The Sun.
London, England, 1840-04-25 00:00:00

EVENING EDITION.

LAW

COURT OF CHANCERY, APRIL 23.
THE QUEEN V. VISCOUNT CANTERBURY.

This case, which stood in the paper to-day by /Tpecial
'appointment, came before the Court on a petition of right
presented by Viscount Canterbury, stating that while- he
was Speaker of the House of Commons, and during the
time he resided in one of the Royal palaces at West-
minster, that palace was, through the negligence of
the officers of the Crown, partly destroyed by tire,
and the greater part of the Noble Viscount's property
was either consumed or rendered useless by the conflagra-
tion. The petition stating these facts prayed, according
to the usual form, that the suppliant might have right done
him, and that a commission might be issued under the
Greet Seal, and the facts stated in the petition micht,
under that commission be ascertained. Upon the petition
being presented to her Majesty, she, with the advice of the
Crown lawyers, referred it to the Lord Chancellor, direct-
ing at the same time that right should be done. In this
way the case now came before his Lordship.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL, Sir W. FGI.LETT, andiMr.
Sergeant MANNING, who appeared for Viscount Canter-
bury, submitted that the Lord Chancellor, from all pre-
vious authority, was bound to assent to the prayer of the
petition, and grant the Commission. In support of this
argument, and that the course pursued by Lord Canter-
bury in presenting the petition of right was the correct one,
the Learned Gentlemen referred to cases in the old
writers, extending many centuries hack, all of which went
to show that in cases where the subject claimed a right
against the Crown, the course had been to present a peti-
tion of right, and that the reigning Sovereign had always
directed light to be done through a Commission from the
Royal Chancery.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL, Mr. WrriaAm, Mr. WTGHT-
MAN. and Mr. WRAY, who appeared on behalf of the
Crown, contended that the claim was preposterous, and
that there was no pretence whatever for it.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL replied, and
The LORD CHANCELLOE said that all the cases had been
carefully examined ou the subject for some centuries hack,
and none could be discovered in which the prayer of the
petition had been refuted ; he would, ho eves, take time
to consider the subj et, and would, in the course of next
week, give his judgment in this case, and also in the cak
of the Baron de Bode, sshich involved a similar question.

_RAU COURT, Amu 24.
THE QUEEN V. LONG,

Mr. fit t,r,s moved the court in this case for rule to show
cause why the defendant should not have liberty to with-
draw a plea of guilty, into which he had been led contrary
to his intention, and by a fraudulent misrepresentation.
The circum,tances of the case arose out of the late Cam.,
bridge election, at which Long, the applicant in this trio•
Lion, acted in support of the Hon. Manners Sutton. After
the election, a charge of bribery and corruption was brought
against lion before Mr. Foster, the Met or of Cambridge,
and by that gentleman he was bound over in !navy per-
sonal and collateral security to stand his trial on the
charge. The indictment against him was found in the
county, but was by certiorari removed into this court.
Before, however, it came to trial, Edward Scott entered
into a negotiation with him, on the part of Mr. W. G.
Cannon, the Attorney of Mr. Gibson, the defeated candi-
date, to the effect that the indictment should be
withdrawn on the condition that he ( Mr. Long)
should join in a petition to the House of Commons against
the validity:of the return of the Hon. Manners Sutton, for
whom he had been engaged. To this proposition he con-
sented, and came up to town accordingly. He was made
aware that it would be necessary to give authority to some
person to apply to the Court in order that the indictment
should be withdrawn. He met Mr. Cannon at the Craven
Hotel, and there was introduced to Messrs. Parkes and
Preston as the persons who would act in that capacity, and
signed what he was informed was but a document giving
them authority to effect a stoppage of the proceedings.
On the morning when he was to appear before the Com-
mittee of the House of Commons, he was undeceived in
regard to what he had thus done, and informed that he
had signed a paper, the result of which was that he was
Placed in the position of one who had been tried and found
guilty before Lord Dentnati.

M. Justice LITTLEDALE—Has he then received any in-
timation that he would be brought up for judgment ?
Mr. Bynns —Yes, my Lord, on the fifth day of this term.
Mr. Justice LITTLF.DALE—IIe did not, then, conduct
himself satisfactorily before the Committee ?
Mr. BYLES said ho had by no means done so in the
opinion of the parties in whose hands he had thus fallen.—
Rule to show cause granted.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE

MANSION.HOUSE.

A carpenter, named Crosier, was brought before the
Lotto MAYOR, by policeman 263.
The policeman stated that the defendant and two
other men endeavoured to get into a public-house called
the White Hart, at twelve o'clock on Wednesday ilght,
but did not succeed. Upon the expostulation of the
witness the companions of the defendant went away,
but Mr. Crosier persevered for a full hour, and used
insulting language, after which he walked away, but it
was only to return in disguise, and again to disturb the
neighbourhood. Witness, although subjected to gross
abuse, did not take the defendant into custody, but as
he visited him on his beat next night, accompanied by
three other men, and repeated the annoyance, with the
addition of blows, it was considered almost time to
get the matter settled elsewhere.

The LORD MAYOR asked tlie defendant w%y ho
wished to compel the publican to subject himself to a
penalty ?
The defendant said that he felt thirsty, and accord-
ingly knocked at the door of the legitimate place of
sale of the article he required which, he contended,
ought to have been opened to him, as he was con-
%weed there were twenty others inside. As he was
not admitted, he was determined to see it out, and
he went home, and, exchanging his coat for his jacket
tried it on again at the door The officer, he had no
doubt, had very good reasons for siding with the land-
lord, and therefore wished to get him away. As for the
charge of the subsequent attack, it was quite a mistake,
for as he was quietly passing along, the policeman re-
cognised him, and with the assistance of another person
bullied and beat bim.

It was stated that there were no persons in the
public-house when defendant importuned for admission.
The LORD MAYOR—And if there were, the land-
lord is not obliged to let in any fellow who chooses to
be troublesome. I consider the conduct of the defend-
ant as highly reprehensible. He wants to force his
way into a public-house, and he even disguises himself,
no doubt, for the purpose of collecting matter of com-
plaint, and, failing in these, he accuses the officer of
being influenced by the proprietor. I shall send the
case to the Sessions.

The defendant evidently did not like the reference to
the Sessions, although he said that he had been severely
beaten, but he was obliged to find bail.
Several persons were brought up charged with having
been found drunk.

The LORD NIAYOIt, after having heard all the charges,
said that he had seen so many instances of intoxication,
that he really blushed for his country upon comparing it
with the condition of Ireland, where the principal cele-
brations seemed to be those of teetotalism. He thought
that be should, if he saw much more of such work, en-
deavour to prevail upon some Father Mathew or Fa-
ther Murphy to take the inhabitants and visitors of the
city of London in hand.—(Laughter.)