The Sun.
London, England, 1802-11-26 00:00:00

SITTINGS.

Lord ELLENBOROUGH gave notice that he "will
sit at Nisi Prius, on Friday next (this day), pre-
,cisely at nine in the morning, in Westminster-Hall;
and on Saturday also precisely at nine in Guildhall,
London, for the purpose of taking up such Causes as
would have come on at the Sittings, and now stand.
ing for trial in Term ; by which regulation he was
in hopes of being able, in the course of about an
hour and a half each day, to dispose of the Causes
standing in course of trial in Term, by which nearly
two whole days in Term would be saved to the
Court, and the inconveniences:of Evening Sittings
would be avoided ; fot which the Gentlemen of the
'Bar expressed thanks to his Lordship.

A Motion had been made on a former day,
,and
a Rule obtained by Mr. REEDER, to shew cause
why an Exoneretur should not be entered on the
Bail Piece, on the.ground that since Bail had been
put in in the Aetion, the Defendant had. become a
Member of Parliament, and therefore privileged:from
arrest or confinement for debt.' ,d r.

Mr. HOVEL, in sheaving cause ,antost theAulei.
only mentioned a Case which took plac9imany 'Teats
ago, in which it had been held, that a perion
is not a Member of Parliament at the time of his
arrest, his election afterwards would not discharge
his Bail given before he was privileged.
Mr. REEDER contended it had been long con.'
sidered as a matter of course, that the moment a
person became a Member of Parliament, .whether a
Peer of the Realm, or a Member of the House•of
Commons, he had full privilege.of Parliament, and
that all consequences .of.arrest for ,debt ceased as to
him. This was.stated in the Books of Practice as
a matter well understood. He stated it. from Mr.
TYnD's,Bock of Pradice.

Lord - Et.t.Exnonotrot-t held, that. Certainly in
this. Case' there must be an exoneretur entered on the
Bail :Piece,. or great injustice would be done' to the
Ball; for they ought to have the means of rendering
tneir Principal. Here the Defendant had priv.ilege,.
so the: they could not render him in their discharge;
they therefore ought to be exonerated.
'Rule absolute.

THE KING V. COMBES.

Mr.' DALLAS moved the, udgment of the Court
on Charles Combes, convicted six years ago of
waling an -Officer of the Revenue in the due ex-
ecution' of his- duty:. It Was stated in the Defend-
antks.Affidav,it,_ that he had continually- resided in
the same:place ever since this obstruOion tookplace,
and was not at all absent, except, as he was .employ-'
'ea in the Pilchard Fishery, and employed by dif-
ferentfarmers_iolus.bandry.. _ „ . • ..•
But it appeared on the other side, that many
endeavours were made 'in ,vain to find him, and
that there had been no less than five different War-
rants issued, out to apprehend him, aild that he
could not be found until lately, when fieicwsTisirp.:
prehended, and that he. had, when he hiftßorriinirte&
this offence, offered to the Officer a giliJe. of 'five
. •
guineas, &c.'
Mr. Justice GROSE, in .prOnouncinethe
ment'of the Courti:observed, that . the offer. of a-
bribe, to the Officer, was that of adding one crime
with' a view of concealing another, -an aggravation
of gdilt which the Court could not overlook.:,, As
to his being poor, and having a family, and that
a severe punishment on him would he to punish the
innocent with the guilty, it was in a great resped
so, 'because it could not be otherwise where a man
had a family, because. punishment on him must
operate in some measure as a 'punishment on his
family, however innocent,: this it was the duty of
the father of every family to consider, as 'an addi-
tional reason for shunning crimes. The sentence
-Cif the 'Court upon him was, that he be imprisoned.
iri-•11-lisitk'ilajesty's gaol of Newgate for two Calendar
months, and then discharged.

Lord ELLENBOROUCII, after ordering the ar-
rangement of business for to.morrow, taking the
London New Trials, after one argument, observed,
it would he better at once to say, that as to the
Country New Trials, they must stand over until
the next Term; this might save the expence of
keeping some parties longer in town.
Mr. Serjeant COCKEL moved for leave to file a
Crimipal Information against Sir H. Vane, for an
alledged violent assault on a Gentleman of the name
Of 'Benson; on a statement of the particulars of
mihichi, the Court granted a Rule to shew Cause.

