The Sun.
London, England, 1844-04-29 00:00:00

TALLOW.

This market is very steady, and considering the demand is
so limited, prices are firm. There is very little doing in New
Tallow. Y.C. for the last three months this year 425., and
for separate months, 42s 6d. Town Tallow is 40s net cash.

QUEEN'S BENCH.-(THIS DAY).
(Sittings in Banco.)
THE COLLIERS' STRIKE TIIE NORTII-EX PARTE ISAAC

TORDOLF-HABEAS CORPUS.

The party in this case was a collier who had been com-
mitted to prison by Mr. Bennett, a Magistrate of the West
Riding of Yorkshire, on a charge of having wilfully absented
himself from his work. He was this day brought up in cus-
tody, in order to have the cause of his commitment inquired
into.

Mr. BODIUN (with whom was Mr. Huddlestone) appeared
for the applicant Tordoif, and contended that he was entitled
to the discharge, inasmuch as the conviction was bad on
these six grounds:-Ist. It did not appear on the face of the
conviction that the complaint had been made within the
county for which the magistrate was acting, and although it
was dated in the words of execution at the end, that he con-
tended did not help it. 2d. The complaint was described as
having been on the oath of Andrew Falls ; it was that Tordolf
having entered into a contract to work for Andrew Falls and
others, had violated his contract. He contended that the
names of those other persons ought to have been set out, and
this defect he contended was not cured by the provisions of
the Act George IV., which extended only to indictments.
3d. The conviction set forth that Tordoif had agreed to serve
Falls as a collier, but there was no averment of the terms on
whieh he was to work, so that it was impossible for the Court
to know whether or Rot the contract came within the mean-
ing of the statute. 4th. It convicted Tordolf of more offences
than one, for after stating that he had unlawfully absented
himself from the service, it convicted him of having been ab-
sent the 24th, the 26th, and 27th of February, omitting the
25th, thus making a break and conktituting two offences.
Mr. Justice ParrEsoN—Perhaps the 25th was Sunday.
Mr. Ear E—lt was, my Lord.
Mr. Bormax had a fifth objection to make, which was—
that the conviction did not set forth that Tordolf had ever
entered the service, which it ought to have done, in order to
show that the contract had been completed; and sixthly and
lastly, he objected that it did not appear from anything on
the face of the document that the prisoner was present when
the witnesses were examined. On these grounds, he sub-
mitted the prisoner must.be discharged.
Lord DENMAN.—We feel the last point to be a very strong
one.' We should be glad to hear you, Mr. Erie on that point.
Mr. ERLE contended that the document in question could
not be treated as a conviction—it was to be treated as a war-
rant of commitment reciting a conviction, and all was set
forth in it that was usually set forth in such documents. It
was hot required to set forth all that' a conviction was usually
required to contain. It had never yet been required that do-
cuments of this nature should set forth the whole of the evi-
dence ; if the Court wereto require it, they would require that
these documents should contain much more than had hitherto
beert required.
Lord DENMAN—The point as I understand it is, not that
more is required to be set forth than has hitherto been re-
quired, but that it should be distinctly stated that the exa-
mination had taken place in the presence of the defendant.
If I understand Mr. Bodkin aright, he argues that it is poS-•
sible that the prisoner may have appeared, and yet the exa-
mination of the witnesses have taken place in his absence.
ERLE said that the same point had been raised before
Mr. Justice Coleridge, who had considered that there was
nothing in it The document stated that the prisoner had
been been brought before a magistrate that day, and, there-
fore, it was to be presumed to be one transaction. It was
clearly one transaction, and it was to be presumed that all
that had taken place had taken place in accordance with the
provisions of the statute.
_ _

Mr. YARDLEY, on the same side, contended that, whenever
it was stated in any document of this nature that in one and
the same day the party had appeared, and the facts had been
gone into, the Court would always presume that all that had
taken place had taken place in the presence of the defendant,
unless it was stated to the contrary, and quoted several cases
in support of his opinion.
The-Couirr took time to consider the point.
There were several other cases of a similar nature, in which
the same point arises, and which will not be argued on any
of the other points until this point shall have been decided.