The Sun.
London, England, 1832-11-22 00:00:00

ROLLS COURT.-(THIS DAY.)

His Honour the MASTER of the ROLLS having disposed
of all the causes in his paper to-day, none of which were
of any public importance, rose shortly before one o'clock.
At rising, his Honour stated that be had been informed by
the Registrar that there were now no causes ready for
hearing, the subpoenas to hear judgment not being return.
able, As, however, there are plenty of causes set down on
further directions, his Honour would proceed with them
to-morrow after the consents.

VICE-CHANCERY COURT.-(THIS DAY.

His Honour, the VICE-CHANCELLOR, proceeded with
motions to-day.

DEWS v. BERESFORD.

In this case an order had been made calling upon the
defendant to pay a sum of 1,200/. into Court, which he
having refused to do, an attachment was issued against
hitn ; he was taken by the Sheriff on that attachment,
and was subsequently committed upon a Habeas Corpus
Cul7l causis, to the custody of the Marshal of the King's
Bench. There he was admitted to the rules on giving the
usual security, and, having made his escape, Mr.
Knight applied upon motion for an order on the Marshal
to pay in that amount.
The VICE•CHANCELLOIt inquired if there had ever been
any such order made against the Marshal.
Mr. KNIGHT was not aware that there had.

Mr. KINDERSLEY, who appeared for the parties, trusted
that the Court, as the amount was large, would give time
for its being paid in.
His HONOUR ordered the money to be paid in a month.

KING'S BENCH.-(THIS DAY.)

THE KING V. ROBERT OAKLEY AND OTHERS.

Mr. Anom.uus on the part of the five defendants, who
had been in confinement by an order of the Justices of
Bedfordshire for ten months past, appeared to support a rule
for their discharge from custody, on the ground of several
informalities in the proceedings. The defendants, who
were poor labouring men, had been convicted in penalties
of 501. each, on the complaint of Edward Penfold, for
holding forcible possession of a mansion-house, called
Heath-house, and divers out-houses, in the parish of Ley-
ton Buzzard, in Bedfordshire. The Learned Counsel pro-
ceeded to show that the conviction, which was male
under the statute of Richard 11., when
Mr. LLOYD in support of the conviction said, he should
not rely on that statute, but on that of the Bth Henry VI.,
cap. 90.
Mr. AnoLnaus said the statute of Henry VI. provided
that, upon the Justices going to the place which was
forcibly held, and inquiring into the matter, by calling a
sufficient number of persons of the same county, they
might re-seize the premises, and put the party dispossessed
in full possession of them. It also provides for the pu-
nishment of the parties for the forcible entry. One ob-
jection to the conviction was, that it did not state that
Edward Penfold, being in possession, was forcibly put
out of possession, or that he had not assigned the posses-
sion. Another was, that it did not charge the defendants
with obtaining forcible possession, but merely holding
it forcibly.
Mr. Justice TAUNTON—If you were inclined to con-
tradict the facts you might have traversed.

Mr. ADOLPHUS—My Lord, these are five paupers,who
have no money to do that.
Mr. Justice TAUNTON-The law is the same to the
poor as the rich, and it is open to all. I see the con-
viction states an entry, but not a forcible entry.
Mr. AnoLPHus said that was one of his objections.
The statute of Richard evidently contemplated a forcible
entry as well as a forcible detainer.

Mr. LLOYD contended, that the conviction was good ;
the defendants were not charged with obtaining forcible
entry, but with a forcible detainer.

The CHIEF JUSTICE.-.-It must be a forcible detainer
of that which they had no right to possess, that must be
your argument.

Mr. LLovn said he should contend, that, although
there bad been a peaceable entry (for in the present case
the entry though illegal was peaceable), yet, if the reten-
tion were forcible, it came within the statute of Henry VI.
The sth of Richard 11., chap. 8, was an Act merely
declaratory that the forcibly obtaining possession of land,
houses, &c., and holding them with strong hand, was an
offence punishable at the King's will ; that Act was found
inoperative, and then the 15th of Richard H., chap. 2,
was passed, by which Justices were empowered to view
the premises with a sufficient power to commit to gaol
all persons found in forcible possession, to answer and pay
fines to the King. That Act was found according to the writers
not to answer the intended purpose, and the Sth Henry
VI., chap. 9, was subsequently passed, which confirmed
the former statutes, and as he (Mr. Lloyd) contended so
enlarged the remedy as to provide for the punishment by
fine or imprisonment of persons forcibly entering and for-
cibly retaining possession. The Learned Counsel, there-
fore, submitted that the conviction was good.
Their Lonnsuirs, after a long consultation among them-
selves, delivered their opinion seriatim. They were all of
opinion that there was not enough stated on the face of
the record to sustain the conviction, and to show
that the Magistrates had jurisdiction to fine and im-
prison the defendants, or even to turn them out
of possession. It was true that a forcible detention
was made punishable, even where the entry had not been
made forcibly, but where the forcible detention only was
charged it should be made to appear that it was an un-
lawful detention, which did not appear in this case. A
possession might be originally peaceable and lawful, and
the subsequent detention might be forcible, if it be in re-
sisting an entry by other parties; but it did not follow that
forcible detention was an unlawful one; and it could only
be a fotcible and unlawful detention that gave the Justices
jurisdiction. It did not appear in this case that there
was any unlawful detention, and therefore the con-
viction was invalid, and the defendants were entitled to
their discharge.
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE said, the Court would give
no opinion whether an action would lie against the Justices.

Air. LLOYD said he feared that that would be the certain
result.

The case occupied the Court all the forenoon.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.-(THIS DAY.)