The Sun.
London, England, 1823-11-14 00:00:00

LAM INTELLiGENCE.

GOURT Or CHANCHRY, Nov, 13.
noEnn V. ant °NORGE wool),
Mr. WETHERELL l'CqUeStOd that the Lord Chantellor would
addisomething of explanation to the order granted in this case
for the Sheriff o pay 36,0091. into the Court, being the price'
at which the Ottershaw estates Were sold to the defendant, on
condition of a release beinggiven against all reapOnsibi
lity. It was not unlikely the conduct of the Sheriff might,
independently of the proceedings, become the ground of action
in the lower Courts: He prestunttl that; it was not intended
that his Lordship's order
.shouht screen the Sheriff from his,
responsibility to the law.
The LOAD CHANCELLOR explained his purpose in granting'
the order, which was to secure, the Motif fron, all.responsibi-
lity of a pecuniary kind, as far as regarded the claim Of the
plaintiffs in the cause, and nothing beyond that. •
R it (MIURA V. ?Aix..
The parties are soap-boilers., and their manufactory is at }iris.
tol. The plaintiff' had been sulmited to the concern about ja-
nuary last. The defendant had made' representations as to the
state of the business, the, stock, and the general profits, which
the plaintiff found to be erroneous. The present application
prayed the Court to restrain the- defendadt from negocisting
such of the bills given for the before-mentioned object by the
plaintiff, as were not yet paid; to prevent the defendant from
interfering further in the concerns ; and to appoint a receiver to
the estate.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL opened the case, and detailed
a variety of alleged misconduct in the transactions which had
given rise to the present application.
Mr. HEALD and Mr. llourzt.t followed op the same side.
Mr. Ho RNE was heard fur the remainder of the time tbr the
defendant.
The Loan CHANCELLOR apologzed fot breaking in upon
the a:guinent, but he could only sit till half-past two o'cloelc in
the hull, and he was only enabled to do that through the kind-
nessond condescension of the members of Lincoln's-lon.
Mr. Ao.tn said, that the Society would be most happy to do
every thing they could towards his Lordslilpisiceommodation
and the interests of die public that workmen were daily in
attendance during term for the arrangement of the hall after
the sittings, so as to allow the Court the longest possible time.
The Loan CHANCELLOR said .he was perfectly sensible of
the good will of the Society, but the public ought to know that
it was not his fault that he did not sit longer for the dispatch of
the business.

