The Sun.
London, England, 1824-07-01 00:00:00

HAWEAS CORPUS.

Mr. HEALD said,
he had just put into his hands a case, in
which the liberty of the subject was concerned. It was the
case of a bankrupt, of the name of James Gromerson, who had
been committed to prison by the Conimissioners. The ground
upon which ,it was now prayed that the bankrupt should be
discharged was, that the questions and answers, on the two
first examinations, were not contained on the warrant of com.
mitment.

Tho LORD CHANCELLOR was of opinion that the bankrupt
ought to be discharged, although he verily believed, upon read.
Ing the examinations on the warrant, that the party deserved
commitment. Be wished that more care would LA future be
taken in drawing these Warrants of commitment.

THE. CORONER OP SALOP.
IN RE THE CORONER OF SAl.ot'.
Mr. Mums stated, that this was a petition of ai free-
holders of Shropshire, praying that the Sheriff of the 'aunty
be directed to make out a new writ for the removal of a person
of the name of Jones from the office of Coroner, and for the.
appointment of a Mr. Southern in his stead. It appeared
upon the petition, which was verified by affidavit, that a va.
cancy having occurred in the office of Coroner for the county of
Salop, an election had taken place as directed by the Act 58
Geo. 111., but the petitioners complained that the election was
not in conformity with the whole of the regulations of the Act
in two respects it, The postponement of the day of holding
the Court beyond the day prescribed ; and, 2dly, The refusal
by the Sheriff to allow a pall. With respect to the first
point, it was ascertained that the writ was first issued on the
25th of March, and that the Sheriff adjourned the Court to
the 28th April, which was a longer period than was allow.
ed by the Act. On the 28th of April, however, the free-
holders attended at the Court, and two candidates were
proposed, Mr. George Jones, a surgeon, 'and Mr. Samuel
Philip Southern, a solicitor, practising in the town of Shrews-
bury. The election was declared in favour of Mr. Jones, and
a poll was demanded by the friends of Mr. Southern. The
Sheriff absolutely refused to allow the poll, alleging that Mr.
Southern was ineligible, not being possessed of sufficient pro-
perty to qualify him for, the office. Upon an examination of
the Acts which regulated the appointment of Coroners, it ap.
peared that in tact no qualification was necessary..• t was,
however, alleged, that the possession of a freehold, of the value
of an huniired shillings, absolutely requisite. The two Acts of
the 7th and Bth William 111. c. 25, and 18th George 11. c. 18,
were combined in tit© last statute of the late King, and no
doubt mild be entertained that the election was void, anti that
a new writ must be issued.

Mr. TAU NT ow, on the same side, took a view of the various
statutes which had passed from the time of Edward 1. to the
present period, with is view of shewing that, at the present
day, no qualification of M. was requisite to render any man
eligible to the office of Coroner. The first statute was the.

• 4
of the 3d of Edward the First, by which it was required
that " the most wise and discrete knights" should be chosen
to the office of Coroner. It would be seen, therefore, that ac-
cording to this Act no honest country, Gentleman or Squire
would be competent to fill this important office, and an
Knight only would be eligible. Mr. Jones would be, there-
fore, as much disqualified as Mr. Southern according to this
Act; and it must be considered in the present day as obsolete.
The next Act, the 14th Edward 111. required a Coroner to pos-
sess land in fee, " whereof he may answer to all people," and
the 28th Edward 111. declared that " the most meek anlawful
to be found in the country," should be chosen. The Learned
Counsel next adverted to the authorities of Fitzherbert in his
Nature Brevium, and of Sir Edward Coke in his Second In-
stitute, in support of the argument which he had advanced.
The latter authority bad declared his opinion to be, that the
true construction of the Acts of Parliament was, that all that
was meant by the word " Knight" in those Acts was, they
should possess " sufficient land whereof to answer to the King."
The Learned Counsel next contended that the Sheriff was not
himself competent to judge of the question of eligibility, and
that the point rested entirely with his, Lordship. It was to be
observed, that no provision was contained in these several Acts,
that if such qualification did not exist, the election should be
void.

The SOLTCITOR-GENERAL, on the other side, contended,
that the qualification of an hundred shillings was absolutely
necessary. He referred to an Act, Ist Henry VIII., by which
it was directed that an." escheator" was not competent unless
he possessed a property of an hundred shillings. It was true
that this Act did not include the office of Coroner by name, but
the escheator and coroner had been combined in former statutes,
and it appeared that both required a similar qualification. The
main ground, however, upon which the Learned Solicitor-Ge-
neral rested his opposition to the petition, was, that Mr. South.
ern had himself admitted his disqualification according to the
Act 14th Edward the Third, and had actually withdrawn him-
self as a candidate for the office. This important fact was dis-
tinctly proved by the affidavits of Joseph Collier and others,
who were present at the time. He contended, therefore, that
the election could not now be disturbed.

