The Sun.
London, England, 1844-11-06 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

'Priv

31U
63-
450
110
162

10%
640

101%

1861
2gt
24
1211

6%
5%
400

IL'f3s.

49%
1 6,
189

Val
45'

15%
Ibo

434
10
164
35
25
27
1:14

22
20
25
129
93
36
25
1%

13%
59%
213
124
129
8(14

202
90 X
464
11%

9g
214%

265%
42%
25%
11S

20
26
6
314
91(

4%
118

I 'Gig
2734
Mk pm
1
I 171

et 4,,
3SX
104

12%
2214
18
21s.
50

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
(YESTERDAY.)
MANSION-HO USE.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, Nov. 5.
IN THE MATTER OF JACQUES BBSSET.
HABEAS CORPUS.
In this case the prisoner Besset had been a mer-
chant, carrying on business in London and in Paris.
He became a bankrupt, and the French Government
demanded that he should be given up to them under
the provisions of the extratradition treaty, as a person
guilty of fraudulent bankruptcy in France, and who
had escaped to England. He was arrested, taken to
the Mansion-house, and committed to Giltspur-street
Compter by the Lord Mayor, preparatory to his being
surrendered to the French Government. Before
that surrender could take place, application was made
to Mr. Justice Wightman, at chambers, for a
writ of habeas corpus, on the ground that the offence
of fraudulent bankruptcy was an offence un-
known to the laws of England, and that,
therefore, it was contrary to law to arrest
a prisoner, or to keep him in custody on such a
charge. Mr.i Justice Wightman considered the matter
of such importance that he refused to decide at cham-
bers, and directed application to be made to the full
Court. On Saturday Mr. Chambers obtained the
writ of habeas corpus, and this morning the keeper of
the Compter appeared on the floor of the Court with
his prisoner.
Mr. CHAMBERS, on being called on, moved that
Jacques Besset be discharged.
The return to the writ of habeas was then put in
and read. It set forth the warrant of the Lord
Mayor for his committal on the charge of fraudulent
bankruptcy committed in France.
Mr. JAMES said that an objection had been taken
before Mr. Justice Wightman that the prisoner was
not in a position to apply for a habeas corpus, he
being a French subject, accused of a crime committed
in France, and in custody under the convention.
Probably it would be better to take that point first.
Lord DENMAN—Perhaps SO.
Mr. CHAMBERS contended that there was nothing
to show that the prisoner was in a different position
from other persons, and that the other side could not
now raise the question upon affidavit.
Mr. JAMES replied that he had a right to show by
affidavit that the prisoner was not in a position to
apply for his habeas.
Lord DENMAN—The words of the Act of Parlia-
ment are, " that such person shall be committed upon
such requisition aforesaid, and delivered up in case
requisition shall be duly made." Now the words of
the commitment are, " until he shall be delivered by
due course of law." There is not a word about any
requisition having been made. How can you explain
that, Mr. James ?
Mr. JAMES—There has been a requisition to the
Secretary of State. The Secretary of State had
issued his warrant, that has set the magistrate in
motion, and he has committed the prisoner until
he shall be released by due course of law,
instead of until he shall be delivered by requisition.
Such a discrepancy might or not be a reason for
ordering a prisoner's discharge, but he contended that
the prisoner being a criminal, a subject of another
country, accused of a crime committed in another
country, was not entitled to his writ of habeas. It
had never been stated under which Act the application
was made, the Act of Charles 11. or that of George
111. The prisoner was a fugitive criminal from
another country, accused of that which is not a crime
in this country. By the Act Charles 11. the relief
by habeas was confined to subjects of this country
accused of crimes which could be tried in this country.
Upon that point there had been an express decision in the
case of the King and M'lntosh, 1 Strange, in which the
Court decided that a person in custody for treason
committed in Scotland was not entitled to his habeas
corpus, because he could not be tried for it in this
country. The Act of 56th George 111., was
only an extension of the Act Charles 11., and
enacted that persons confined for anything
but criminal, or supposed criminal matter, should be
entitled to his habeas—thus remitting him to his re-
medy at common law.
Mr. Justice WILLIAMS—What is his remedy t
common law ?
Mr. JAMES apprehended the writ of habeas ; but
he submitted that at common law a fugitive criminal
from another country could not be entitled to his
writ of habeas. He apprehended the question was,
whether a person in custody for a crime committed in
France was entitled to his habeas.
Lord DENMAN—That is to aay, whether our
gaolers are to be gaolers for France without the con-
vention.
Mr. JAMES emitted that the Court could not
discharge the prisoner on account of the wording of
the warrant—for to he delivered up by due
course of law would be to be delivered
up in conformity with the requisition, or in
the event of their being no requisition, his being
discharged under the provisions of the Act of Par-
liament. He also submitted that if the warrant
were bad, and the depositions set forth a crime, the
Court could remand him back to the same custody.
Mr. Justice WILLIAMS—That is only in cases in
which the prisoner could be tried in this country.
Mr. JAMES admitted that the Court would be taking
upon itself to decide whether a crime, according to
the law of France, had been committed by a Frezch-
man in France; but, inasmuch as the magistrate
would have the power of issuing a fresh
warrant, he submitted that to give effect to the Act
of Parliament, their Lordships would remand him to
the same custody.
Mr. Justice COLERIDGE—Setting the magistrate's
warrant out of the question, have we, proprio vigore,
the power of committal under the Act?
Mr. JAMES apprehended that the Court had the
power to remand, and that it could exercise that
power, on finding a crime set forth in the depositions.
He submitted that the depositions ought to be read,
and the prisoner re-committed by the Court, in the
event of any crime appearing in those depositions.
Mr. Justice WrGurmaN—That is to say that we
are to discharge him under the warrant, and commit
him ourselves de novo ?
Mr. JAMES—Yes, my Lord.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL attended by desire of
the Lord Mayor not to oppose the prisoner's dis-
charge, but to submit to whatever the Court might
direct.
Lord DBNMAN----It is a great misfortune that this,
the first application made of this very important Act
of Parliament, which may affect the administration of
justice throughout the whole of Europe, should be
made in such a very defective manner. We
have no power to interfere. The gaoler has no
power to detain this person, except what is given to
him by this Act of Parliament ; and when we look
to the wording of the Act of Parliament, we find
that in this case the directions of the Act have
not been followed. It is clear he cannot
be detained. We have been applied to to remand him
as having been guilty of some crime. We can know
nothing of the commission of any crime except what
appears upon the warrant. We have no power to take
cognizance of any crime committed in another
State, except under the provisions of the recent
statute. It would have been unnecessary to pass
that statute if we had possessed such a power as that
which we are now asked to exercise. It should be
distinctly understood that this writ of habeas is
issued under the common law, and not under the
Act of Charles 11. or George 111. The writ was
, secured by the petition of right, and was known to
the law long before those Acts were passed. The
prisoner must be discharged.

