The Sun.
London, England, 1803-05-09 00:00:00

f *I

Ai!" REPORT.

.

" aS
ti) the

"'*"..."‘* .11104% . _

COURT 3F KIWC's'EENCH, MAY 7.
THE kiNG COFFIN, ESQ. AND OTHERS.

ftlis Was a Rule calling on Mr. Coffin, and se-
.
veral other pers,los, who are his workmen; or ser-
...
rants, to skew Cause.why a Criminal Information
should trot. be filed againit them, for having exposed
to tillieule, and exhibited in effigy, • the Rev.
Gurney, the Clergyman of the town of Tregony; in
the County of Cornwall.
It appeared clearly from the Affidavits on both
sides, that 'ibis misdemeanour, had been committed
.by these tiervant3 of.. Mr. Coffin, and by. his-direc-
tion ; btu that Mr. Gurney had, twelve years ago,
and, at certain intervals since, .on the occasion of
EleCtions, done to others the very same thing that
he now complained of having been done io himself;
and that it was not until.he became the .objet of
this ridicule that he felt the impropriety of it, and
called for the interference of a Court of Justice to
check this licentiousness.
Lortf,ELLENBOiOUGH observed, there were two
questions in this oase for the consideration of the
Court.—First, the guilt of the parties againit whoin
the application was made :—Secondly, whether the
party complaining to the Court, was entitled to its'
interposition ? As to the first point, it appeared
that the AEA complained of, was done by the Ser-
vants of the Defendant, Mr. Coffin, and with his
knowledge and consent, and therefore all these De-
fendants, except• one who went away before the
thing was done, would be objects of the Criminal
Proiecution of the Court :—but the next question
was, whether the person complaining, was one
'whose conduit entitled him to the extraordinary in.
terfcrence of the Court-in his proteCtionrand behalf?
Mr. Gurrey,• the persim here complaining, was the
Chief Magistrate of the Town of Tregony; and it
appeared, that. twelve years ago, he was himself the
Institutor of the Praftice of_ which he now corn.
plained ; and the rule which guided the Court in
former linstances, would guide it in this :—the
question then was, not whether the Defendants had
not. been guilty of an offence for whiCh they deserv-
ed 'to be punished ?—bur whether the Prosecutor had
not precluded hiniself from Coming, forward to apply
to the Court for'its extraordinary interposition ; al-
ways remembering that the other branches of the
judicii tore of the Country were open to him, for the
purpose of punishing men as they deserved to be pu-
nished for their crimes ?=--But his Lordship thought

it would be reading a good lesson to persons like the
, present Prosecutor, invested with most important
moral and civil trusts,.for he was a civil Magistrate,
al well as a Minister of the Church, by letting
them know, 'that when they applied to that Coiirt
for extraordinary protediori, their crimes should he
remembered. Here r the Prosecutor had set others
the example of the very mitdemeanour of which he
complained : if, therefore,. the Court did not in.
terfere in the extraordinary way which the Prose-
. tutor desired, it was not on account of the inno. •
eence of the Accused, but for, want of purity * in
the Complainant ; alwas remembering, that hereby
there was no failure of Justice, because the Prose-
cutor might,go before a Grand Jury with this same
complaint, for the
.Court was nut to be understood
as exculpating. Mr. Coffin, nor of saying any
.thing in his favour on account of what he, or any
other of the Defendants had done ; hut his Lordship
was of opinion, that. no purpose of Public Justice
would be materially answered by this extraordinary
interposition of the Court ; on the contrary, the
Court would bold out a public example by dis.
charging this. Rule, for by taking that course, they
would read 6* the Public this lesson, that when any
* person asked for the extraordinary interposition of
that Court for the protedion of his,charatter from
insult, he shall take care that his own condud shall
be free from reprOach,, otherwise the Court will
leave him to his ordinary remedy by. Law, which
was that of an Indictment. Here the Prosecutor
had forfeited his claim, to any,extraordirlary inter.
ference of the Court in his behalf, for it appeared,
that he had set this evil example himself, and had
only b•-.7ome convinced of its impropriety when' he
himself became the objed of it. 'His Lordship
having made' some excellent observations on' the
double duty of the Prosecutor as a Minister of Re.
ligion and, a Civil Magistrate, conclud.sd with say.*
ing, that, in his opinion, this Rule ought not to be
made absolute.
The other Learned Judged concurred with the.
CHttr Jtreri-ca, and observed that the Public
Peace might, perhaps, -be better proteted by the
. Court discharging this Rule, than by making it
absolute; for if it was discharged, every man would
the necessity of concluding himself properly,
in order to entitle,. himself to all the protedion
which the Court could, grant. The Defendants, in
this case, were 'not to.be supposed to be excused by
the Court ; , there was another course of proceeding
against them, which was by Indi4ment ; but this
I.kule was Olscharged', because the conduit- of the
1-kosecutur did trot entitle him to the extraordinary
interference of the Court.
- Rule discharged. •.