COURT OF RING'S. BENCH, Nov. 13.
PRISON • DISCIPLINE.
THE KING V. THE JUSTICES OF THE NORTH RIDING Or
YORKSHIRE.
[Farther Part scalars.]
Mr. ScaaLE'rt moved for a writ of mandamus, directed tct
the Magistrates of the North Riding of Yorkshire, connnaud.
lag them to act on the report of Martin Stapleton, Esq., re•
specting certain abuatts in the House of Correction for that
district; and to inquire into and. rectify such abuses. This
application W4S grounded on 4 Cleo. IV. c. 64, s. 17, which
authorieed any Magistrate of a county or division to enter into
and examine any prison within its limits, and if he should dis.
cover any abuses, to report the same in writing to the next
Quarter Sessions and which further provided, that " the
abuset so reported shall .e taken into immediate consideration
by the Justices at Sessions; and they are hereby required to
adopt the most cffetual measures for inquiring-into and rectifyi.
ing such abuses as soon as the nature of the case shall allow."
Mr. Stapleton, who was a Magistrate and a Gentleman of large
fortune, had, in pursuance of this Act, visited the prison, and
had reported an impottant abuse which he obterved i he re-
ported tile abuse to the Sessions, but they provided no satins
factory remedy, and he now made this applica,den to the Court,
to compel them to perform the duty cast on them by the Legiit.
future.
The Lon!, Cum*" du BTICE.—How can we inquire into the
exercise of a discretion with which Magistrates are invested,
and compel them to act in a particular course?
Mr. SCARLETT said the subject was of great importance,
and deserving the utmost attention of the Court.
The Loan CittEr. JUSTICE.—yes.; but the importance of
the subject cannot justify the interference of the Court when
they have no power. Can you ahetv us how we have power to
direct the hlagistrates in this case ?
Mr. Scant EIJ. submitted that the abuse complained of was
a plain' violation of the Statute, and yet the Magistrates had
refused to affbrd effectual redress. The lOch section of the Act
contained a series of regulations, among which were the follow-
ing :—" Every prisoner maintained at the expence of any county
or place shallbe allowed a sufficient quantity of plein and
wholesome food, to be regulated by the Justices in SessionS,
regard being had (so far as may relate to convicted prisbners)
to the nature of the labour required from them 1 and it shall be
lawful for such Justices to order, t'or such prisoners of every
description as are not able to work, or being able, Cannot pre).
Cora employment sufficient to sustain themselves by their in-
dustry, who cannot be otherwise provided for, such allowante
of food as the Justices shall from tune to time think necessary
for the support of health." The 37th section of the Act point-
-1 ed out the ewe in which persons committed for trial may be
employed in work and atter reciting that persons in that situa-
tion were often willing to Work, empowered one or more visiting
justices to authorise the employment of such prisoners " with
their own commit." It wail perfectly clear from these regula-
tions, that Magistrates hid no power to compel' untried pri.scalers to work in any way, and still leas to place them 'on the
tread-mill but Mr. Stapleton last year discovered that-all the
prisoners were indiscriminately forced to perform the irksome
and humiliating drudgery of that machine. 'He mentioned
the Subject several times to the Quarter Session,:' -but without
effect; and at last made his report, succinctly stating the
eiiiiince of this grievous abuse. The 1144;iitratei took the
subject into their consideration, and made an order, not coun.
termanding the employment of prisoners at the tresulanitl, but
directing that those prisoners who would not work sat the tread-
mill 'should have no provision but bread and water.
Stapleton felt that this was a.grievous abuse, ,and therefore
he brotight it forward, imputing no dishonourable motive ,to
the Magistrates; many of whom were his intimate friends, but
feeling that they had, greatly mistaken their duty.
The 'Jolty CHIEF JUSTICE,—YOR do ,not say that they
have prohibited. prisoners Who. have resources to 'avail them.'
selves of them ?
Mr. SCADLETT replied, certainly not but, they wete botiod
to foul for all who were unable to support themselves by dieir
•intlustry, " wholesome and sufficient ' food (-and he contended
that bread and water alone were not "..wholesome and suffi.
dent" fur the support of nature, even. when given in proper
•
quantities.
The LORD Custer (IVITICE.•—.TA there any statement in the
affidavit, that bread and water are not wholesole and sufficient
tot the support of the prisoners ?:
Mr. SCARLETT replied, that Mr. Stapleton solemnly deposed
to his belief, that, alone, they were very inadequate to the pre-
servation of health and strength. It was clearly ascertained
that the recent mortality in die Penitentiary athfill Rank arose
from the want of nourishing provisions. Was it, then, to be
suffered that Magistrates, --having no. power to commit any
untried prisoners to hard lab Our, should compel them to the
most distressing species of toll, on pain of being deprived
yf the means of health Ail subsistence? • They were directed to
supply prisoners with food who could not 'earn their eatssub-
instence and was the tread-mill to be forced on them lets if it
.were their own occupation and trade? Suppose a poor man, in-
nocent altogetherof crime, being quite able to support himself in 1
his own trade if at large deprived of the mein* support by
imprisonment, and uttered food only on condition of mounting
the treats-mill, would not this be a case of intolerable twill:hip
Note many mei were wminitted to prison fiir amanita and petty
offences, or who were entirely innocent, and who might be offer-
ed this cruel option of the tread-mill or starvation? They might
be willing to labbor tlit.ir vocations, or in any fair ocettpa.
tion ; andit was the duty of Magistrates before they refused
them sufficient nutriment, -to give these the opportunity often.
gaging in such works. Wax nut the order of the Magistrates,
then, " as abuse," and would not the Court compel them to
apply a remedy ?
The hoax: Cutts. JusrscE.—Some one must judge as to
the kind of labour in which
,prisonere may be employed, and
as to the sort of food WhiCh is aufficient if• they are unable or
unwilling to work.
Mr. SCARLETT.—yes, MY,LCIrd ; but I contend that mere
bread era %Ilia ire indisputably inadequate and unwholesome.
on nu.r vontica would :the (74)".t "X they
dying thekdiscr' were Merely cur.
Suppoae the -.Magistrates should direct all the prisoners to be fed
, and, that are to bethel
that the cases *ere differett in
yo.sfritiirlue.;el;pocEinii.c:clTlol:ol:4o:Jrparaubil:T. fCciEw.tiVc4ll4l'llove;
proar
mq(hriai.rics.
epoazt