Three men, named Sadd, Clow, and Vaughan, were
brought before Alderman Wilson for final examina-
tion, charged with having committed a murderous as-
sault upon an active constable, Locke, who attends at
Nicholson's-wharf, in Lower Thames-street. The
complainant was assisted into the justice-room by a
policeman. His head was bound up, and he seemed
to suffer extremely from internal injuries. At one
time his life was considered to be in imminent danger,
and he is still in a very serious condition.
The complainant stated that on Saturday, the 26th
of October, as he was taking a man from N icholson's-
wharf to the station-house, whom he had taken into
custody for drunkenness and, causing obstruction to
business, his prisoner began to be very violent upon
reaching Thames-street. A mob collected around
him, and a constable walked up to his assistance.
When he reached St. Mary-at-Hill, the mob became
violent, and forced him away from his prisoner
and the constable, and he was knocked down
and kicked. While he was getting up he was kicked
on the thigh by the prisoner Sadd. " I told Sadd,"
continued the complainant, " that I should know him,
and have him when I got out of the mob." He
threatened to do for me, and excited the mob by call-
ing upon them to kill me. I was afterwards knocked
down, but I don't know by whom, and when I got
up again I was struck, by the prisoner Clow, in my
face and eye. I was then knocked down almost
senseless, and kicked all over when down- The pri-
soner Vaughan also excited the mob against me by
calling upon them to kill me. After I had been taken
to a surgeon, who applied leeches to my face, I went,
with the assistance of the police, to Thames-street, to
look for Sadd, and I found and took him into custody
at the bottom of St. Mary-at-Hill. He said to me,
" Don't take me, and I'll tell you who hit you."
afterwards went, assisted by two officers, to Dock-
head, and took Clow into custody, and he acknow-
ledged that he had struck me. I have been very ill
since from the injuries I received, am.l have been
confined to my bed. I began to spit blood on the
same day, and have continued to spit blood up to yes-
terday, in consequence of the kicking I received, and
I hist my sight for several days. I cannot sleep at all.
Sadd said he had never kicked the complainant
at all.

Mr. Baton, for Clow, said he should re:serve the do.
Fence of his client for the trial.