The Sun.
London, England, 1849-05-01 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIG EN CE.
COURT OF QUEELVS BENCE!, A pril3o.
littiugs in Banco, before Mr. Jus:ic© PA.TTEsoN, Mr.

Justice COLSIUDGE, and Mr. Justice ERLE.)

THE LAW OF THE ISLE OF MAN.—IN RE CZAWFORD.
In this case a writ of habeas corpus had barn issued
kbythe Court, celling upon the gaeler of Castle
;ltuslitn, in the Isle of Man, to produce before
!!the Court the body of John Crawford, who hod
i!been committed to prison by the authority of the
Judge of the Court of Chancery in the Isle of Man for
!ontenapt of that Court, by writing and publishing an
..rttcle in a newspaper published in the island, the Mona
Verald, tending to scandalise and bring the said Court
nto contempt. The Court had at first committed Mr.
rather, the responsible editor of the paper, when Mr.
jrawford rose and avowed himself to be the writer
I the article. The Court then committed both
i Ur. Crawford and Mr. Father ; the latter on
I presenting a petition and apologising to the Court,
was, after sixteen days' confinement, set at liberty; but
1 \lr. Crawford, who refused to apologist', still continued
i a custody. The judge of the Court of Chancery was
i he Hon. Charles Hope, the Lieutenant-Governor of the
i stand.
Mr. PEACOCK had moved for a rule to quash the writ
if Hale-,as Corpus on two grounds;—first, that the writ
vould not run into the Isle of Man; and, secondly, be-
t ause the affidavits on which the writ had been moved
t hewed that he had been lawfully cemmitted, and that
I his Court would, therefore, only remand him after he
.1 sae brought before it.
Mr. ARCIIBOLD, in support cf the writ, contended
hat it could extend to all parts of her Majesty's domi-
a tons, as it was a prerogative writ, and also that a man
c Juld not be imprisoned for an indefinite time for con-
t :mpt of court, but that a sentence of imprisonment
t lust he passed on Lim fir a certain period of time, or
t :at he must be finei; for an in lefinite imprisonment
ti as contrary not only to the common law, but to the
it wof the Lie of Man. Neither could the Court corn-
Tr it a person for contempt for anything that was out of
ti at court.
Mr. Justice PATTESON said that, as at present advised,
be was inclined to think that the writ of habeas corpus
W 'old run into the Isle of Han since the passing of the
stl t George 111. Before the passing of that Act
it was said that the Lie of Man was not part of
.tht, dominions of the Crown of England, but was
he 1(1 an a feudatory of England. It was granted to
tht Earl of Derby by James the First. The kings
of England appear to have been superior Lords. Then
Cot ,aes the sth George 111.. and that transferred the Isle
Man to the then King of England, his heirs and suc-
cesi tors. The right of the Crown was made inalienable.
is now to be taken as a part of the King's dominion,
and at such where a writ of habeas corpus would run.
e first objection made is, that this is not a commit-
711eint of the Court of Chancery of the Isle of Man. In
l4he first place, looking at the affidavits altogether,
2t might be collected that the writ was an act of
tae Court of Chancery of the Tile of Man. His
rdship was therefore of opinion that the rule
Isht mild be made absolute to quash the writ of habeas
cot :pus.
Mr. Justice ERLE was of the same cpini :n, and Mr.
atl :tice PATTESON announced that his 13toth2r Coleridge
Was of the same opinion.
THE QUEEN V. CUARITIE AND OTHERS.
The defendant and others were recently found guilty
clf, selling a cadetship. This was a motion fur a new
tea it or arrest of judgment.
The reading of the documents occupied the Court till
site rising. The further hearing of the case was then
11(1j turned until Thursday.

BAIL COURT, April 30.
(Before Mr. Justice COLERIDGE.)
THE QUEEN V. PARISII OF BASING.
Mr. BRAMWELL applied to the Court for a under
following circumstances:—An order of rencovsl was
nor ide from the parish of Basing, in the county c f South-
▪ Ipton, to the parish of Basingstoke. Agand that
s) vier there was an appeal, and upon that app-al the
a rder was confirmed, whereupon the Counsel for the
sr ppellant applied for a rule, which was peremptorily
17 :fused. Two or three subsequent applications were
t aade with no better result, but the Court would be sur-
prised to learn that since then a certiorari had been
g ranted, a certiorari issued, and a return made to it, to
SI ie eff,.ct that the order of removal had been confirmed,
▪ lobject to a case which was mutual, and the present Bp-
fication was for a rule to show cause why the return
s liould not be quashed.—Rule nisi.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, April 30.
( Sittings in Banco, before Justices COLT3I.I.N, MAuLE, and
WILLIAMS.)
COOPER V. PENNEFATHER.
Mr. BARSTOW, on the part of the defendant, applied in sup-
p lrt of an issue on what is called in law a uul tiel record,
a; ad submitted that the plaintiff had failed on the issue.
Mr. JONES, on the part of the plaintiff, opposed the ap-
Vi ication. The action was for debt on a judgment which
Sh owed the recovery of 20/. for damages and 6'. for costs;
iereas the declaration claimed 26/. for damages for the de-
tei ition of the debt. That, lie contended, was a blunder—a
clerical error. It described the judgment inaccurately; and
La asked for leave to amend the declaration by rendering it
co; 'formable to_ the record. _ _

Justice MAULE thought the plaintiff was not entitled
to judgment.
Mr. BensTow applied for judgment for the defendant.
Tustices Coltman and Williams taking the same view of
the case as Mr. Justice Mettle, judgment was given for the
def cadent.