Mr. ERSKINE MOved for leave to fileZ-Cripinal
Information against fames Christie, Esq,. toW r 4
isoblished on the t7th inst. in a Morning ewspiiper,;
tending to reflel on the charaeter of a
.Uentleman
whn is an Officer in the Guards, and a Mei:MARI:
Parliament. The Libel comphined of, alluded to a
Cause which is now in the Court of Chancery,
-wherein -the Defendant in this Motion is the Plain-
tiff) and the Gentleman in whose behalf the Motion
was made, is the Defendant, and involves a dispute
concerning a legacy of zoool. which Mr. Christie,
the Plaintiff in that suit, claims, and alledges to be
unjustly withheld from him, and which, on the other
Side; is alledged to belong to his creditors under

the authoriti ot the Insolvent Debtors' Aff, the
benefit of which he rook some- time ago. The Li-
bel contained some indecorous doubts concerning the
justice with which the Lord Chancellor would de..
ter-mine that suit, as Well as many most intem-
perate expressions against the Gentleman on whose
behalf this Motion was made. •

Upon an -application to the Printer of the
Newspaper, in which this Libel appeared, he gave
up the Author of it, ant/joined iii the Affidavit, on
which this Motion made, by stating, that it was
'brought to him by" the.,aefentilt,..whotp.he did not
know, aecompantedlay'dne iirotta he did know, and
who was a ,respeetahle man.. Thar do reading the'
Paragraph, the Printer thought it dangerous, and
would not insert it unless it was authenticated ; up-
on which the Author assured him, it was pertedly
true, and signed, his name to it ; it was then. in.
serted and published.

Mr. ERsiciNE said, that, the Printer of this
Paper had behaved with great propriety, in giving
all possible facility to get at the Author, whom it
was the °hied of the Prosecutor of this Motion to
punish, and consequently, he had come forward
with this Affidavit.

The,Coort having considered a while upon the
Matter,: observed, That this wa's, undoubtedly,
a fit case for a Criminal Information in itself, But
the . doubt was, whether, as. the Prosecutor, had
chosen,, for proseCution, out of two criminals, one
who was the less .
culpable,. and -.had received the
greater delinquent . evidence, against his compa-
nion, thereby pledging himself, in honour, not to
prosecute the more guilty person, the Court ought.
to help him in such a Prosecution, by its.extraor-
dinary interference. The Author .of this Libel,
in the eye of the Court, and, perhaps, in the
that of the
:Pablic, was less culpable, than this
Printer; the,one might have something to say in
extenuation, the other none. The Author might,
froni some misguided opinion of his right, he irri-
: tated :against a man whom he conceived had
wronged him, and might have penned. this para-
graph, And tarried 'it to the Printer for insertion,
in a inortient of unwarrantable anger ; but the
other was the publisher of obloquy in cold blood
for pecuniary gain.
Mr. EiisxiNE said, that the Prosecutor in this
Case had no other means than,..those which had been
taken to 'get at the Author of thii Libel, and he
was the only objet. they wished to :pursue.That
they applied to the Printer, and he immediately
supplied them with the necessity information, and,
he submitted, that the Prosecutor, whose reputation
*as thus attacked, had a right to cliuso which of
the guilty Parties-he-would prosecute.
The Court said,. That in arP Indidment, the
Prosecutor may chose the. objea of his Prosecution
but,...if he came to that court, to call for its extra-
ordinary interference, for the protedion of his
character, and a sort of implied pardon was to be
held out to the most guilty of the Patty, for the
purpose of punishing the other, the Court would
lend no aid, by extraordinary, interference, in such
v.proceding, but leave the Party, to. his ordinary
remedy by LaW. The _Court :also would have it
understood, that the Publishers of calumny were
not to be excused merely on giving up the Author.
—Motion refused.

'PETE KING v. VENN•ING.

PARk•rhoved the Judgment of the Court on
the Defendant. it was the case of an Assault. The
Defendant is a Merchant in the City, andthe'Pro
secutor, Mr. Greenwood, is in trade aISO in the,
City. These two persons had some concerns which
occasioned a difference between them. The Prose-
cutor had inspected a bale of goods for the:De-en-.
dant, and charged him a guinea and' a. half frit it,,
which the Defendant considered as an' improper
'charge, and refused to pay it, on *which he s'as sum-
moned to the Court of Requests, and both .attended.
When they were waiting there, the Prds'ecutor ac-
costed the
,Defendant, and charged him with im-
properly resisting the demand, ekc., which brought'
forth a short answeri-dispuringAe. justness 'of it.
The Prosecutor imputed falsehood to rhe Defendant;
who told him, if he repeated iu,n he Would, pull him
by the nose.. fle-did repeatir:', He was pulled by
the nose. This was iii the Court of Requests, but
did not happen to
.disturb the Com Missioners. The,
parties went into. a passage, where the' Defendant
being again irritated, gave the ProSeCutdr a smack
or two, on the cheek—was indiCted—found guilty,
and now came.uP•fiir judgment.
Mr. Serjeantlltst and Mr. MittiYA•i'r, -for the'
Defendant, treated' this as a trumpery prosecution,
the expence of which had been enhanced by• the
Prosecutor, who had removed it from' the Sesiions
to this Court, by certiorari.