degree, but contended 'that they were the same in principle.
.Bread and water were clearly insufficient to ' human health ;
and if the Magistrates might, in their discretion, reduce the
diet of prisenere to these, he 'did riot see'whY they Might .not-
confine it so something ahsOltitely pernicious. •
The Loan Corsi Jusr.leE said, bread and water were the
• principal, food of great numbers, of tieople ; and he did noCknciw
that, if given in sufncieht quantity; they were wiiviiolsonie. •
' Mr. Justice Ilair.t.tv' asked 117 die, affidavit, stated:siny
"stances of *antis. Whose bea;th, iti the judgment • of medical
men, had been injured by the diet complained of; -as, if the
system was really prejudicial, such instances would haye
Mr. SCARLETT . admitted there were. none; but the order I
might have had the effect of driving all theprisoners to the
treed-mill to obtain atrgtlequaw supply for their wants.
Mr. Justice BrsT.--.There are great numbers of the indus-
trious poor whose fare consists often of bread and water ; and
why should prisoners who will not work be better provided for ?
&mart 'r said, he hoped the poor of the country were
not now in such distress.
Mr. Justice I3AYLar.--I believe many of the population of
this country would be glad to obtain a safficient quantity of
breed ; and we all know that the inhahitants of a northern
part of this kingdom,' if they do notlive on bread and water,
live on oatmeal and water, which can hardly be more whole.
sortie.
Mr. SCARLETT hoped that the Court would think the case
worthy of deep attention. The prisonds, innocent as they
Might be, Inane other protection than that which the Court
could afford them, and for that he trusted they would not ask
in vain.'
- The Loan CitiEF JtisTrtE asked if Mr. Scarlett could re-
fer the Court to any act which made it compulsory on Magia-
tratel to provide for prisoners who reflised to work?
Mr. Justice Btnrr observed,' that the 19th Car. 11., c. 4.,
recited that poor men perished before trial, and authorized Me-
gistrates to provide for them means of working. The provi=
sions enabling them to supply those with food who could not
earn it were of a later period.
Mr. At.ExAmiwit (who was with Mr Scarlett) referred the
Court to 33 Geo. I 11.. as extending the powers and dnties of
Mitgistrates in reference to the support of prisoners.
The Loan CHIEF Jtis.ricE observed, that the Court had
listened to hear if any act was cited, making it compulSory on
Magistrates to find food for those who, being able, refused to
work; but, at present, they had heard none; and, in the ab.
sence of such provision, they were bound to refuse the rule.
They could not say, from any thing before them, that labour
at the tread-mill'was not a proper.specles of work, or that bread
and water was not sufficient diet for those who refused it.
Finding no provision respecting the kind of labour, and seeing,
therefirre, that the Magistrates had done nothing contrary to
law, they could not interpose and direct them to `pursue a dif,
&rent course. They ought to be exceedingly cautious how they
Interfered with Magistrates in the exercise of duties peculiarly
cast on them, and to reihse their interposition unless they saw
them disregarding Some known duty. They must, therefore,
refuse the rule,
Mi. Justice BAYLEY said, the Court could not grant a roan•
dames unless they saw that the party-was bound to perform
some particular act whiCh he had 'neglected. In this case they
clearly luid.no power to prescribe the sort of food which Magis-
trates should allow to those who would not work, and who, in
strictness, were not entitled to any thing.
Mr. Justice flOtitorn having been absent in the early .part
of the argument, declined giving any opinion.
Mr. Justice Brat said, it was clear that, by the Act, a ills-
cretion was intrusted to the Magistrates, and where this was
the case the Court would never interpose to say how that diecre.
tion should be exercised in any particular case. A man who was
committed to prison was not to be placed in a better situation
than one who was at liberty; he was to he placed in as good a situ-
ation merely; and as a man at liberty who refused to work would
not be sustained in idleness, so a man in prison could ask no more:
The 'Magistrates were bound to find the means of work they
had found them; and if these 'were rejected, the prisoners had
no reason to complain. lie was not prepared to say that bread
and water was not sufficient food for men who were too idle to
work"( and he was afraid that many men who were at large
and willing to labour would be sled to obtain a sufficient quan-
tity of those provisions.
Mr. SCARLETT said he had certainly found no statute cotn-
pelling Magistrates to provide food for those who refused to
work.
Mr. Justice BEST.—NOf haie I. When 1 looked, I found
none but the 19th of Car. 11., which directs Magistrates to tied
work, that they might maintain. themselves.
The Coon, accordingly refused the rule.
• THE mato' v. wityrcoati.
This defendant, it will be recollected, was convicted, at the
last Assiees for Shropshire, for improper conduct in his office
as a Coroner of that County. Since the conviction the de-
fendant had inetnorialieed the Quarter Sessions to be permit.
ted to resign hittottice of Coroner, and had In fact sent in his
resignation. In consideration of his conduct in this particular,
Anil as the prosecution hadhad the desired effect In exposing his
delinquency, the Magistrates bail come to a resolution, desire
ing the Clerk of the Peace "to certify their wish that no further
punishment than removal front office might be imposed upon
him.

