The Sun.
London, England, 1807-08-07 00:00:00

TIM KING V. SNGIV.

This was an indiament against a Constable, for
an assault and false imprisonment, and for extorting
Money front a Mr. Sweet, 'an Attorney.
Mr. LAw es, who led the cause for the prosecution,
represented it 'as .1 case of a very aggravated .nature,
and said.t he Defendant had been guilty of a wanton
abuse of the power which thc law vested in his
heeds. The :ProsettUtor, Mr. Sweet, he said, was the
managing Clerk to a respectable Atterncy, and the
Defendant, as a constable, had a warrant to appre-
hend him, to give security to the parish for a bastard
child. But in' the excutiob of this warrant be had
emulated himself most culpably-. For, in, the first
place, he apprehended him oat of the jurisdiaion of
the Justice wbo had granted the warrant, and then,
instead of taking the Prosecutor to the nearest Police
Office, as was his desire, he chose to carry him quite
to the farther part of the town But, in the mean
time, Mr. Constable wished to hare a litt:e refresh-
ment, and at the expence of his client ; for, having
adjourned to a public-house 'in the. neighbourhood
where he was apprehended, the worthy Peace Officer
indulged himselt with a dinner, and presented the
bill tor payment. to his. client. With roped to the
charge of extortion,.the Prosecutor had demanded a
copy .of the warrant under which .he was held in
custody, which, by the Habeiss Corpus 41,61, they
were bound to give him, but for this be. was com-
pelled to pay the saga .of 3s. (id. and which was now
ma4e the subjed of a charge its another count of The
present record.
The Prosecutor was called to prove the faa ; but
the Learned Judge held 'clearly, that 'the Constable
was jnstified, as to the imprisonnient, by the war-
rant of the Justice ; and as to the extortion, the
pleadings were defcalve.—Verdiet for 'the ' De-
fendant.

OP CHANCERY i- -A 074

ADOLtIIUS ArlOr.r4C7e.

This cause involves a question of considerable im,
portance, on theconstrudiowof the Charter of .King
Edward in faVour of the City of London. John
Myers (whose case we•did 41ot consider of sufficient
consequence to notice in our details of criminal juris-
prudence) • is :i boy who was conviaed at the Old
Bailey of stealiug.a pair efshoes, and sent on board
the hulks.
.The general, idea of a felony is, that of a
crime to be punished :by death, btu properly it is a
crime to be punished, by forfiture, and to which
death may or may not be superadded. (131. Com.
iv. 98.)
Mr. 11.1CHAADS stated the forfeiture incurred by
the delinquent, and said that the money in. the pub-
lie fundS, belonging to .him, must either devolve
,to
the Crown or toils grantee. By the Charter we have
named, the chattels of felons within the city were
granted to the city, and he therefore applied to his
Lordship for an order to carry intoefted the pnrpose
of the Charter in the present instance.
The Loiu CHANCELLOR observed, that he had
great doubts if the Tublie stockS. were to be consi-
dered as within the construction of the Charter for
this purpose. At the time the Charter was granted,
the public funds did, not exist at all. These funds
were entirely the creation Of Parliament,; and they
Were so fenced under the terms of their creation, as
to make them, as much aspossiblet incapable of alien.-
ation by forfeiture, as low, as they remained in•the
hands of the .proprietor. They might be 'taken as
assets, .but they were not, the .subject.. of ,execution.
His Lordship said, that Ate had known.examples.,
where persons having property were advised. te cua!-.
vert it into stock, by very abieCouus.eli•prierto thotr,
appearance at the 'Bar of • the Old llsitleye in :order
th*t it might not be tangible in the, w..3y..snpp9sed
those who made this application.
.• • . •
The matter was deferred, -in .ceder -tolgiyeSoun-
sel the opportunity of looking into C 344-3 ref,erable
to the question. . • . :