Mr. SHADWELL appeared as Counsel on the part of the
Sheriff, and was convinced that the affidavits would satisfacto-
rily show that the Sheriff had acted with the utmost propriety
and fairness towards the parties. The Under-Sheriff, whose
legal learning secundion subjectam materiant, was by no
means contemptible, was, it appeared, wholly governed at this
election by that well-known, not to say learned, work, " Im-
pey's Practice ;" and, in that book, the last statute of the 58th
Geo. 111., was wholly omitted. The only fault which could
be attributed to this Gentleman, therefore, was an absence of
certain legal learning, which it would certainly have been as
well had he possessed. It appeared, also, that the postpone-
ment of the Court was in conformity with the wishes of a great
body of the freeholders,--and further, that no poll had, at the
time of the election, been demanded.—Mr. I-101114z shortly
replied.
The LORD CHANCELLOR apprehened that there were in this
case two points most important to be considered, first, whether,
according to the Act 58th Geo. 111., the election which had
taken place could be considered as an election at all ; and se-
condly, what was the qualification necessary under the Act 14th
Edward 111. Upon the first point, which was by far the most
important, he should take an opportunity of consulting the
Judges. It appeared to him, as ho now viewed the question,
that no election bad, in fact, taken place, as the Act was
framed for the purpose of avoiding the delays and mancsuvres
which might be resorted to by the Sheriff. If the present course
pursued were sanctioned, it would necessarily have the effect of
giving permission to other Sheriffs to act in a similar manner.
Upon the Sheriff himself no imputation could certainly rest,
and the Learned Counsel had succeeded in showing that no
impropriety of conduct was attributable to him. In that karned
work of Impey, the last AcCof Cleo. 111. was certainly omitted,
and it must be considered that he was ignorant of the law.

VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT, JUNE 30.
SNACKELL v. MACAULAY•

The plaintiff' is the printer and publisher of the weekly.papo
the John Bull. The defendant is a Member of a Society for
the Abolition of Slavery. The plaintiff had published severe
articles in his newspaper which the defendant contended
.re-
fleeted on his character, and were gross and injurious libels.
Two in particular were complained of—one published on Oc-
tober 2f3, 1823, and the other on November 9 of the same year ;
two distinct actions were in consequence brought against him
to be tried in a Court of Law. Shackell had put in a plea of
justification that what he had asserted was true, and applied to
the Court for a bill to issue a commission for the purpose of
taking evidence in foreign countries.
Mr. Piers's, on the part of Mr. Macaulay, objected to this,
lad put in a demurrer on the ground that one commission could
not be issued for two distinct actions. One part of the evidence
must be obtained in Africa, another in America, or in some
other part of the world; and nothing could be niore inconve-
nient and unjust than to allow one commission to comprehend
all these. The evidende in one instance might arrive in two
months—the others perhaps not in twelve; and it would be
unjust to allow any publication of the evidence, or one of the
actions to take place, before all the evidence for both could be
brought. • This, it is probable, the plaintiff had in view to
serve his own purposes. He therefore objected to this bill,
and brought forward .an instance of a decree in this Court,
which applied precisely to this case—that of Thorpe r. Ma_
caulay.
The Soucy!' o smitAr. appeared for Shackell, and stated
that this was a very strange instance of demurrer. The defendant
had chosen-to make two actions, and therefore contended that
one commission could not be issued. The actions were precisely
the same, and there was nothing to prevent them from being
tried as one; similar instances took place in common law,
where various facts were allowed to be classed in one action,
and certainly a Court of Eq_uity will not act otherwise. It was
the fault of the defendant that there were two actions,

VICE.CIIANCELLon.—Mr. Sollcitor.Oeneral, the question
at issue is, whether one commission can be Issued to examine
witnesses for two distinct actions. This is what the Learned
Counsel on the other side argues cannot be done, and this is
the point to be decided first.
The SOLICITOII-GENERAL then argued there could be no
impropriety in appointing two commissions, and brought for.
ward several instances where the same mode of proceeding had
taken place.
Mr. SUDDEN followed on the•sanse side, and rested his argu-
ment for a commission on the ground that it was in the power
of the Court to grant two commissions instead of one.
VICE-CHANCELLOR—HOW could these commissions be
worded, Mr. Sugden ?

Mr. Soon Ear was not prepared to answer the question ; but
hoped his Honour would state what his opinion was on the
suhjeet.
• •VicE-CiwicymiA3R—There has never been 'an instance of
a commission being granted to take evidence on particular
points—it has always been issued for taking evidence generally.
Mr. SUDDEN, with great submission to the Court, contend-
ed that though there was no instance of the kind, he thought
the Court might, with-great propriety, make a precedent.
Several other arguments were brought forward for the plain.
tiff, the principal of which was, that commissions of a similar
'kind. were frequently issued in underwriting cases.
.The VICE-CHANCELLOR delivered his opinion at some
length, and concluded by stating that one bill of commission
for taking evidence on two distinct cases could not be issued ;
and as two commissions would be injurious to the plaintiff' at
law, he confirmed the demurrer.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, JuNs 30.
THE KING V. lIANCEZE.

This defendant had been convicted before Mr. Justice Bor.
rough, at the last Summer Assizes for the City of Bristol, of
publishing a libel on Sir Alexander Wilson In The Bristol
Itlereurth The matter had stood over for three terms, and now
Mr. Serjeant Pell, for the prosecution, prayed judgment.
The Cott UT suggestedthat it was a Meuse to go to the Master
as a question of costs.
Mr. ADAM, for the defendant, said he was not instructed to
yield to that suggestion.
The Court ordered the case to stand over, to see whether the
parties would consent to go before the Master.