The Sun.
London, England, 1835-02-13 00:00:00

KING'S BENCII-(TIIIS 'DAY.)

. AT BAI?.-NOVEL CASE.
At ten o'clockTßlAL Lord. Chief Justice DENMAN, Mr. Justice
LITTLEDALE, Mr. Justice PATTISON, and Mr. Justice Wn—
LIAM% took their seats.

THE KING V. ANTROBVS.
It will be in the recollection of our readers, that a dispute
arose between the Sheriffs of the county and city of Cheste:,
as to their respective rights to carry into effect the extreme
sentence of the law upon Garside and Mose:4, the two men
convicted of the murder of Mr. Ash
respited 7.:(
several times, the t;on. After having been
'llals were ultimately brought,
Upon the motion of die then Attorney-General, before the
IJudges of this Court by whom an order was made for execut-
ng the see:item; passed
edupotliem by the Learned Judge be-
gore venom they had been tried, and which was carried into
effect by the Marshalsea of the Court of King's Bench, as-
sisted by the Sheriffs of the county of Surrey.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Witt; whom were Sir J. CAMP-
-31 ELL and Mr. WIGHTMAN) said—lt was his duty to state the
circumstances under which the present case was brought be-
fore them. The object of the information filed by his learned
predecessor was to ascertain whether it be hot the duty of the
defendant, who was sheriffof the county of Chester, to obey the
order of the Judges under a Commission of Oyer and Terminer,
and execute the sentence passed by them upon the prisoners
'tried before them. The question was not whether some ether
p?rsons are bound to do it, either exclusively or in common
w2th the defendant, but simply whether be was bound to obey
the order of the Court. He believed, that in point of fact,
the circumstances would be found to be extremely short, and
In point of law, extremely simple. He should premise, that
although the present proceeding had assumed the form of a
prosecution, it was but due to the defendant to state, that it
wirapurely an inquiry into a matter rather of civil than
of cri-
nn 1 responsibility, The defendant was a gentleman of the
nighest respeetubility and honour, and it was rather the misfor-
tune
of the, law of England, that the present was the only
lilede of trying the question which he about to submit to
He, however, thought it right toga ake this explana-
lierm.because the appearance of a criminal prosecution might
r hurtful to the feelings of the defendant or his friends. By
:•',lO common law, which was well known, as it was among
;_ne elementary maxims of legal knowledge, the Sheriff was
laved
to execute and obey the lawful commands of the Judges,
dto him befogged the execution of the sentence of the
law. It was the office of the Court, if the occasion should
tappear to call for that interposition, to point oat to the Sheriff
hY particular spot within his jurisdiction,
and command him
Nre to perform the last solemn ditties of his office, with rcs-
ilect to the person sentenced. That was perfectly well known,
La"e_d, an instance occurred not many years since, when a murder
had been committed' in the shop of Mr. Bothwick, a gun-
rai,aker and the criminal was sentenced to be executed oppo-
tl.oe the spot where it had been committed. In confirmation
!, this, he might observe that not on one, but on many occa-
h3l:ns within the last thirty or forty years, it had been the duty
e the Sheriffs of the county of Chester, to obey the order of
bodies
Court 'and in obedience to that order to suspend the
C
__dies of criminals in chains, in such part of the county as the
ourt directed. It was undoubtedly true that within the me-
rory of
any living person, the Sheriff of the county of Chester
_ad not any any criminal—that duty had been always per-
lenned by the Sheriffs of the city of Chester—and the mode
'was this. The criminal was tried in the county Court, and
and When the day arrived for carrying the sentence into exe-
thcution, lie was taken to the kounda-ics of the jurisdiction of
e county, and handed over by the Constable of the Castle to
e Sheriffs of the city of Chester, and by them the sentence
the law was carried into effect. But although the Consta-
. le of the Castle was the person by whom the criminal was
handed.... over, the Sheriff of the county was a party thereto.
Sheriffs
the fact of the duty having teen performed by the
beingof the city arose cut of the circumstance of Chester
ping a walled town, and that, in earlier times, it was conve-
nient to execute criminals within the walls; or whether it
arose from the fact that the Court of Great Session of Chester
lereiseci a jurisdiction over the Sheriffs of the city, and had a
right to order them to do execution ; or whether the citizens
the Chester enjoyed ;some lands or franchises`dependent upon
execution of that duty, he would not stop to inquire
?° fact was that, for very many yarn, the Sheriffs of the
City had done execution on the criminals sentenced by the
by of General Session of Chester. That was done
"Y a rule of the Court, ordering the Sheriffs to do
uexecution, precisely in the same ma nner as the Court of
g's Bench had ordered execution os be done upon the two
tihaPPY men whose crimes had elven to that investiga-
aen. It would be one branch of his argument to show, that
it hough the Sheriffs of the city migl it be called upon, the
an though
of the county -were also bourn 1, if required to do so;
Shynt all events, when the City Slneriffs had refused, the
ctiffs of the County were then bouts, to discharge this duty.
the many inconveniences that existed in the administration of
aunty
Civil and criminal law in the Principality of Wales and the
tintY of Chester, under tlis old syst sm, led to the passing of
leAct of Parliament in the year 1830. Upon the passing of
thatthe
Act the authority of the Court of King's Bench became
„ e same over the county of Che ster,, as it was over the other
-°llnties o England.fßythe
,Ztge IV. and Ist William IV., chap. 7, that authority was
firmed; and by the 14th section, all the Courts, legal and
eSnitable, civil and criminal, silliest formerly exercised ju-
g within the County Palatine, were abolished.
;"jen the Judges first went down, and held their Court of Oyer
rTerminer, matters went on ji ast as usual. On one or two
oasions persons were sentence( 1 and execution was done by
, Sheriffs of the city as usual ; but by what authority the
fudges had ordered execution tt be done by persons without
their jurisdiction he (the Afton ey-General) was at a loss to
lie
!h nuerstand. At length a dote bt arose as to whether the
riffs of the City owed any a llegiance to the Judges, who
Zll,* sat under a commission of Oyer and Terminer, and this
stiolut Was somewhat serious in point of law, because it was
ngly supposed that if the Cif y Sheriffs were not under an
°l)ligation to do so, they were committing a high offence
against the laws. The act wi looked into, and the City
ch
earned friends on the other side • would probably rely upon the
nstruction of the 19th section , of the act, but he (the Attor-
Y-General) contended that hi a view of it was what he had
stated
and that this would la 3 borne out by the opinion
Ctheir Lordships. The legs .1 argument was within a very
hll the Act to which he alluded placed the county of
la ester upon the same footing a s the other counties of Eng-
and in these the county sl ieriff was bound to obey the ttier of the Judge. The facts which he should have to lay
bound under
them were, first, that thi 3 sheriffs of the county were
under this Act to obey t 1 ie orders of the Judges, and
tbshould have no difficulty ins atisfying them that this was
_e true construction of the Act . He should next prove the
ie!ord ef
too conviction of the t' wo unfortunate men, and the
dealendar as signed by the Judg, a and served upon the defen-
ralfitss and his answer thereto; and finally, his neglect and
Court,
to do execution. It al ppeared by the rolls of the
,"iletlra, which went so far back as.the year 1690, the county
j), "is were in the habit of atter. tiding executions, and apply-
thg for the. payment of expenses i ncurred thereby. He should
hen submit the matter to their Lordships and the jury, and
was satisfied that they could moor oft
any doubt of
_eseresponsibility of the defender it, or of his right to obey the
vrtr of the Judges in such cases s.
th The record of the conviction of Garside and Mosely was
eil
put in and read.
'lr. Lloyd, Clerk of Assize, was then' examined, and de-
10t1 to his having served a cop' .r of the Calendar (signed by
„..t. Justice Parke, before whom the prisoners had been tried)
ZZ1:0,11 the defendant. The defendant said he was prepared
~ti his answer, and handed it i witness, which witness im-
Ziately delivered to Mr. Just; ice Parke. (The letter was
tilt in and read. It stated that the defendant having some
ems as to his right to obey s' ich an order, refused to see
execution
I done upon the criminal 3, until his right or liability
..a.a.tl been set forth and ascertains, L) Mr. Justice Parke then
"isvitness a respite for the prix oners.
for e copy of the Calendar was then put in, but Mr. MAULS,
hi_ the defendant, objected, as no notice had been served upon
jec4,l.to prOduce the Calendar sic ned by the Judge. The ob-
ten`lon was overruled, and the C alendar was read, which sens
dire" the two prisoners to be h anged by the neck, and was
eted to the Sheriffs of Cheste r.
Ai Au
in our
ie'lg witness was cross-exami: led at some length by Mr.
w, but there was nothing na: it elicited.
o' shall give the result, shoul d the case terminate in time,
Second Edition.
t)c,

