The Sun.
London, England, 1861-01-16 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, WEDNESDAY EVENING,

0. •
LA W INTELLIGENCE.--Jan. 15.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.
IN RE WILLIAM COBBETT.

The indefatigable Mrs. Cobbett appeared again
in court to-day and applied to their lordships for a
writ of habeas corpus to bring up the body of her
husband, a prisoner in the Queen's Bench prison,
that he might show cause why an order made by
Mr. Justice Hill should be set aside, on the ground
that it was made contrary to law. It was a very
extraordinary proceeding calling on the plaintiff,
her husband, to show cause why he should not
amend the pleas in the record, on the ground of
irregularity. She humbly submitted that there
was no irregularity in the proceedings of the
plaintiff, and that the order should be treated as
a nullity. She now moved on an affidavit made
by her husband, who, as he read the act of Parlia-
ment, discovered that the learned judge had no
power either himself to amend the record, cr to
direct it, in the circumstances [set forth in the affi-
davit, to be amended as he had. She had given
notice to the learned judge to bring the plaintiff
before him, but he refused. When the summons
was taken out the learned judge seemed to be of
opinion that the ca. sa. was preceded by a judg-
ment; but her husband since discover' I that it
was not, and that no judgment had issued to war-
rant it ; that the proceeding was therefore irreg a-
lar, and that the learned judge on discovering that
was bound to discharge him out of custody and
restore him to his liberty. Mr. Chitty, who ap-
peared for the defendants in the action, the trustees
of turnpike roads, was astounded when she showed
the learned judge that judgment did not precede
the ca. sa., and the whole proceeding wag bad,
actually tore his hair in passion. (Laughter.) The
question their lordships had now to try was,
whether a judgment preceded the ca. sa. She con-
tended that the act of amendment did not et
this case, and she submitted that their lordships
would never take away the liberty of the subject
on ground so unsustainable and contrary to law.
There was no opportunity of hearing her husband;
while, on the other hand, there were two solicitors,i
the learned judge, and Mr. Chitty, all against him.
She complained that she was not heard, and that
she was kept out of the room, and three hours wait-
ing in an anteroom. Their lordships would see
thut there was no irregularity on the part of Mr.
Cobbett, and that ho had done in the matter all
ke could do and that the law required him to do.
The irregularity was on the other side. The action
was one of ejectment, and a learned judge (Mr.
Justice Wightman), after notice of action was
served, allowed the defendants to amend, and by an
order permitted John Jenkins (who obtained two
several orders from his lordship) to be made a
defendant. Her husband complained of that as an
irregularity. The matter was so difficult, so new,
and so technical, that she found it most perplexing
to explain it; but if her husband were allowed to
come before their lordships ho would show the
irregularity of the proceedings, and the illegality
of detaining him in prison, where he had been fine
years wrongfully detained, clear to their lordships.
It was a case that was never brought before a court
of law before, and that was not known to the law.
Mrs. Cobbett, after some further observations, con-
cluded by putting in the affidavit made by Mr.
Cobbett, and by hoping that their lordships would
consent to her application.
The Master having read the affidavit,
Lord Chief Justice Cockburn, after conferring
with the other learned judges, referred at some
length to several points of the case, and said the
judges, by the 122 d section of the Common Law
Procedure Act, had power to amend the record.
What the Court had now to deal with was the order
of Mr. Justice Hill, and looking at all the circum-
stances, the Court could not consent to issue a
habeas corpus on the grounds submitted by Mrs.
Cobbett. There was one way by which Mr. Cob-
bett could obtain his liberation from prison, and
that was by complying with the legal demands of
the defendants in the action.

Mrs. Cobbett (warmly)—l would rather see my
husband cut his right hand off, my lord, than see
him sign documents and demands so unjust and so
illegal.
Rule refused.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.
(Sittings in Banco before Lord Chief Justice Erie
and Justices Williams, Willes, and Keating.)

PRIESTLY Y. M‘LEAN.-RAILWAY ACCIDENT.

The defendant in this case was the lessee of the
South Staffordshire Railway, and the action was
brought against him to recover damages for injuries
sustained on that line. The case was tried at
Guildhall, before the Lord Chief Justice-, when the
jury found for the plaintiff—damages £750.
Mr. Edwin James, Q.C., now moved for a rule
for a new trial upon the grounds that the verdict
was against the evidence, and that the defendant
had been taken by surprise. The declaration set
out three grounds of alleged negligence, that the
tire of a wheel which broke was defective, that
there were no means of communicating from the
passengers to the driver, and that the speed at
which the train was going was excessive. These
allegations of negligence the defendant went down
to trial prepared to contest, and did so successfully
contest that the plaintiff shifted his ground, and
upon the strength of an answer given by a guard
who was called by the defendant, contended that
the accident had arisen in consequence of an old
dilapidated van having been attached to the train.
This course took the defendant by surprise, and he
had not had a proper opportunity of answering the
case which had been at length set up.
Rule granted.
SALMON V. RILEY—TIIE FUNCTIONS OF TILE

in his window, bearing the words, " Eurrey News.
—Louis Levite you are wanted." (Laughter.)

Mr. Justice Willes said he tried the case, and it
appeared that the defendant printed one number
of the Surrey News for the plaintiff, and not having
been paid, he stuck up the bill complained of.
Mr. Layton—Another point was, that 'the judge
had refused to issue an injunction to prevent the
further publication of the bill, and this refusal had
rendered the plaintiff liable to some costs in refe-
rence to a temporary injunction which he had
obtained from a judge at Chambers. It was true
the original bill had not been again exhibited, but
in its place was another in these terms, " God bless
our enemies, and may their hearts he turned."
(Laughter.) People knew what the bill referred
to, and it cseated a good deal of annoyance.
The Lord Chief Justice said he did not sec any
harm in this last bill.
Rule refused.