The Sun.
London, England, 1823-04-28 00:00:00

lib ,
Ake xc
,:--
, 0 - -,--47 -t-fi,„,
.. S, 4.04`..,,,,p./..-*..„,,,,
hit,,,..--
Tr", / ' 6
T E
„............ .„ •.
~,,
7,,,,
.7,;. , / a..,„,...
' aiii ar44, 7/lie ‘ ( I

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

MONDAY, APRIL 28, 1823.

COURT OF CHANCERY., Aram 26.
CONTEMPT OF COURT.
FARqUIIARSON v. BALFOUR.
This case again occu ied the attention of 'the Court. The
L ORD CuAXCELLon, sad taken certain papers home withhim,
nht
for the purpose of fo _ a judgment whether the defendant's
examination before the . aster, as connected with his former
insufficient answer, was so far satisfactory as to entitle him to
be discharged out of custody. After hearing Mr. AGAR and
Mr. Hailf,his Lordship expressed his doubt as to the sufficiency
of the examination. It might be sufficient ; btit they would be-
lieve it to be so who could. He could not but consider the de-
fendant as having sworn incautiously. tiod forbid he should say
the defendant had not put in his answers and examination,
without meaning to state what was not true, but it certainly
was very difficult to believe it ! His Lorilsiiiii, adverting to
what had been stated in another place respecting thepower of
the Court to commit to prison for contempt of Court, observed
that he was very glad this point had been introduced, be.
cause it was highly proper the public should know what a
contempt of Court was. It was nut the feeling of a Judge,
arising frotka contempt of his authosi4 ;'brat it was the
process of the "Court which one subject had against another
to oblige him to do bim justice ; for instance, to put Mr. Balfour
out of the Court, and talk of A and 11. A says, you arc a
trustee for me for 20,0001. and you have a deed in your posses-
sion which will shew it. Says the man B, I will not tell
you whether I have or not. This seas what was called a
contempt of the Court. It had been said that a Judge ought
not to have the power to send a man to gaol for a contempt.---
it was not the Judge who sent him; it was the process which
A had aright to enforce, in order to do justice to himself. The
thing was grossly misunderstood. He, as Chancellor, dbuld
no snore refuse to a suitor the process of contempt, than a
Judge of the Court of King's Bench could refuse the process
by which his debtor was arrested. Cases had be represent.
ed to him where defendants were not able to put in their
answers so as to clear their contempts, owing to the want of pe-
cuniary means. In many such cases, where the parties had
been committed for contempt in not putting in answers, the
plaintiff's had offered to defray the whole expences, upon condi.
non of their putting in such answers as should be deemed suffi-
cient. The defendants would not do it, and yet this Court was
to be blamed for keeping such persons in prison. This was a
matter which ought t.i be batter understood : with r,spect to
the Committment of the Chancellor for a contempt, it was the
same as a process for a debt, or a commitment by the Judge of
another Court. There were some persons who would not come
out of prison.

COURT OF RING'S BENCH, APRIL 2C.
THE KING V. lIALSE.
The defendant a gentleman of fortune, wag found guilty at
the last Sommer Assizes for Cornwall of bribery at the late
election for St. Ives. On that occasion he supported Mr. Eve-
lyn and Mr. Graham with considerable zeal, and was charged
with bribing several voters to ensure their return. Mr. Ser-
jeant Pell, in Michaelmas Term, obtained a rule to show muse
why he should not have a new trial,. on affidavits tending to
show that the witnesses for the Crown had committed perjury
in several particulars of their evidence. In consequence of the•
time required to answer these affidavits, and the complicated
facts bearing on the case, the rule stood over until this dep.
Mr. ScaItLETT was about to show cause, when
Mr. Serjeant YELL rose, and prayed for leave to file further
affidavits in support of the rule.' Theme did not introduce any
new facts, but were only confirmatory of those already suggest-
ed 4 he therefore submitted that they came within the exception
which the Court had allowed to prevail on other occasions. In
his judgment they were not only most important, but conclu-
sive ; and the facts stated in one of them, made by two per-
sons of the name of Roberts, only came recently to the know-
ledge of the defendant.