The defendant now appeared in Court, and these circum-
stances being represented by Mr. PE ARSON, Counsel for the
prOsecution, and Mr. ,lEnvls and Mr. CORSET for the de-
fence, it was prayed on the part of the former that the defend,.
ant Might pow be discharged'on his own recognicanees, to come
Up to abide the judgment of the Court when called upon. •
The Courr acquiesced in this arrangement; and the de-
fendant was discharged on the tears proposed. • • •

THE KING V. 1110 M-0 DOLBY.

This defendirit7l-vis convicted at the Sittinga after last Mi.
chaeltnaii Tettn,Of ' publishing a seditious libel in a work called
The l'atitical Dictionary. ''t'he prosecution" was conducted at
the In*tatue of the Constitutional Aisociation.-111r. Ova.
my now prayed the judgment of the Court.—The defend,
ant, a man Of Very respectable appearance, stood on the floor,
and produced affidavits in mitigation of punishment. His
own affidavit denied that he was the author of, Or had any
thing id' do with the composition of the work in question.--
lie considered it a Mere palitictilsquib a Jest,book, or politi-
cal satire, and never supposed that it was a sedulous libel
until it was prosecuted. The zruitnent the indictment Was
found against -hilt he discontinued the publicatton very few
.espies of which had* been sold, and the remainderi he was
leady to deliver up to the prosecutors. Thiasproceeding; had
been attended with a serious domestic calamity to himself, in
thelosi of a beloved wife, who died in childbirth in cone
!pence of the alarm occasioned td' her feelingi from the peril
In which her hniband was placed by the prosecution. He had
now changed his pursuits ursuits in life, and had altogether giVen tip
the trans Of a ,bookseller. The prosecution' had entailed updn
him the most serious pecuniary loaves, and he had now a help:
lying family 'of young children depending Orton hint for sup.
port. Mr. Alderman Key stated in ha affidavit that he had
known the defendant for many years, and that he was an in:
'diutriout, Worthy, InoirensiVe with a large family of
.young children. Mt. John Langley, a surgeon, deposed to the
calamitous death of the defendant's wife, which he attributed
to her mental siifferings, in consequence of her husband's miss
fortunes.filr. titflorET, under these circurastancek, inter-
posed, and prayed that the matter might stand over till Men-
day, tii order to ascertain thetrtith Of the Matters slated in 'the,
affid.avits, and said if they were found correct, most probably
the Court would hear no more of the case.

