The Sun.
London, England, 1835-06-17 00:00:00

KING'S BENCH.-(TIIIS DAY.)

THE KING V. JOHN WILSON.

The COURT gave judgment in this case. It was a con-
viction before two magistates upon the complaint of a person
that the defendant had illegally entered and kept possession
of a certain messuage. The conviction set forth this, and also
that the Justices went to the place, and found that the de-
fendant did retain possession unlawfully, by force and arms,
and they therefore adjudged the defendant to pay a fine of 5/.
and caused him to be arrested and imprisoned in the county
gaol until the fine be paid. The question for the Court was
whether the conviction in this case was good in law ; and
they were of opinion that it was not. The jurisdiction of the
Justices was founded upon three statutes-sth Richard 11.,
15th Richard 11., and 9th Henry VI., the object of all which ]
were to prevent breaches of the peace, by parties forcibly
asserting their own right. They were of opinion that the entry
and possession must be proved to be unlawful, in order to give
the Magistrates jurisdiction to convict, fine, and imprison.
The forcible entry was the whole foundation of the proceed-
ings, and it would be inconsistent with every principle of jus-
tice if this fact was not proved. No evidence had been ad- -
duced before the Justices upon this point; and everything, in
fact, had been done on an exparte statement, and behind
the back of the defendant. The convictions in cases
similar to the present had been rare, as the usual mode of
proceeding was by indictment, which was certainly the more
correct course, as greater precision was necessary in ascer-
taining the facts. It appeared, therefore, that the convic-
tion was bad ; first, because there was no proof that the
entry was illegal ; secondly, there was no declaration of this
fact ; and, thirdly, there had been no evidence tendered to
the Justices, but only the complaint of a party. The convic-
tion, therefore, must be quashed.
THE KING V. ROBERTS, MAYOR OF CAERNARVON.—JUDGMENT.
The question in this case was whether the defendant had
been legally appointed to the office of Mayor of the borough of
Caernarvon. By the charter which had been granted in the
reign of Edward the First, the constable of Caernarvon
Castle was ex-officio Mayor of the boreugh, and had a power
of appointing a deputy. The Marquis of Anglesey, while
Earl of Uxbridge had been duly sworn and appointed Consta-
ble of the Castle of Caernarvon. By the 57th Georgo 111.,
the office was continued during pleasure, but upon the death
of that Monarch the office was continued by the statute of
Anne for six months only. In January 1821, a warrant was
issued by his Majesty, confirming the appointment of the Noble
Marquis to this office, but it appeared that he did not again
take the oath required by the Charter, which the Court was of
cf opinion he should have done, it being to all intents and pur-
poses a new appointment. By the wording of the Charter a
new swearing-in was necessary, and this not having been done
the appointment of the defendant, as the deputy of the Noble
Marquis, was invalid, and, therefore, the judgment of the Court
must be for the Crown.

CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT.

(THIS DAY.)

OLD COURT.
John White, aged 27, was indicted for stealing a gelding,
value IN., the property of John Tilbury.
The prisoner pleaded guilty.
Manuel Lopez, aged 36, a Spaniard, was indicted for steal-
ing in the dwelling-house of John Kirell Kinsman, four coats,
and other articles, value 301., his property.
William Raybone, a servant to the prosecutor, who resides
in Lincoln's Inn Fields deposed that on Thursday evening, the
4th of June, he went out on an errand, and on his return he
met the prisoner with a bundle, about three hundred yards
from the house. On examining his master's wardrobe he saw
that a robbery had been committed, and followed the prisoner,
but was unable to overtake him.
Mary Ann Spillman, a laundress employed upon the pre-
mises, stated, that, on going up stairs on the evening in
question, she observed the prisoner running down stairs with
a bundle.
James Watson, shopman to Mr. Lloyd, a pawnbroker, in
Strutton's-ground, Westminster, produced a coat, waistcoat,
and trousers, which were pledged by the prisoner for IL 10s.
on the evening of the 4th of June, in the name of Manuel
Lopez. Having seen a placard describing the robbery, witness
gave information to the police.
William Clifton, police-constable, B 50, apprehended the
prisoner, and found a pair of trowsers and others of the stolen
garments in his possession. On arriving at the station-house,
the prisoner pulled his coat off and said " Oh, this is one of
the coats 1" but it turned out not to be one.
Some other witnesses proved the finding of stolen property
at the prisoner's lodgings.
The prisoner denied the charge.
A verdict of guilty of stealing only, was returned, the Jury
being of opinion that the house had not been proved to be
that of the prosecutor only.
The same prisoner was again indicted for stealing two
paintings and frames, value 81., the property of James Thomas
Berkeley.
It appeared that during the temporary absence of the pro-
secutor from his counting-house in Threadneedle-street, it
was entered, and the paintings taken away. They were not
discovered until the prisoner was apprehended on the last
charge, when they were found in his lodgings, and the 'name
of the painter (Mr. Huggins) appearing on the backi, enabled
the constables to trace the owner.
The Jury returned a verdict of Guilty only of having stolen
goods in his possession, there being no proof that he stole them.
Mr. Justice PARK said, at that rate nearly every thief would
be acquitted. The possession of stolen property by any party
unable to give an account of it, was presumptive proof of his
being the thief. He could not take such a verdict ; indeed,
it was not a verdict.
The Jury, after a few minutes re-consideration, found the
prisoner Guilty.
The COURT said, as the prisoner was an old offender, he
would be transported for seven years for each offence.

NEW COURT.
James Henry, aged 17, was indicted for stealing a lace veil,
the property of Mr. Thomas, a linen-draper, in Pickett-street,
Strand.
It appeared that the prisoner, having entered the shop, en-
gaged the prosecutor's attention upon another article, and,
watching an opportunity, snatched the veil from the counter
and ran off. He was, however, pursued fro
en
The Jury returned a verdict of Guilty.
COMMON-SERGEANT—Prisoner, this is the third time you
have been tried here.
Prisoner—No ; I don't think its more than the second, your
Worship.
COMMON- SERGEANT—WeII, you will go out of the country.
The prisoner appeared quite prepared for this announcement.