Mr. SemitErr did not deny that the Court had a discre-
tionary power .to allow affidavits to be received at any titug,
when they conceived the itululgence necessary to the attain-
ment of justice; hut he contended that the present was not a
case in which they would exercise this power.
The CounT refrained from laying down any precise rule
respecting the circumstances under which fresh affidavits should
be admitted. They decided in receiving the affidavit of the
persons named Roberts, anti refused to hear the others at pre-
sent ; but observed that they might stilt allow any of them to
they be read if, in the course of the proceedings, the should appear
necessary to the elucidation of any important fact in the cause.
The affidavit thus atimi3e.l was then -read, and went to
contradict a witness for the prosecution respecting the situation
of the premises in which one of the acts of bribery was sworn
to have been conimitted.

31r. StwitETT requested time to consider whether this was
worth answering, as at present he could not say .whether it was
or nut ; but his impression was in the negative.:.i.,
The Couttr granted time till Tuesday.

COSSISTORY counrr, Arutt46.
ALLEGED CLERICAL IRREGCLA RIVES..
TIIF. retitlSll OF GREAT WALTHAM v. THE; REVEREND
Olt. cr.artxr.,
who is N'imr of the Oarish of Great
WlalhtleianderX:dni
I,l:sse xin t,t0116 case,
twlicltliving he was preseAted in 1797 by
Trinity College, Oxford, and Itgainst whom several charges had
been preferred in this Court by the Churchwardens and other
persons in this parish, for irregularities in the performance of his
dutitts was this morning heard ip his defence. ,The Rev. GII..
dernall laid on the table of the (;Dort a law bundle of papers,
and immediately proceeded to apply himself to answer the ar-
ticks exhibited against him separately. His manner, however,
was so eccentric, the pmnunciation of Ids words so singular.
andois he said himself, his memory so defective that it would
be impossible to give any thing like a correct detail of the ob..
Nervations and explanations which he offered 1' the Court. As
far as we could understand him, be scented %) have taken great
umbrage at the existence of the Six Bells public.house, inune-
diately contiguous to the church-yard, into which many of
his parishioners w cin the habit of going when attending fu-
nerals or baptisms A 0 the great seand4l of the parish. To pre-
vent this nuisance he held mit various threats of refuting to
bury in particular situations, and did acts lc commit some
of the breaches of decorum imputed by the articles. Ile ad.
mined that lie refused to bury a child in his parish' because it
died in an adjoining parish, and he dill not wish to deprive
another Clerk/Junin of his right. With reglad to refusing to
permit the bells , to' be chimed 'previous to the commence-
ment of the-Chttrch Service, he awribed this to acts of
perfidy on the} art of the Churchwarckns—acts which if com-
mitted by as-Adler he would have been shat and for which, MI
he read at school, if committed by tiers° ' in ancient times,
they would have been tow asunder by wilt .liorses. It was in
consequence of theseectS of perfidy commit ti by the Church.
wardens, that he had felt it rightg up: e key hole of the
belfry door, and ever since that time had hit the key of the
rith
church in his individual possessmi would nut even trust
it to his wife. For two years he had let the desk into the church
through the chancel, but the ringers did not choose to be de-
privesi of their constant acute; to the public house, anti there.
fore they would not come at all. tits object was to restore
decency to the church-yard, and in endeavouring to effect this,
he had himself been a considerable, loser. As a proof of this,
a funeral passed the church last Saturday while he was in this
Court, anti the friends of the deceased wished the hells to chime,
but they could not be got at because lie had the key in his
pocket. By this and other omirrences of the state sort he had
lost many fees. As to the charge of refusing to ripen the church
door to permit vestries to be held therein, lie had only to say,
that as the clock-winder's key, the clerk's key, and the key of
the belfrey, had been taken away by the Churchivartlemi, he did
not think limper to have the honour of being their door keeper.
It was their business to have provided keys for themselves.
It was true, as stated, that after the clerk had given notice
in the church of a vestry intended to be held in the course of
the week, than he also had said, " and I also give notice that
I will do no more duty till the windows are mended ;" but
what was the real state of the ease l. His pulpit WWI CIOSe to a
window with a northern arpect, in which several paries of glass
had been broken, and through which the cold wind blew all the
winter on his right side, so as to afflict hint severely with the
rheumatism. Ile had repeatedly called on the Churchwardens
to remedy this evil, but they neglected; and to shame
them, while stinting under a pamxyrin of pain, he gave
the notice alluded to. In the same way, and under similar
feelings, he called the attention of the two sons of the
Churchwardens, one day, on their entering the Church at a late
hour of the service. As to his locking the Clitirch-door allege.
ther, this was to prevent the Churchwardens from putting up
fixtures in the Church without the consent o the Vicar. Ile
admitted that he went out of the Church duri divine service
&nil performed two baptisorsibut this was at t time when the
...