CRIMINAL INFORMATION.
Mr. BROVOnAM said, he had to apply for leave to file a eft.
urinal information fkgailst Lient, P. firaham, of his liitiPstY's
Navy lie made dna application in behalf of the Right non.
Lord Ilarborough, and UndOisthe following eircunistauces
111 r. graham was An officer in the PreVenttve Servide., stationed
in or near Dover. In August last, Lord Ihrborotigh was
landing from his yacht on Dover Beach. It was late at night,
and his Lordship wassoet by a 30111114 n who stopped him as he
was proceeding to his hotel.

The Lott) Cutvr Jurricr.—lt was dark ?
" ISlr. Ilnotlettt.at said it was after midnight. The man said
he belonged to the Preventive servicet and on being asked by
his Lordship to thew his authority, he pulled out a pistol, say.
ing, " Ilere is my authority." Lord ilarborough then called
up his crew, not with a view of making any resistance, but to
procure witnesses of the restraint put upon, his person. The
14.1411444 shortly after held up his pistol anti flied in the air for
the purpose of calling up some of his comrades. ,Ilis.Lortishlp
then niade.a show of gelortawards his Hotel, when the sea.
plan exclaimed, " Ily the - ,1,11 cut you down, you;
---." The Noble Lord WA* demi:lett half at hunr,land
ori telling who he was they alowetthirn tOtgli‘ to .his.
Next morning he called on Lieuternint.tilraham; ar(d.atked'
ft:m..ollle eipisnation as to the sutlietity.kywhich hkluid been
treated .so .rudely. Lord
.fiarbnrough,at the aarge tith
stated
that. he bad been regularly ,se4rched. LteneAC jra ieuatn'
.

- . .
• 'said his Lord Ship had,not believed like n (fentlcroan.
shipman named Smith also said.i.ord !fat-borough Should not
have called up a suPerior 'fbeett- Insulting lantosige uotflikt.
and his Lordship told Mr. fimith he luid,,44tkir 041,0 I 444 no interfere. He adverted, to a.farmer .uransaction in whichStitith. had been engaged; and said lie was fortunaldill *KRA" eseitpt;.i
punishment. Lieut. inttrpoied; tinitiktid it wix
• not proper Language to th?.410 a rit/paerniu-4•andian OtNcr. ;;•,.
his Majesty's service ; Oidn g, if he did not know how to -
:
have he would teach him 'He at the same 'tirnegtive tto,r.
and demanded satitfaciion. • To the proposal borditarbotoug
said he should not aceeda.- His intention was to.appaal to ....it;
proper authorities, and his Lordship accordingly made thi;
applieation.--7'he Court granted a rtileltr she* rause.'
IX THE ItATTEit oEo2oll.otiqrniCACit•
George Furnace, who W/1,4 convicted, by Mr. Bevil, of
ship-street, under the Vagrant 'ltet; fOr indocent)Y exPoting,bi:i person, appeared on the return *fit writ bilks/vas tooliorto, -Alva
gave bail to prosecute his appeal.. • .
IN THE M.%TTJ.It or. ITSIC TIN MAYEY.
This was a rule for a writ of bobcat coipui tobring up Henry
iViaby, committed to the custody of the Sheriff of 'Surrey.; on
writ de cottuotdee 'eaßiendu for• contempt of an' licelemasticat
Collet, in not performing penance for defamation. The grounds
of the motion were, that the offbnce wax tot sutliciently tuttrt,,,
and that the sentence was not explicit. He has been in custody ever since
The CouaT, after bearing Mi. PA7.:slat:loN against the rule.
and Mr. CHITTY in its support, made it absolute, .on the
ground that the Charge against the prisoner wasnet eapressed ia
each terms as would warrant the subsequent ptoeuedings. lie
will therefore be disChargeti.

