The Sun.
London, England, 1822-07-20 00:00:00

MERCANTILE SHIPPING, &c.

DEAL, JULY 19.--Wind S.W.—Came down from the
River last night and sailed the Betsey, Duper, for Berbiee.—
Sailed this morning the Royal Sovereign yacht to Dover Roads,
on board of which the Prince and Princess of Denmark are ex-
pected to embark on Saturday. Arrived and sailed for the
River the Ocean and Sophia transports from Portsmouth ;
Fame, from , and City of Genoa, Cooper, from
Genoa.

PORTSMOUTH, JULY 19.--Wind S.E.—Arrived the Sir
Edward Paget, Geary, from the Downs for Bengal.
PLYMOUTH, JULY 18.—Wind S.E.—Arrived the Helen,
Leno, from Leghorn ; Ishame, Strago, Dantzig. Sailed the
Wanderer, Waygood, Quebec.
FALMOUTH, JULY 18.- —Wind S.S.E.—Arrived his Ma-
jesty's ship Owen Glendower from Portsmouth.
DARTMOUTH, JULY 18.—Off the port the St. Anns,
Leyhrie, from Jamaica, in 42 days, all well.

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.

HOME CIRCUIT.-HERTFORD, JULY 18.

The Assizes for the county of Herts commenced here this
day, when after going to church, the LORD CHIEF BARON,
about twelve o'clock, presided in the Nisi Prius Court. In
the course of the day, fourteen causes were entered, including
two Special Juries.

BACON V. RUMBALL.
This was an action of trespass brought against the defendant,
an auctioneer, residing in London, for improperly distraining
on the plaintiff; who was a farmer in the parish of East
Barnet.

Mr. Serjeant TADDY, who led for the plaintiff, stated that
the defendant being put in with a dist:ess for rent, remained
there for some days beyond the period allowed by law, and that
the property seized was ill managed, part of it being growing
crops, which, when cut, were removed from the premises.
The sale also was so improperly conducted, that great loss re-
sulted to the plaintiff.
The Attorney for the plaintiff proved a tender to the defen-
dant, which was refused, he still keeping possession.
Mr. MAI-m.I'AT, on the part of the defendant, said, that so,
far from his client continuing on the premises as a trespasser,
he was there only as a matter of indulgence, and at the especial
request of the plaintiff, in order that he might provide himself
with the means of discharging the distress ; he totally denied
any thing like a specific or legal tender, and that the stock was
disposed of to the best advantage under the circumstances.
Much contradictory evidence was given in support of these
conflicting statements. The Learned Judge having stated to
the Jury that it was their peculiar duty to decide upon the cre-
dit due to witnesses, they, after a short deliberation, found a
verdict for the plaintiff for 341.

NORTHAMPTON, JULY 18.

BENEFIT OF CLERGY.

A most remarkable, and perhaps unpvecedented, instance of
this clerical immunity from punishment being twice prayed by
a culprit occurred this day. As will be seen by the following
report, a Jury were twice sworn in the same case. First, to
try the prisoner on the indictment, and secondly, to try whe-
ther the identical prisoner had or had not already taken the
benefit of Clergy.
William Smith, aged 20, was convicted of stealing a shirt,
and other articles of wearing apparel, the property of John.
Kean.

When called up for judgment, he knelt down in the usual
way, and prayed the Benefit of Clergy.
The Judge was about to pass sentence as in case of grand
larceny, but was informed that the prisoner had on a former
conviction received the Benefit of Clergy, and had been sen-
tenced to four months imprisonment.
On this communication the Learned Judge ordered hini to
be placed among the capital convicts.
The prisoner then put. in a plea, denying that he was the
person so convicted, which was followed by a replication.
The replication and certificates having been read,
Mr. James Sheriff was sworn—" I am the Governor of Ayles-
bury gaol. The prisoner at the bar was convicted at the Lent
Assizes 1821, and sentenced to four months' imprisonment, fir
stealing bacon, the property of William Chard. At the time
of that conviction he prayed for and received the Benefit of
Clergy.°
Mr. Justice BEST observed, that this was the first time,
during a long professional life, that he had known a Jury called.
on to decide on a point like the present. The prisoner had that
day been convicted of a clerical offence, and prayed the bene-
fit of clergy, but it had been clearly proved by the evidence of
Mr. Sheriff, who could not be mistaken, that he had been con-
victed, and received the benefit prescribed by the humanity of
the law. It was clearly laid down, that no person could receive
the benefit more than once, and if he was convicted of a second
offence, however trivial, he was precluded, and that offence
became capital. He had never known such a case go to the con-
sideration of a Jury—it was therefore for them to judge whether
the prisoner had received the benefit of clergy or not.
The Jury instantly returned a verdict in the affirmative.
Sentence of death was then passed on the prisoner, in a most
impressive manner, and his Lordship hoped his example would
operate on the minds of others, and prevent a repetition of
crime.