The Sun.
London, England, 1846-11-09 00:00:00

BAIL COURT.-(THIS DAY.)

(Sittings in Banco, before 111 r. Justice PATTESON.)
Mr. CROMPTON applied to the Court to quash two in•
quisitions, one of which had been held at Liverpool, and
the other at Cheshire, and both of which had been
brought up to this Court by writ of certiorari.
It appeared from the inquisition that a vessel called
the Sea Nymph, while sailing upon the salt water part.
of the Mersey, ran foul of a vessel called the Rambler,
whereby two persons on board of the latter vessel were
killed. One inquest was held at Liverpool, and a deo-
dand of 2001. was laid upon the vessel, and the other at
Cheshire, where the jury gave a deodand of 500!. The
grounds on which it was sought to quash the inquisitions
were, Ist, that the cause and manner of the deaths
had not been stated, 2ndly, that the pro-
perty which moved to the death bad not
been properly described ; and thirdly, that vessels sail-
ing upon salt water were specially exempt from the law
deodand. With regard to the last objection, it was a
somewhat novel one. It was supposed by many to arise
out of a question of jurisdiction ; but he believed that it
was made an exception, in consequence of its being pre-
sumed that all accidents occurring out at sea were in
consequence of some cause which could not be foreseen
or prevented. That view was taken of it in Cummins'
Digest. He (Mr. Compton) contended that any place
into which the salt water flowed and reflowed was an
arm of the sea ; and vessels on it came under the excep-
tion which he had already mentioned. If the water on
which the vessels floated were considered fresh water, it
should have b:en so stated upon the face of the inqui-
sition ; and he could therefore found an objection upon
that point.
Mr. Justice PATTESON—There was a case which oc-
curred not very long since— a collision between two
ships off Margate—in which this point might have
arisen, but it did not. Ido not mean to give any deci-
sion upon the point, as there are sufficient grounds with-
out it. You can take a rule nisi.

EXPARTE SHUTTLEWORTH.
Mr. PARRY applied for a writ of habeas to bring up,
and discharge from custody, the body of Mrs. Shuttle-
worth, now in custody as a lunatic.
The Learned COUNSEL stated that he made the appli-
cation upon three or four affidavits. The first of them
was made by Mr. John Quail, a Member of the College
of Surgeons, who had known the lady in ques-
tion for five years, as she had been during
the whole of that period residing with him as a patient,
for bodily and not mental disease. On the 9th of Au-
gust last, the lady, while in a carriage with the depo-
nent, was violently seized by a policeman, who acted
under the directions of some other parties, who acted
upon what he believed to be a medical certificate. On
that certificate being shown to the policeman he gave his
assistance, and- the lady was removed to a lunatic asy-
lum belonging to Dr. Millingen, at Battersea. The de-
ponent stated that he knew the lady was of sound mind
at the time she was taken. The friends of the lady had
been unable to obtain a sight of the certificate, either from
the commissioners of lunacy or from the keeper of the asy-
lum. He (Mr. Parry) made an application to Mr. Justice
Erle at Chambers, and he there saw the certificates.
Mr. Justice Erie declined to interfere on the certificates,
but permitted him to make the present application. The
certificates did not state the ground upon which the
party obtaining the certificate believed the person to be
of unsound mind. In the case of Fell, a lunatic, the
3d vol. of Dowling and Lowndes, page 373, which, was
discussed before his Lordship, it was not held necessary
to state these grounds upon the certificate, but by the
Act Bth and 9th Victoria, sec. 46, chap. 100, it was
ordered that every physician, surgeon, or apothecary,
signing any certificate shall state the facts from
which he believed the party to be of unsound mind.
The affidavit' stated that there were no sufficient
grounds for the custody of the lady alleged upon the
certificates as requiredby the 45th section of the same
Act. He had the affidavit of Thomas Austin, who had
known the lady thirty years, and who believed her to
be of sound mind, as also the affidavits of Edward
Everall and Caroline Peachey, her servant. The lady
bad always lived in strict retirement upon a pension of
100/., and the parties proceeding against her were utter
strangers to her. Under these circumstances, it would
be no injustice to the interests of lunatics in general if' a
writ of habeas were granted. All access was denied to
the lady, and there was no affidavit from her.—Rule
granted.

EXCHEQUER.—(THIS DAY.)
(Sittings in Banco.)
WELBY V. BROWN.
In this case the particulars of which were given in
The Sun of last Tuesday, and which was tried upon that
day:before Mr. Baron Platt at nisi prius sittings.
Mr. AIARTIN moved, pursuant to leave given at the
trial for a rule calling upon the defendant to show cause
why the verdict should not be entered for the plaintiff
for the whole amount. The question for the decision of
the Court was the amount of liability attaching to an
overseer for orders given by him during his year of
office in matters connected with parochial business, and
also whether he was held liable for services rendered to
the parish in consequence of orders so given in after the
expiratiou Obis yea; 91. Once.