THE. KING iv, COLL ISCiIeAND OTHERS.

• THts was a Question of great importance, and
came from Hull. The Defendants were Owners of

Vessels that were registered at the Custom.house at
Hull, which custonaousewiis within the Parish of
Sr. Mary ;. and. these Defendants had been rated in
respea of that property, and appealed from that rate
to the'Court of King's
Mr. ERSKINE and Mr. 'comma supported the
rate, and argued it on the 4.3 d Of Elltabeth, and the
9th of William Hr. , Itrwas here admitted, that the
ships were locally within .the'limits and jurisdic.
fion of the eate., That was the place where they
received the profits from the shipping : it was the
place of their return, and where it might be gene..
tally supposed the Owner lived,. He said he Must
rely on theport in which the ship was registered as'
the home of the ship,. as it was called, otherwise it
would be' extremely difficulrto rate property in ships,
but as sailing from Port to
of the Owner. They

'4 f

might saillope West and from thence to the
East, all over the worla, and remain totally without
(he jurisdiction of the Coprt; anti all this time the
Owner making. hit profits upon them.
Lord ELLENioßtiticti.--:-." Suppose I should re.;
main at York lot a week in the year, should I be
rateable in respect of my carriage t I should, think
you will find some difficulty 'to make it rateable.
Suppose a ship to sail constantly between New_
castle and 'London, Or between Newcastle and Dub,
lin, that is a stronger case than the pr*esent•; and
yet though this ship is constantly vibrating between
these- two pOints, I sl.,uld think it difficult to ascribe
to it that degree of locality which is necessary to
make it rateable. There. are some ports in the
kingdom where a great number of ships arc built
and registered, as Whitby ; and it would be
tnonsvous proposition to say, that all chest ships
should he rated there."

Mr. Justice LE BLANC.—" What do you say of
all the stage coaches—Are they rateable at every
place where they put up Y'
Mr. ERsxlige said, le•should contend they were.
When their Lordships considered the immense. pro.
perty in shipping in this Kingdom, and how neees.:
sary it was toTroVide for the Poor of the Land, if
they did not rate on the footing of where the ship
had her home, her habitation. (if he might use that.
expression), it would be extremely difficult to say
how this species of property was to be rated.—
Every ship by the Register Mt must belong to
some particular pgrt.
Lord 4LENBOROUGH.-',‘ That is merely for
the purpose of transfers, and the convenience of
trade." 4 . .

Mr. ERSKINE said, this rate was not imposed on
the profits of 'these ships, but on the value of them.
Here the Defendants have three ships lying in the
old port of. Hull, value 30001. and it does not ap•
pear they were ever out of that port.
Mr. Justice LAWRENCE direaed the attention of
the Counsel to the Case- of the King et,. the Inhabi. •
tants of Liverpool, a note. of which his LOrdship
read, and which militated against the present case.
Mr. Justice Git ost 'sAid, he could never consent to
say that a man was rateable in the parish where his
ships happened to be registered. In the part of the
coyntry where he resided, a ship's home, as it was
called, in several instances, was not the place where
she was. built. He could state a thousand instances
of it. It was only, in very few, instances, where
she was built. He knew it happened that up a little
creek ships were built of a very considerable size,
and it was not the home of any ship. , They were
registered in a Port at ,a distance. The Court per-
mitted the patties to` amend and restate their case.