The Sun.
London, England, 1840-01-24 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, JAN. 23.
IN THE CASE OF THE SHERIFFS OF LONDON.
In the course of the morning, Mr. RICHARDS ap-
plied to the Court to ask if their Lordships would
permit him to bring forward the motion which he had
been about to make yesterday.
Lord DENMAN—This is not the only Court in
which a motion can be made,
Mr. RICHARDS said this was a motion affecting the
liberty of the subject.
Lord DENMAN—We have appointed our times for
hearing motions, but if you have no opportunity of
moving in any other Court we will hear you here.
Mr. RICHARDS did not think he could make this
motion in any other Court. As the affidavits had been
sworn here he could not, without fresh affidavits, move
in another Court. His motion would be to discharge
the Sheriffs from the custody in which they were at pre-
sent, and to which the affidavits had been sworn.
Lord DENMAN—We shall proceed with the new
trials to-day until four o'clock, and we will hear you then.
At 4 o'clock, Mr.ltrcHAaps applied for a habeas corpus,
to be directed to Sir W. Gosset, the Sergeant-at-Arms,
to bring up the bodies of the High Sheriffs of London
and Middlesex, in order that the cause of their impri-
sonment might be inquired into. These gentlemen
were now prisoners, but the affidavit set forth that
they verily believed they had done nothing to incur
the displeasure of the House of Commons, except
what they had done in obedience to the Queen's
writ issued from this Court. The Learned Counsel
then read the affidavit of the Sheriffs, stating the facts
of the case, which are already known to the public.
The affidavit also set forth the resolutions of the
House of Commons relative to the Sheriffs, and the
Sheriffs also stated that they verily believed they were
imprisoned solely for what they had done in obedience
to the orders of the Court, and that they would not
have been committed to custody if they had consented
to pay over the money to the Messrs. Hansard, and
that they had seen no warrant authorizing their com-
mitment.
Lord DENMAN said, that without adverting at all to
the affidavit, there could be no reason why the writ of
habeas corpus should not issue, so that the bodies
might be brought up, and the cause of the commitment
inquired into. The fact of their being imprisoned was
sufficient to entitle them to that.
Mr. RICHARDS then stated he had a further application
to make to their Lordships, which was for an attach-
ment against Sir William Gossett for daring to im-
prison the officers of that Court, and obstruct them in
the execution of their duty.
Lord DENMAN—We cannot listen to that applica-
tion until we see what the return will be to the writ of
habeas corpus.

SHERIFFS COURT, JAN. 21.
WOODLAND V. LORD NORBURY.

This was an action brought by the plaintiff against
Noble defendant for the sum of 161. 10s., which had been
paid by the plaintiff to her sister, on behalf of the defen-
dant, under the following circumstances :
Mr. BOTHELL appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. GRIF-
FITHS for the defendant.

It appeared from the statement and evidence adduced,
that the plaintiff's sister, Elizabeth Woodland, (a very
pretty young woman) was a servant in the employment of
a lady in Blandford-street. About a year and a half
ago, the Noble defendant saw her, and engaged her
as his housemaid, and she went to live at Brighton. It fur-
ther appeared that the Noble Lord had become the father
of a child by this young woman. Before her confinement
he wrote to the plaintiff to take comfortable lodgings, and
to let her sister have everything which her situation
required. This was done, and the sum of 261. was paid
by the Noble defendant ; and on 3d July, 1839, he wrote
to the plaintiff stating that he would not be liable for any
more money. The plaintiff, however, claimed 161. 10s.
more, fur lodgings, &c.
The witness (Elizabeth Woodland) underwent a severe
cross-examination, but her testimony was not shaken.
She, however, admitted that she had brought an action
against the Noble defendant for wages due to her as a
housemaid.

After the Counsel for the plaintiff and defendant had
addressed the Court,
The UNDER SHERIFF said he coincided entirely with
what had been stated by the Learned Counsel for the Noble
defendant.

The Jury, however, found for the plaintiff—Damages,
161. 103.

INSOLVENT DEBTORS' COURT, JAN. 23.

IN RE ABRAHAM HENRY CHAMBERS.

The case of Mr. Chambers, the Banker, came on to-day.
Mr. Commissioner Law was enabled to defer some of his
arduous duties to attend in Court to deliver his opinion
with his learned colleagues, the Chief Commissioner and
Mr. Commissioner Bowen.