Mr. ERSKINE. and Mr. GAROW were for the
Prosecution.--Mr. ERSKINE wished the Parties- to
go before the Master, so that the Defendant should
defray the costs in this case, which were con-
siderable ; .but the Court dissented, and Mr. Justice
GROSE proceeded to pronounce judgment, in which
he observed, that the miscondutt of the Defendant
was aggravated by the circumstance of the assault
being cominitted in a place apprOptiated for- the
administration of justice,• where should prevail at
all times decency and decorum. But 'inasmuch as
the Prosecutor had also miscondutted himself, the
Court would not yield to the 'suggestion of his
Counsel; in (*tier that he might have his. costs.
His costs he should not have, for lie did not deserve
them, and therefore the sentence of the Court on
the Defendant.was, that he 'do pay' a fine of
which he paid immediately, and withdrew.

COURT OF COMMOI PI.,EAS, Nov. 25.
The important and long_eperiAlß cause between
Earl ST. VINCENT atiet,Odt: NVCsoN, •respettiUg
some prize-money, ivai,4lcoi4exititit day.

As many of our.Readersmaynlima. nacquainted with
the circumstances of this case,,it maybe necessary to
state them.; Lord ST. VINCENT was appointed to.
the Command of the Fleet stationed off the coast 'of!
Spain; but his:health requiring a short absence from
the Squadron, he wrote to the Lords of the Admi—
ralty, and obtained permission to return to England,.
on leaving his Command to the next 'Flag Officer.
His Lqrdship,-previous to his departure; gave orders
to Capt. DIGBY, of the Alcmene, to cruize within
the limits Of the station ; then deputing his'command

'to Lord Kr. 113; sailed for Eqhind ti the A 'rkt;.—
From Lord KEITH, theCominand devolved upotl.l.9tA
NELSON, WIAO became and continued Seniw Admiral
on that 'station until the return of Lord KZITI-1 ; in
the interval, Capt. DIGBY captured ,two Spanisu
Ships of War; and Lord NELSON, as Commander in
Chief, claimed his share of the prize:rrioncy:
The Proclamation- of r 797, on which the cars.
• tion of-his Lord;hip',o right greatly depended, di_
refs that a certain propottion of prize-money should
be divided arnong...the Flag Officers,
„and that one-
eighth shou:J belong to the Commander in Chiri_s
:but the 4th article of the said Proelamatiot,or-:
tiered, that if the Chief Fit Officer retttrrted hoMe,
.he should net be entitled to any share of the prize_
money obtained by the ships 'Under otlier corn.:
mand. The Proclamation also proiride::, that
when a Flag Officer was appointed to the Cortimani
of a Fleet, he should not be entitled to any prize-
money, till he aaualty arrived within the limits of
the station. On this ground; therefore, Lord NEL.
sodilaid ciaini to one-eighth of the prites captured
by the Alcmene:

Mr. Justice RoOkE was of opinion (and
ported by the Proclamations of the Nears 17+4. and
1756), that a Flag Officer returning home on ac.,
count of his health, ought not to be considered as
having abdicated his Command; that he was re-
spoasible, and' that ih fact, the Fleet was acing
under his atithority. These Proclatnatio;3, which
seemed to lodge. a discretionary pciter 'in the •
breast of HIS MAjEs'it, Were not to he continea
by the dry rtilei of legal pleading; and it was
doubt whether the 4.th Ankle Of the•Prociatnation
of 1797, which differed in words from the fornier,
could be construed as exchiding the Commander in •
Chief, when absent on a teinporary occasion, from a.
share of the prize.mooey ;
.or whether it was Meant
only to apply ‘,..liert he was superseded by the next
Flag Officer in.coinmand.

Lord ALiiANLEY teas of the same opinion, and
used many arguments in support of his doarine.
The adjudged cases, many of which were quoted or
this occasion, inclined equally, to both, parties,;
but the last, namely, that of the St. Ann, which
was most, io,poix,.,had been decided by the Judge,
AdvoCate in favour of Admiral MURRAY, who,•
not having abdicated his Command, was consideiid
as entitled to his share of prize money ,- •
As iwO of the Learned Judges were ory the oppo.
site. side, the Judgment of the Court had nearly been
withheld, and the parties referred to another Tri.
bunal:; but as Judgment, was prayed, on the part' of.
Lord NELSON, Mr. Justice HEATH withdrew.; Cod.
sequentiy the decision of the 2Ourt was in favour of
Earl ST. VINCENT.