The Sun.
London, England, 1834-11-18 00:00:00

♦ICE-CHANCERY COURT.-(THIS DAY.)

No case of public interest came before his HONOUR. this
morning.

ROBBERIES IN COURT.

We are sorry again to complain of the frequency of rob-
beries in this Court, which we are much afraid will continue
until policemen are stationed in every Court. The present plan
of one policeman attending two or three Courts will never be at-
tended by beneficial results, as during his attendance in one
Court robberies are committed in the others. This morning
a gentleman was robbed of a new hat while turning round to
speak to a friend ; and our readers will recollect, that it is
not many days since a gentleman was robbed in this Court of
his pocket-book, containing several hundred pounds. We
hope those who have the control of the police will take the
subject into consideration, as the nuisance has now become
unbearable.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH.-(THIS DAY.)

THE MURDERERS OF MR. ASIITON.-THE KING V. GARSIDE AND

hIOSELEY.

This being the day appointed for bringing up the two men
convicted at the last Chester Assizes of the murder of Mr.
Ashton, in pursuance of the writs of Certiorari and Habeas
Corpus, obtained by the Attorney-General a few days since,
the Court presented a scene of unusual excitement, and long
before the hour of commencing the proceedings vast crowds
were in attendance. At about half-past nine the prisoners,
heavily ironed, arrived in custody of the Keeper and Under-
Sheriff of the gaol of Chester, and the Governor of Newgate,
and were placed in the centre of the bar, immediately behind
the scat occupied by the King's Counsel. • Garside, the per-
petrator of the murder, who is a low-sized, ill-favoured man,
appeared to feel very little for the awful situation in which he
was placed, and gazed about him, apparently quite uncon-
cerned, during the proceedings. His unfortunate companion
kept his eyes fixed upon the ground, and at times appeared
much agitated.
As soon as their Lordships had taken their seats,
Sir JOHN CAMPBELL rose and said, that in the execution of
the office of his Majesty's Attorney-General, until his suc-
cessor was appointed, it was his duty to pray the sentence of
the Court upon the prisoners at the bar—James Garside and
Joseph Mosley—convicted of murder at the last Chester
Assizes.

The return to the writs of Habeas Corpus, and the record
of the conviction having been read by the proper officer—
Sir JOHN CAMPBELL said, it is now my duty to require that
the prisoners be asked if they have any thing to say why exe-
cution should not be awarded against them.
The question having been put by the officer—
Mr. DUNN, on the part of the prisoner Garside, ap-
plied to the Court for three days time. The Learned
Counsel cited the case of the King v. Charles Ratcliffe, con-
victed of high treason in the reign of Geo. 1., in which a si-
milar application had been made and granted.
Sir JOHN CAMPBELL said his Learned Friend had showed
the Court no grounds for his present application. If time
was necessary, no person would be more willing to concede it
than himself. In the case relied upon by his Learned Friend,
their Lordships would find that Ratcliffe had been apprehended
thirty years after the commission of the offence, and after his
conviction ; and there had been an issue to try whether he was
the same person. In the present case the prisoners, instead
of denying their identity, had stood up when called upon, and
answered to their names. The Learned Counsel referred to
the case of the King v. Rogers, 4th Barrow, in which a simi-
lar application had been made, for the purpose of instructing
counsel, and the case of Ratclife cited, but it had been refused
by the Court.

Mr. DUNN.—The Attorney-General says that I have stated
no grounds for my application. There were none stated in the
case of Ratcliffe, as your Lordships will see by referring to it.
There may be many strong objections—the return may not
be good—it may be informal in many particulars, but as I
have not yet had an opportunity of perusing them, or consult-
ing with the attorney for the prisoners, I cannot yet know what
objections may be urged.
Their Lordships, after consulting for some time together,
retired to the Judges' Chamber, and after being about ten
minutes in deliberation, returned.
Lord DENMAN said that the Court had wished to consider
for a short time the rather novel circumstances under which
the return had been made, but certainly no ground of doubt
had been suggested by the application as to the identity of the
prisoners at the bar being the parties convicted of murder at
the Chester Assizes, or as to whether the sentence of execu-
tion then passed might not now be legally carried into effect
upon them. But the proceedings were of so extraordinary a
nature—the Court having heard the return and record read
for the first time, and the learned Counsel for the prisoners
not having had an opportunity of considering their contents
and effects—and on the whole, considering the discretionary
power vested in them in favour of persons standing in such a
situation (although they had no doubt of execution being car-
ried into effect, and although there was nothing from which
the prisoners could entertain the slightest hope), they had
come to the decision to abide by the precedent cited in the
case of the King v. Ratcliffe, and not that of the King v. Ro-
gers. In the latter case no circumstances having been brought
before the Court on which to grant the application, sentence
had been awarded ; but in the case of Ratcliffe it was stated
by Judge Foster, that when the prisoner was asked if he had
anything to say, he had prayed that Counsel might be as-
signed him,_ and time was allowed. They had thought it right
to follow that precedent in the present case, and the Court,
therefore, directed that the prisoners be brought up again on
Thursday morning.

Mr. liuNN intimated that he only appeared for the prisoner
Garside.

Lord DENMAN—The same rule must apply to both prisoners.
Mr. DuNN then moved that the notes of the Learned Judge
before whom the prisoners were tried be laid before the Court.
Lord DENMAN—It is quite clear that such an application
cannot be granted.

The prisoners were then removed in custody of the Gover-
nor of Newgate to that prison.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.-(THIS DAY.)

JOHNSON U. EVANS.

This case, on the warranty of a horse, was tried at Guild-
hall on Friday last, before Mr. Justice Park, when a verdict
for 81. 2s. was entered for the plaintiffs.
Mr. Sergeant BOMPAS, on behalf of defendant, now moved
for a rule to show cause why the verdict should not be set
aside, and a nonsnit entered. The Learned Sergeant con-
tended that the only witness on the trial being the brother of
plaintiff, and partner with him in the trade of a wine cooper,
he, as such partner, and consequently having an interest in the
concern, was not a good and competent witness.
The CouaT—Take a rule-to show cause.