CHEQUER COM tT.-(THIS DAY.)

n GARDNER V. WIL JAMS, CLERK.
this cause being called on
seIfMACLE, for the defendant': said that he must throw him-
uP, °ll his Lordship's goodnes 6 for the Attorney-General.
of the and Mr. Wig•htirian, we e for the defendant, and all
bkr-Tio were at that moment ern ;aged in the important trial at
• 4uen going on in the King's r ench.
this r• THESSIGER said the plaint iff was very anxious to go ;
4_,4 ;a the fourth time they hat 1 come down, and did not like
'',llll to be thrown over hadsittings.
isco e Jury also said they att ended now four days at great
ca Hitilvetti°llco, and trusted they mild now be relieved.
s L..ORDSHIP said all he cot ild do was to take the next
it the parties were ready ii a it.
,1,,e witnesses in it had not art •ivcd, and I .
g0141..ne CHIEF BARON said he was ; sorry, but the paper must be
; throughcom regularly.
THESSIGER then said the a ction was brought to recover
g4,ciPetisation in damages for a libel. The plaintiff was
.a.
who nert and bad lived as such in the service of the defendant,
ssio,,wils vicar of the parish of I tendon. The defendant had
that'n°ood a jury from his own ra ills in life, expecting probably
r,‘'ey would more readily give him a verdict than a common
spcof
but he trusted implicitly to them, and had no fear of any
Airsestil-rt' The plaintiff had Hs ,ed as gardener in the service
to Ns; lools, the widow of Col . Nichols ; after that he went
'°o with the defendant, and on being discharged from that
hi
kr. epe> 1115 wife havinn• liv-eti for a . long time in the service of a
isetoaret that gentleman know ring the plaint.iff at once took
tftes±,.. "Is service without main ing any entiniry'into his cha.-
ag,s 441 dernand was made br • the plaintiff for a balance of
Vostob'lle to h the the defends at, that was on the loth. of
r' and o 12th, Mr. 1)( !arce was surprised to receive