COURT OF. COMMON PLEAS, Nov. 15.
SEHOLEY v. tiOOEIIAN.
Mr. Serjeant PELL moved that the rule obtained in this
cause should be made abaohire. It was an action brought by the plaintiff as the trustee of the wife of the delenelatit, Miele*
a deed of separation, for the fulfliment of the agreenieut ei. -
tered into between the parties, by which she was to receive 121,
a week as alimony. The defendunt, however, refused payment
of the stipulated SUM on the ground of ilia wife's adultery. An
action was in consequence brought by the wife's trustee, anti
adultery was the'defence let up at the tried, when the husband
obtained a verdict.
Mr. Serjeant Vauoteest was now heard at great length
against the role. Be contended that, under the particular eie-
curnstance3 of this eaiie,' where the parties,' were living sepa-
rate from each other, the evidence .or the one was admit:.
table against the other upon the principles of common
reason, though he was not prepared with Petty* authorities
in support of the fact. The plaintiff could 'only be regarded
as the mere medium by which the allowance of the husband
was to be conveyed to the wife. There were numerous instances
in which contracts for alimony had been declared null and void
in consequence of adultery on the part of the wife. The cue
of Knight and Fuller was one of them. .1a that case it ay.
peered that, though the' wife had been :Wowed, by a special
agreement, to Cohabit with her paramour, still the Court held
that adultery was a bar to alimonve The principal point in the
ease of Knight and Fuller was, as to whether the word " co-
habit" necessarily implied criminal intercourse. But such
profligate agreements had no reference to the present case ; for
it had. never been assumed for a moment that the defendant
had connived at his wife's adultery ; nor was it thought neces..
eery to Unlit the allowance to the period during which the wife
eontinued chaste. That was implied in the agreement. In the
case of l'ittly and Durant, 7th Price, in which a deeti of cove-
mint had been •drawn between the husband anti wife and a
trustee appointed, stipulating that the husband should' pay au
annuity to the trustee ao long as the wife lived separate ; that
covenant was declared null and void, because it had been entered
into contrary to the policy of the law. But upon the great nth-,
ciples of law there Was no difference between an agreement en,
tered into on the day of marriage and the day of separation.
There could be no doubt that all agreements of this kind were
contrary to the policy of the law. The Lord Chancellor had
repeatedly expressed his doubts as to the policy of the law
with respect to these agreements, and had decided that pro-
spective separations were bad. Lord Kenyon's judgment in
" Itutter v. Marshall," had been given fully, and stated the
inconvenience that must result from initting a wife in the cha-
neer of a j'enorne role. The Learned Serjeant observed, this
he objected in limine to the principle of giving a woman a
power which the law did not recognise. If she were allowed to
bring her action through her trustees, the wife might then sp.
pear its a witness against her husband, for this action was the
111 r. Justice PASS X.—Brother Vaughan, I think you are as-
suming too much in saying that this is the action Of the wilt.
Mr. Serjeant VAUGHAN submitted that the agreement
merely called on the defendant to pay the allowance, and the
trustee would prevent him being asked for more; but it was
not to the sum,_ but to the principle that he objeeted.
Mr. Justice PARK said, that in the ease of Evans and Frock,
It had been decided that the declaration of' a wife made before
her separation, might be received in evidence atter she had se-
parated from her husband.
Mr. Serjeant VAUVIEaIi observed that he should not have
called the Wife to give evidence under such' circumstancee.
Mr. Justice Pax x—There must be a new trial in this mtge.
Lord Chief Justice Ateens said there was no doubt'as tq
the principle upon which the husband and wife were precluded
from giving etidenee for or against each other. The principle
hum always hold good in ordinary eases, and the only doubt on
his mind could be, in cases where opposite interests arose by the
parties being separated from each other. He agreed with his
Learned Broiler that there must be a new trial in the present