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

country. The Act of 56th George 111., wis
only an extension of the Act Charles 11., an
enacted that persons confined for anythin;
but criminal, or supposed criminal matter, should b
entitleno his habeas—thus reulitting 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. Ile apprehended the question was,
whether a person in custody for a crime committed in
France was entitled to his habeas.

Lord DENALAN—That is to say, whether our
gaolers are to be gaolers for France without the con-
vention.

Mr. JAMES submitted that the Court could not
discharge the prisoner on account of the wording of
the warrant—for to be 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. Ile 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 French-
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 ti;e question, have we, proprio vigore,
the power of committal under the Act?
Mr. JAMES apprehended that the Court hrd the
power to remand, and that it could exercise that
power, on finding a crime set forth in the del o
tie 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 WlGHTms.N—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 DEN MAN-4t 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 he
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 it 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 IL 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.
(Sittings in Banco.)
LAKE V. THE DUKE OF ARGYLE.

This was an action brought by a printer, to recover a
debt due to him from the British American Association,
of which the Duke was President. The case came on

for trial, and the jury found for the plaintiff.
Mr. KELLY now applied fer a rule to enter a nonsuit,
and for a new trial, cn the ground that there was no suf-
ficient evidence produced at the trial to fix the defendant
with the liability, and contended that the case was per-
fectly different from the ease of a commercial and trading
firm.

Lord DENMAN read through his notes of the evidence
as adduced at the trial, from which it appeared that the
plaintiff had 13:3en employed by the Association before
the Duke became President.
The COURT took time to consider their judgment.
THE QUEEN V. THE CORPORATION OF DOVER.

Mr. lIILL applied for leave to amend a rule which had
been obtained last term, to bring up certain orders for
the payment of money made by the defendants, in order
to their being quashed.

Mr. KELLY, who was in Court, prepared on the part
of the defendants to show cause against the rule, opposed
the application, which was refused, with costs.

WEBSTER V. WILSON.

This was an action brought against the Mayor of
Kendal for an assault. The mayor had held his court
for the election of town-councillors in a room, and put
up a notice stating that none but persons coming to
vote were to be admitted. The plaintiff; a burgess, ac-
companied a voter to the room, and was ejected by the
defendant. He therefore brought his action for tho
assault, and the Lord Chief Baron, before whom the
cause was tried, held that the defendant had a right to
hold his court in a room, and to eject the defendant; and
told the jury, that if they wore of opinion that the
arrangements were proper, they would find for the de-
fendant. The jury found for the defendant, but added
that they thought the arrangements were not proper.
Mr. KNOWLES now moved for a rule to set aside the
verdict, on the ground of misdirection on the part of the
judge, inasmuch as by the 82d section of the Municipal
Act the plaintiff had a right to be present in the room,
and also that the court was an open court, and the de-
fendant had no power to remove the plaintiff from the
court, and also on the ground that the verdict, although
nominally for defendant, was in fact for plaintiff, inas-
much as it stated that defendant's arrangements were
not proper,
Lord DENMAN—You are entitled to a rule.
Rule nisi granted.

BAIL COURT, Nov. 5.

There was nothing of interest in any t.l the motions
which came before the Court this morning. At eleven
o'clock the Court resumed the case of " Payne v. the
Guardians of the Strand Union," which occupied all the
afternoon of yesterday, and would engage the Court till
its rising this day. It was a claim for 504 for work
done as a surveyor, which was disputed by the Board of
Guardians. The case was a complicated one, and pos-
sessed little interest.
COURT OF EXCHEQUER, Nov. 5.

COLLINSON v. THE NEWCASTLE AND DARLINGTON RAIT..

WAY COMPANY.

This was an action tried at the last Durham assizes,
before Mr. Justice Cresswell, to recover certain penalties
of the defendants for injuries done to the plaintiff by in•
terfcring with a road upon his farm. By the 263 d sec-
tion of the Act for constructing the railway, it was
enacted that where a road was "cut through, raised, de-
pressed, or crossed," so as to become impassable, the de-
fendants should construct another road in its place, or
remedy the defects in the old one. By the succeeding
section of the Act, it was enacted that the defendants
should pay the sum of 201. a day to the collector of the
trust of such road, so long as the specific instructions in
the Act were not complied with. In the case of a private
road the Act provided that payment should be made to
the proprietor. The defendants had pleaded that under
their Act the plaintiff could not maintain an ac-
tion, he not being the owner, but merely the occu-
pier of the farm, across which the road ran. This
road was intersected by the Company's line at
its junction with the Darlington-road ; and the
plaintiff alleged that his communication with Darlington,
which is a market town, had been seriously impeded.
The jury on the trial, after several hours' deliberation,
could not agree upon a verdict. At midnight they went
to Mr. Justice Cresswell's chambers, and informed him
that eleven of them were unanimous in their verdict.
but that the twelfth differed from them. The Learned
Judge directed them to find a verdict for the defendants.
with leave to the plaintiff to move the Court above. He
also said that in his opinion the plaintiff was not the
proper person to have brought the action.
Mr. KNOWLES now moved the Court for a rule to
show cause why the verdict given at the trial should not
be set aside, and a new'Arial granted.
The COURT, after considerable discussion, allowed a
rule nisi, and expressed a hope that an amicable settle-
ment might be effected between the parties, by which
the exorbitant expense of a new trial would be avoided.
Mr. liziowLEs, who concurred in the sentiments ex-
pressed by the Court, stated that the defendants would
find his client willing to enter into an amicable
arrangement.

TIAYWOOD V. MAYWOOD.

This was an action tried before Mr. Justice Whiteman,
at the last Worcester assizes, and the jury, to the sur-
prise of the Learned Judge, found a verdict for the plain-
tiff for 218/. The action was brought by Anne Hay.
wood, the administratrix of John Haywood, deceased.
The defendant, Jacob Haywood, was a large farmer, in
Worcestershire, and employed his brother, John Hay-
wood, whom he had relieved from pecuniary difficulties,
to manage two farms of which he was the owner. The
action was for work and labour rendered to the defendant
by the testator, the plaintiff, and their son and daughter.
No specific agreement was made between the parties in
to the amount of remuneration which they were to re-
ceive for their services, and the only evidence of any
arrangement consisted in a conversation between the
plaintiff's son and the defendant, the defendant telling
him that he would allow 2/. 2s. a week for the twq
farms.

Mr. CnowDER now moved for a rule to show cam
why the verdict should not be set aside and a new trial
had, on the ground that the verdict was contrary to the
evidence.—Rule granted.