The Sun.
London, England, 1835-01-30 00:00:00

EX-PARTE GALE.

Mr. WIGHTMAN moved for a rule to show cause why one
Sarah Gale, wife of Thomas Gale, should not be discharged
out of the custody of the Sheriff' of Cumberland, she having
been taken on a writ de contumacio capiendo. His applica-
tion was founded on the fact, that it did not sufficiently appear
on the face of the writ that the cause of her committal
was one of ecclesiastical contempt merely. It stated
that she had been committed for non-payment of
costs, in an action for defamation and slander de-
pending in the Consistorial Court. The writ did not show
that the cause was one which was within the jurisdiction of the
Ecclesiastical Court, and the learned Counsel contended from
several authorities which he cited, that " a party condemned to
costs cannot be committed for non-payment, unless it is set
forth that the cause was within the jurisdiction of the Eccle-
siastical Court."
COURT—Take a rule nisi.

THE KING V. MURDOCK.
In this case Mr. ADOLPHUS had moved for a rule to shew
cause why a writ of certiorari should not be granted to remove
the depositions taken at the Coroner's Inquest, and all other
proceedings, from Bristol to Taunton.
Mr. Sergeant LUDLOW now appeared to shew cause against
the rule. The grounds upon which the application was
founded were wholly insufficient, and it was absurd to suppose
that the publication of some doggrel verses would influence
the minds of that class of persons from whom the jurors were
to be selected.
Mr. Sergeant TALFoURD followed on the same side. The
facts upon which the Court was called to decide were
briefly these :--The inquest bad taken place at Bristol, in the
month of December last, on the body of Clara Anne Smyth,
and lasted for five days. During the proceedings, the Jury
had been interrupted more than once by expressions of applause,
and when the verdict of wilful murder had been returned
against Mary Murdock, there was loud and general applause.
It was also stated, that certain publications had taken place
which were likely to prejudice the public mind. There was
no doubt as to the jurisdiction of the Court, but he would ask
their Lordships were these facts sufficient to warrant them in
the exercise of a jurisdiction which should not be lightly
used, as affecting the general course of justice ? He submitted
further, that the witnesses had been all bound to prosecute at
Bristol, and no substantial ground had been shown for imped-
ing the usual course of justice, and putting the party prosecut-
ing to so much inconvenience and expense.
Mr. ADOLPIIUS was heard in support of the rule.
Lord DENMAN said—that many serious inconveniences had
been pointed out as likely to result from the removal of the trial
from Bristol to any other place ; but if the Court saw any rea-
son to apprehend that the party would not have a fair
trial at Bristol, they would consider these inconveniences of no
moment as compared with what would be the greatest evil of
all, a failure of justice. But looking at the affidavits in this
case, the Court was of opinion that nothing had been shown
which would lead it to infer that the jurors of Bristol would
return any other than a perfectly fair and impartial verdict
in this case. The trial would not come on till the month of
April, and he took it for granted that the Recorder of Bristol
would be put in possession of all the circumstances, and if it
could then be shown that a fair trial was not likely to be had,
he would, of course, postpone it, and the present application
could then be renewed.—Rule discharged.

BAIL COURT-(THIS DAY.)

EX-PARTE ROES.

Mr. LEIGH said that in this case, in which a rule had been
obtained by Mr. Baines, to show cause why a gentleman
named Ross should not be struck of the roll of attorneys of
that Court, and also why Joseph Hodson should not be
committed to prison, he had to move the Court for leave
to have the rule enlarged to next term. His application was
founded upon the affidavit of Mr. Ross, who deposed that in
consequence of the absence of Hodson from town, he had not
had time to put in the necessary answers.
Mr. BAINES had no objection to the rule being enlarged on
the usual terms.
Rule enlarged to next term.

EXCHEQUER COURT-(THIS DAY.)

THE ATTOARIO-GENERAL V. TOMSETT.
This was an information filed against the defendant (the
guard of d. Doter do ach) for being concerned as the principal
in illegally unshipping a titunitity of French Silks in the
Downs, with the intention of smuggliftg them,
The trial was had two Terms 4go, when a VC,ltlict was found
for the Crown. The facts of the eas6 7ere shortly these.
The defendant ivas sued along with several other f,crsons—
they were ehafged with.breaking bulk on the sea, within a te:,
miles of Dover and putting the silks from the French ship into
a small sloop, in which they were brought up to London. The
officers having had some information, on the arrival of the
sloop, went on board and found the goods, hid amongst the
ballast, in packages much larger than were allowed by
law. The sloop was seized, and the goods condemned.
Early in the Term Mr. Clarkson moved for and obtained a
Rule Nisi for a new trial, on the ground that the unshipping
did not take place in the United Kingdom, as charged in the
information.

This morning the SOLICITOR-GENERAL showed cause
against the Rule. He cited an Act of Parliament of Charles
11., whereby the Court of Exchequer were ordered to issue a
Commission for the purpose of defining the limits of certain
ports. A Commission had been so issued, and the port of
Dover was by the Commissioners said to extend to certain
points, within which it was not disputed the unshipping of the
goods took place. He understood his Learned Friends on
the other side meant to contend that the act was
not done within the United Kingdom, but upon