as-
siomme nt.
Mr. Sergeant PELL addressed the Jury for the defendant,
and stated that the person really entitled to this house was
Mrs, 'Williams, to whom it had been given by her uncle's will
before her marriage. That a marriage settlement had been
executed, vesting the honk in trustees for the benefit of :Mrs.
and that Mr. Williams had' no power or controul
whatever over it. The agreement by which the defendant had
become a tenant to 'Williams was executed by him-alone, :but
the defendant had always paid rent to Mrs. Williams. The
assignment .to the plaintiff was also executed by. Williams only.

The Learned Sergeant contended that, under all the circtune.
stances, it was clear the title of the plaintiff was not a valid
title, and he must therefore be nonsuited.
Mr. Sergeant PADDY having, objected to the production of
evidence, chewing the property to be in Mrs. Williams alone,
on the ground that a tenant could not legally dispute his land-
lord's title,
Lord Chief Justice DALLAS gave him liberty to move to set
the nonsuit aside, and to enter a verdict for the plaintiff for the
rent due from the defendant Phillips.
OLD BAILEY, JULY 4.
Thomas Pierson was capitally indicted for burglariouslY
breaking out of the dwelling-house of Francis M‘Gowan, and
stealing a clock, a hydrometer, and some silver spoons.
The prosecutor is a publican, keeping the Two Spies public,
house, in Catherine-street, in the Strand. On the night of the
12th of June his family were alarmed at about 4 o'clock, and on
searching, the articles in question were found missing. The
till had also been opened, and emptied of its contents. The
street-door was unbolted, and a window into the Bar had been
forced open.
A waiter, in the service of the last witness, proved that the
prisoner was, on the night in question, at the house with some
others. Witness was the last up in the house. He did not
see the prisoner go out. When he went to bed the bar was
locked, and all was safe.

A watchman in Catherine-street saw the prisoner and ano-
ther young man between 2 and 3 o'clock on the morning o: the
robbery. They walked past witness into the Strand. Each of
them had a bundle under his coat. When a few yards onward,
they looked round, and, observing witness look at them, ran
away. Witness ran after them in the direction where he heard
some glass breaking, and pursued them down Wellington"
street. On reaching the bridge, one of the men took the stairs
to the right, and the other to the left. 'Witness took the stairs-
to the lett, and, the tide being out, followed the footsteps under
the arch to the right. He saw the prisoner standing against
the wall, bleeding from the mouth and nose, and took hirn.--"
The prisoner had not been more than half a minute out of sight,
but witness nad not seen his face until he took him.
The toll-keeper of Waterloo-bridge proved, that about three
o'clock on the morning in question he saw two men run..
ning. One of them took the stairs to the left, and the
other to the right. They were pursued by the last witness-
When the prisoner was brought up the steps by the watch-
man, he recognised him as one of the men who had gone down
the steps. It was twilight at the time, and he had a full view
of his face. After the prisoner was brought up, witness went
down the steps, and saw a man running towards the Savoy,
along the mud by the common sewer. The man who escaped
had in his hand a handkerchief, containing an hydrometer, 59.
in copper money, a snuff-box, and some silver spoons. These
were afterwards claimed by the prosecutor.
The watchman being re-called, proved, that about 4 o'clock
the same morning he called up the prosecutor, believing that it
was his property which had been stolen. When he got to the
house, he found the street door unfastened, but shut to.
The prisoner in his defence declared his entire innocence, and
called one witness to character.
The Jury found a verdict Not Guilty.
Before the RECORDER and a London Jury.
BIGAMY.
J. 11. TV. Kitchinrhant stood indicted for feloniously mar
rying one Hannah Hilliard, his former wife Patience being then
alive. -
Mr. ADOLPIIUS, in stating the case to the Jury, observe
dl
the crime with which the prisoner stood charged preclud
the necessity of his entering into a detail of the circumstances 01
the case ; suffice it to say, that bigamy was a crime which was
always reprobated by every humane and good man.
Thomas James Terance was the first witness called, who
stated himself to he the deputy clerk of St. Leonard's, Shore-
ditch, and produced the registry of that parish, wherein it was
entered, that in the year 1800 John Kitchingham, bachelor,
was married to Patience Little, spinster.
Augustine Beken was then called to prove the signature9'
Witness had been prisoner's apprentice, and believed the hand'
writing to be that of his late master and mistress.
Mary Truce knew the prisoner and his first wife, and had
done so for 15 years, having acted as their charwoman.
Mary Ann Kitchingham examined.-1 am daughter to the
prisoner by his first wife. I believe the writings in the register
to be those of my father and mother. I have no doubt of it" •
My mother lives in Crooked-lane, and has not seen my father
for a long time. He was in the hospital some time ago--:'
[Here the prisoner burst into tears, and became almost frantic
on hearing the evidence of his daughter : he was removed 011".
of Court by the turnkeys, where he remained some time a'
length he became more quiet, and was again
bar, but owing to bodily infirmity was indulged with a chair;
During this interval, almost every person, appeared affected
except the prisoner's daughter, a smart girl of eighteen!
whose eyes were roving about the Court with the most perfec"
indifference.]
eci
Hannah Hilliard (the second wife) examined.—Witness lir ,
in Spital-fields ; had one child by the prisoner, to whom she
was married at Christ Church, Newgate-street, in December'
1815 ; had not lived with him for four years, owing to Solt
domestic quarrel. During the time they were together
worked at his business, in Nicholas-lane, Lombard-street.
Mr. Knight produced the register of Christ Church, andk::
ferring to page 174, found the following entry December
172 1815. Married this day, John William Kitchinghan? h_
this parish, bachelor, to Hannah Hilliard of the same Parl'"
spinster, Sr.c."
a the
Hannah Hilliard was again called, and she identified
of herself and the prisoner. She further SO
ed
that she never had any idea of his being a married man dull";
the time of courtship, but from something she had heardfa,,,.
made inquiry, but the result being satisfactory, her suspieo"
were lulled. placed at the
The prisoner put several questions to her; all of which sr
negatived. He then expressed a desir3 to call his daughter,
but the Court suggested the propriety of his reading his
fence first, to which he acceded.
se
A long written defence was then read by the clerk, which
forth that by the improvidence and continual robberies of ha
first wife, he was reduced to a state bordering on insanity, on
was often incapable of judging of his actions.
The Jury returned a verdict of—Guilty.
The RECORDER told the prisoner that a worse man ~irr„t
never put to that bar charged with the crime of bigamy.
t
taking into consideration his age and infirmities, the ue"ert"
would take time to consider its judgment ; but had it not beed.
for those considerations, he might depend upon being visit
with the utmost punishment which the law inflicts.