Mr. Woonaom proceeded with his application on the
part of Mr. Henry Wilton, a solicitor, for a rule calling on
Mr. Chambers to show cause why he should not be com-
mitted to the common gaol of the county in which he was
resident, for contempt of Court, in not filing his schedule,
on a vesting order obtained under the compulsory clause.
The affidavit of Mr. Wilton disclosed that on the 19th
of December a vesting order was made, and Mr. Cham-
bers called upon to fill his schedule within fourteen days,
which order he had disobeyed. That Mr. Chambers had
since his incarceration in the Fleet Prison received 2,000/.
from his so-called assignees under the bankruptcy, which
was part of 23,4001., a sum agreed to be given by the as-
signees for him to acknowledge the validity of the bank.
ruptcy. That deponent's debt was 16,0001. for disputing
the bankruptcy, and that the arrangement had been made
in 1835, after the matter had been in litigation for ten
years. His (deponent's) estate was materially interested
in the distribution of the funds which was prayed might be
made under the jurisdiction of this Court.
The question was argued at some length, when the
Court refused the application.
This decision will settle the question so far as the Fleet
Prison is concerned.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.

BOIV-STREET.

Yesterday Mr. Cheeper who preferred a complaint against
Mr. George Glenny, the Managing Director of the Royal
Union Association, 5, Lancaster-place, for refusing to pay
him the sum of 201., being the amount of a half year's an-
nuity due to him by the Society, again attended, as the
case had been postponed for the purpose of giving the
Magistrate time to ascertain if he could afford redress to
the complainant, and others similarly situated, and to give
the Society an opportunity of explaining.
Mr. Bodkin, and Mr. Cross, the solicitor, appeared for
the defendant.

Mr. TWYFORD said that the original application to him
was for an order to compel the defendant to pay, either
from the funds of the Society or from his private means,
the complainant's demand, but he apprehended it was not
within his jurisdiction.
A Solicitor, whose name did not transpire, said that he
appeared on behalf of several claimants residing in Lam-
beth, by whom he was instructed to inquire if he could pro-
ceed against the defendant for obtaining money under false
pretences.

Mr. BODKIN said that there were proceedings in the
Chancery and Bankruptcy Courts, and although the de-
fendant might come within the meaning of the Act, the
rules should have been submitted to the Justices, together
with a bond, and a variety of other forms should be gone
through, to authorise the Magistrates to interfere.
Mr. Twirroan, after referring to the 28th clause of the
10th Geo. IV. c. 56, said it was lawful for the Justices to
issue a summons in such cases, and the claims, with the
award in case of non-compliance, to be determined by two
Justices ; but although it must be allowed that the com-
plainant ought to have been paid, there were no funds to
meet the demand, and he was sensible that he had no ju-
risdiction, but he was anxious that the Association should
have every opportunity to come forward and satisfy their
several claimants by explaining the state of their affairs.
Mr. Cross said that in a short time printed circulars
would be distributed by the Society, in which every shilling
would be accounted for to the several claimants.

Mr. TWY FORD did not wish to smother inquiry, and he
thought it incumbent on the Society to put the public in
possession of what was going on.
Mr. Bodkin said that the Pension Society had been sup-
ported by members of the first families in the country, and
as several had withdrawn their names as subscribers, and
the tentage paid upon annuities being so high, the Soicety
could not make good the payments.
Mr. Cheeper said he had drawn only 8 per cent. on his
money, and the managing director should have withdrawn,
instead of deceiving the public; for within the last four
months he had seen many flaming advertisements put
forth, for no other purpose than to mislead the public.
Mr. Bodkin observed that by the 25th sect, of the Act
the different officers connected with the Society ceased to
liable after the rules had been enrolled.

Mr. TWYFORD—AII these forms should be proved before
I can act against the Association.
Mr. Cross said that the Society had on all occasions
paid by cheques on the Bank of England even to the last
101., and that no less a sum than 4,0001. had been paid
since June last.

Mr, Bodkin was of opinion that the Manistrate could
not proceed to make an order on the defendant, or on any
person connected with the Association, as the subject was
already in an equity court.
The Solicitor who appeared in support of the pensioners'
claims, said that the defendant might be considered to
have obtained money under false pretences, a ho must
have known at the time he issued the prospectus that the
Society could not stand.

Mr. Bodkin— If you are provided with evidence, your
best mode is by indictment ; but the Magistrate cannot
assist you. . .

The complainant said he was extremely sorry, not only
on his own account, but on that of thousands of poor people
who were ruined by the Society, which he now believed
was a swindling concern from the commencement.
Mr. Benjamin Bright, who had been a life subscriber in
the sum of 10/, yearly to the pension fund, applied for a
summons against the defendant, to compel him to produce
the books relating to the pension money, as it was his duty
to have done every year.
Mr. Cross had no objection to exhibit all the books,
whenever the applicant had time to call upon him.
Mr. TWYFORD said it would be necessary to prove
the case by procuring the rules, however inclined he
might be to afford redress, unless it was shown that they
were produced at Quarter Sessions.
Mr. Cross declared that the defendant had spent the
entire of his property in the concern, and he could do no
more, but as far as he (Mr. Cross) was concerned, the ap-
plicant should have nothing to complain, nf.
Mr. Bright said he would endeavour to induce the sub..
scribers to appoint fresh officers, as the Board had violetk..d
the rules, and as the proceedings !tad shaken public confi-
dence in other societies, the pensioners could not be re-