The Sun.
London, England, 1840-11-05 00:00:00

IN THE CASE OF MR. RICHARD DUNN.

After the Court had gone through the Bar,
Lorfl DENMAN signified to Mr. Dunn that the Court
wouln now hear his application.
After a short discussion as to whether it would be ad-
visable to proceed at so late an hour,
The return to the habeas corpus was read, which set
forth the committal by Mr. Combe, the Magistrate of
Hatton-garden, haring neglected to enter into sureties
to keep the peace to all her Majesty's subjects, but
more particularly to Miss Angela Burdett Coutts.
Mr. Dunn submitted that he must be discharged from
custody. The articles exhibited against him stated
that he had already been discharged from custody by
habeas corpus, and since that discharge only two acts
were specified, namely, his waving a handkerchief at
Norwood, and his having knocked at the door of a house
in which Miss Angela Burdett Coutts was. The facts
set forth in the articles were not true. _ . .

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL wished to have the opinion
of the Court as to whether Mr. Dunn had any right to
controvert the statements set forth in the articles now,
as they had been returned into that Court, as an answer
to the writ ? _

Mr. Dunn contended he had under the Act of 56
George 111. He then entered into alengthened argument
in support of his view of the law in this question, con-
tending that ho had a right to file affidavits denying the
truth of the statements contained in the articles as re-
turned to the Court.

Lord DENMAN, after consulting with the other
Judges, decided that he had no right to file affidavits, or
to enter into statements controverting the facts set forth
in the articles.

Mr. Dunn said his next objection to the return was
on the score of an informality in the jurat to the articles.
There were three affidavits, and but one jurat, and
therefore they were totally insufficient. The affidavit
was severed into three parts, and was in fact a total
nullity in law. It had besides been interlined and
altered since it had been exhibited at the Quarter Ses,
sions, with a view of suiting the purposes of the occasion.
Lord DErsataei said it came into the Court regularly
sworn to, and returned by a Court of competent juris-
diction, as having been done in their presence. It
would be better perhaps that the articles should be read.
The articles having been read,
Mr. Dunn contended that he had by his former dis-
charge under a writ of habeas, been released from ever
being again called in question for any of the acts which
he had committed in reference to Miss Coutts, prior to
his committal by Sir F. Roc, and from which committal
he had on a former occasion been discharged by Lord
Denman, and not only so, but all parties commit-
ting and assisting in his committal for those acts
had rendered themselves liable to penalties of 3001.
for the recovery of which he was determined to
sue ; and that as these statements were mixed up
with statements relating to his subsequent con-
duct in the same articles, it was impossible to say
for which he had been committed, and, therefore, the
whole document was an invalid one altogether. He
then proceeded to controvert the statements in the ar-
ticles, with a view, as he said, of vindicating his cha-
racter from the aspersions which had been cast upon it ;
for this purpose he was giving a detailed account of
his conduct, when he was interrupted by
Lord DENMAN, who desired he would confine him-
self to the matter before the Court.
Mr. Dunn then proceeded to contend that the ar-
ticks did not set forth with sufficient clearness the cause
of Miss Coutts' apprehension. It was stated letters
had been received from him containing threats, but
those letters ought to have been set forth to enable
the Court to judge. There was nothing to show
that he had any intention to murder or beat her,
and a fear of such was necessary to justify a Magis-
trate in binding over a party to keep the peace.
nay, the reason why such fear was entertained must
also be set forth, or the liberty of the subject would
be at the mercy of any timorous ind'vidual who, like
the man mentioned by Locke, might fancy himself
made of glass, and exhibit articles of the peace against
any person jostling against him in the street. Now,
what was the main fact relied on ? Why, that at Nor-
wood he had waved a white handkerchief. Surely a
handkerchief was not an instrument to put a lady in
fear of her life. The utmost that they went to prove
was, that the lady was annoyed, not that she had any
real ground for apprehension. There was no one cir-
cumstance on which they could rely to say that was
the occasion of her apprehension, and crime could not
1.0 made up of little and little, and there was no-
thing to prove that he had been guilty of
any, moral or legal. The Quarter Sessions had
ordered him to enter into recognizances to ap-
pear before them at the Quarter Sessions, to be
met and holden next after the lapse of two years. That
order was illegal, unconstitutional, and void ; they had
no power to make it. No Court in England had any
poser to make such an order ; besides, it was an order
so vague, that he could not comply with it, even had
he been willing. It did not state when the two years
were to commence, nor when he was to appear. There
was a Sessions-house in Cierkenwell, and another in
Westminster ; at which was he to appear, and for what
purpose was he to appear ? The order was illegal and
void altogether.
Lord DENMAN said the Court had considerable doubts
as to whether the articles set forth with sufficient clear-
ness the cause of the apprehension, and they would
hear the Attorney-General on that point to-morrow.
After a short discussion, it was arranged that the
Attorney-General be heard, in support of the validity
of the committal, the first thing to-morrow morning
(this day).

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Nor. 4.
RIGHTS OF TIIE CITY PORTEItS.
COLYN V. STENNET•
This was an action brought On behalf of what are called
the Tackle House Porters of the City of London, to en-
force the payment to them of fees for the landing, carry-
ing, and housing of goods which had been landed, &c., by
alien porters, contrary, as the plaintiff averred, to the
rights of the Tackle House. The verdict was for the
plaint
Mr. Sergeant CitANNEt.r. moved to set aside the ver-
dict, on the grounds, first, that the bye-law which gave to
the
;p-rovideld thatkiei'ust porters their exclusive privilege, espe-
ciallyi !
the goods of aliens consigned to aliens,
T
might be landed, carried, and housed by alien porters ;
u9afyt,hehaCdityn,ot been in accordance
from the time of the
secondly,o%,.ridthilzitain)ec
ep
rttiloivaittl
ehtgeheep:_cieausisentnioetmd ;
and further, that there had nut
been sufficient evidence on the
of
of the present exist-
ence of a " Tackle House," or of " Tackle House porters."
The argument of the Learned Sergeant was of very
great length, and was supported by numerous refe-
rences to the bye-laws of the City, and to decisions thereon.