I

INSOLVENT DEBTORS COURT, JULY 4.
Henry Parry came up for the decision of the Court, on his
petition to be discharged. bin
The insolvent, who is the son of a gentleman of considentea
fortune in Hertfordshire, was examined on a former day, 1/A.-,
his discharge was opposed by Mr. Hudson, tobacconist,
ford-street, and Mr. Joy, of the Grand Hotel, Covent-gan;
on the ground of his having contracted debts without reaps'
able expectation of being able to.pay them.
It appeared, then, that the insolvent's father had dat
him twenty pounds a-month ; but that his expences very AL-he
exceeded that sum : and it also appeared, that the aenol
owed Mr. Hudson was contracted for gold snuff-boxes„ble
watches, which were charged at considerably more than u°-„itie
their value; and that his debt to Mr. Joy was thirtti
pounds, charged for nine dinners for himself only; and tu"tbat
had paid Mr. Joy several bills before. It was not stated
edit
the insolvent had ever made any representations to obtain '3:l,
which was always given to him freely ; and that in the c, tiS•
Mr. Hudson, he had called on the insolvent several tinses °Zoe.
lodgings, with his watches and snuff-boxes, and in one bilinhe
told him if he did not buy immediately, he would lose
vt-
bargain, which should be given Co another person who had
fered for it. yr.
The COURT, in pronouncing its judgment, said, neither
ent„,
Hudson nor Mr. Joy had made out a cases gainst the iiiato
Mr. Hudson had not acted correctly in the sale of his c,%`1101
gant articles ; and it could not be overlooked that Mr- J°67t the
been paid some of his bills ; and the Court could not doll. hi,4
insolvent when he said he expected further supplieS flourt
father at the time he was contracting his debts. The ftile
therefore declared the insolvent entitled to the benefit °
Act.'

. - ,
On the 4th inst., Mrs. ArthurBIRTHS Clarke, of Bishopsgafr,,,,treet
Without, of a son. A , sae,
On Wednesday se'nnight, at Moor Cottage, near S. ''--
the Lady of Edward Goode, jun. Esq, of a daughter.

MARRIED. „old/
On the 4th inst. at St.Pancras New Church, Mr.SouvriTiiara
of Bocking, Essex, to Ellen, youngest daughter of
Taylor, Esq. of Frederick-place, Hampstead-road. f Jesus
Lately, the Rev. Wm. Wilson, M.A. Fellow °to Si°
College, Cambridge, and Vicar of Elmstead, Essex, swizyth-
Anderson, daughter of the late John Anderson, Esq.('
waite Hall, in Wensley-dale, Yorkshire.

DIED
On the 2d inst., Elizabeth, wife. of the' Rev. John .L."*"
.8.D., Rector of Hilgay, and Morning Preacher at the Foul'
ling. A side'
On the 3d inst., Harriet, wife of Mr. R. Johnson,_
On the 3d inst. at Crayford, T. Smith, Esq., late 6.
hoOme, Edmonton, in his 82d year.
nSatarday last, aged 52, Mr. John Pank,
Peterborough

Printed and Published for the PROPRIETORS, a""'
Office, No. 112, Strand,- by J. B—CARSTAIUS•