The Sun.
London, England, 1857-11-03 00:00:00

ROLLS.

Mr. Garth said he was instructed by the Incor-
porated Law Society to move for a rule calling upon
a person of the name of John Shattock, an attorney
of this court, to show cause why he should not be
struck off the rolls for misconduct. Shattock was
convicted of forgery at the last Liverpool Assizes,
and was now undergoing the punishment of three
years' penal servitude.
Rule granted.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.
(Sittings in Baoco.—Before Chief Justice Cockburn,

and Justices WilliP.ms,6o;der; and Willea.)
The judges of this court took their seat upon the
bench at 2 o'clock., and at once proceeded to hear
motions.

THE GENERAL STEAM NAVIGATION COMPANY V. BOLT.

—.ItESSRS. MARE'S BANKRUPTCY.
Mr. Sergeant Byles said this cage had been tried
before Ur. Justice Wiles in London, when a ver-
dict was entered for the defendants, subject to cer-
tain questions of law reserved for the consideration
of the fall court. The present motion was to enter
a verdict thr the plaintiffs. It appeared that Me:sv.
Mare had by deed contracted to build a vessel for
the plaintiffs for 14,1201., and to deliver her com-
pleted by thal,3th September then next, and if she
Was not so delivered then that they should forfeit
104. a dai-fOr the extra time taken. The detentiant,
Rolt, became surety for Messrs. Mare perfora►-
ing the contract. Before the vessel was comp eted
Mears. Mare became bankrupt, and the plaintiffs
were put to some expense in completing the vessel.
They now claimed to recover this expense from
Mr. Roit as surety, and also a further sum in con-
sequence of the vessel not having been completed
is time. In answer, Mr. Rolt pleaded that it was
part of the contract that the plaintiffs should pay
the price of the vessel by four instalments, the third
.of which was to be paid when the vessel was
launched and the fourth when she was completed,
And that the plaintiffs had paid the whole of the
third and part of the fourth instalments e:ore they
became due. This, it was contended, bad dis-

charged the surety, inasmuch as if the plaintiff had
not paid the money before it was due they might
out of that sum 'nave reimbursed themselves for any
loss which they had sustained. The learned sergeant
now stated tha,i, though the third instalment had in
fact been pai.4),e before no vessel was launehe I, yet at
the timeof payment she was quits fit, width-, launch-
ing had on 'y been postponel for the convenience of
Messrs. Mare. He also argued from various facts that
the part, of the fourth instalu.ent had been paid
with th,e sanction, if not at the request, of Mr. Rolt,
and submitted that therefore he could not now take
advantage of that fact.
The court granted a rule nisi to enter a verdict
for the plaintiff, or, in the alternative, for a new
trial, or judgment non obstante veredicta.

RE WILLIAM COBBETT.-ANOTHER MOTION FOR A

HABEAS CORPUS

Mrs. Cobbett applied for a writ of habeas corpus
to bring her husband into court with a view to his
discharge from the custody of the keeper of the
Queen's Prison, and iu doing so, made a long state-
ment, some parts of which excited it good deal of
merriment. She said that her lu sband ha t been
arrested three time.; for the same debt. The ca-le
had never been heard iu any court, though s ie
has bad a sitaimoos before Sir F. Pollock, and she
should not have had to trouble their lerdsitips
if she could have go,. justice from him. Tee grounds
of her motion were that the action had been
carried on without introducing some necessary
documents ; that the coats had been paid, no
matter by whom ; and that Mr. Cobbett had
been discharged. The counsel who had at-
tended against her before Sir F. Pollock had
practised gross deceit, and she had gone to the
Lord Mayor, in order to obtain a summons against
him. She now complained of the fraud of that
learned counsel, who had got into Sir F. Pollock's
room whilst she was outside, and prejudiced
him against her. She had obtained a habeas to
remove Mr. Cobbett from Horsemonger-lane Gaol
to the Queen's Prison, but they had taken
him back to Horsemonger-lane, which they bad
no authority to do. It was only on the third
habeas that Mr. Cobbett had been removed
to the
.Queen's Prison. There were two writs of
habeas corpus, the Queen's writ and the judge's
writ, but what she had obtained was the Queen's
writ, to remove Mr. Cobbett, and that writ, she
submitted, ought to have been obeyed. She had
taken the writ to the sheriff, and had paid him 11.
3s, and after th tit the sheriff had no power to take
Mr. Cobbett back to Horsemonger-lane. In he
ease of "Oldtield v. Cobbett," her husband had
been detained iu prison for 12 years, and had been
at length discharged by the greatest authority in
this land, after having been repeatedly reprimaeded
and sent back. She complained teat she was pre-
judiced by the frequent applications which she had
made for writs of habeas.
_ The Chief Justice said he understood this case
had been fully gone into in the Court of Queen's
Bench.
Mrs. Cobbett—No, not gone into. Mr. Stur-
geon, one of her counsel, attended to argue the
point of privilege, and Mr. Gibbins, het; other
a
counsel, to argue the point .th Mr. ebnett had
been out of custody, but the court was about to
rise, and the judge said only one
heard, and so only the point of pnTlielsgeeisshhaodulbdebene
argued.
Mr. Justice Crowder said that on the point f
privilege he had refused the writ, and afterwards
an application was made to the Queen's Bench,
when that court decided that he was right. As to
the other point he di 1 not know what that was.
Mrs. Cobbe t— That he had been Out of Custody,
Mr. J ustice Crowder continued—He had made
the usual order that Mr. Cobbett should go to the
. Queen's Prison, and presently afterwards was in.
formed that be would not pay the usual fee.
Upon that he ordered that be should only be
taken to the Queen's Prison upon paying the fee
which the act ( f Parliament required.
Mrs. Cobbett—There were, she might say, mil-
lions, but at all events thousands of cases in her
favour. She ha I been advised that Mr. Cobbett
had aright to go to the Queen's Prison. As to fees,
she had paid 501. f ,r fees for habeases, and the offi-
cers had extorted 201. from her. A judge had after-
wards decided that no fees were due upon a pri-