The Sun.
London, England, 1826-01-07 00:00:00

WESTMINSTER SESSIONS-(THIS DAY.)

OBSTRUCTION Or OFFICERS IN THE EXECUTION

OF TDEflt. DUTY.

R. Mitchell, was indicted for assaulting Chas.
Whitinson while in the due discharge of his
duty.

The prosectstor stated, that he is nu officer
belonging to the Court of Requests in Vine-
street. On the 28th of November, he went into
the City of London public-house, in Peter-street,
St. James's, -where he saw the prisoner, whom
he told he had an execution against for a
small debt. The defendant said he would
never pay it. " Then," said the prosecu-
tor, " you must go to prison." The defend.
ant replied, 4g he would be d--d if he
would." lie then scuffled with witness, and
struck him several times about the head nod face,
he then threw him down and stamped upon him/
until two persons came up and relieved him.--
These witnesses proved the account correct which
the prosecutor had given.
The prisoner called several witnesses
who gave counter testimony, but it met with no
credence.

The Jury found the prisoner Guilty.
The CHAIRMAN said, that this offence had of
late increased very rapidly, but officers of justice
must be protected-in the discharge of their duty•
The prisoner was ordered to the tread mill for
three calendar months.

Daniel Leveret! was indicted for assaulting
William Monday, an officer belonging to Castle"
street Court of Requests.
The prisoner pleaded Guilty.
The prosecutor said he had made inquiry re.
lative to the general character of the defendant,
and the result was, that l►e could recommend
him to the mercy of the Court.
The CILAIRMAN admonished him ►►s to his
ture behaviour, and ordered him to pay u flue of
one shilling.

INSOLVENT DEBTOR'S COURT.

MOTION TON AX ATTACII3tENT AGAINST TAE VARESE'

OF THE FLEET PRISON.
On Thursday Mr. PoLt.ocx applied to the Court for 11%
order to remove Wm. Ilebee, a prisoner tbr debt, in the custody'_
of the Warden of the Fleet prison, to the gaol of Cambridge,
in order to be examined before the Commissioners at the ef• I
suing circuit.

11;'fore the Court proceeded to give a decision,
31r. POLLOCa said, that he was instructed to apply to the
Court in a case analogous to that under consideraton, and he
felt it his duty to mention it. He (Mr. P.) had 'received in-
structions to move for an attachnient against the Warden of
the Fleet, for non-compliance with a rule of Court, which coin*
mended him to remove a prisoner into the country, pursuant .
a provision in a recent Act of Parliament.
The Learned Gentleman said, that he moved the Court
upon the affidavit of a Clerk of Acllington and Gregorys
(in the matter of an insolvent named IV. Yaks), wn°
swore that he served a rule of Court on the wardens'
which had been obtained by Shepherd and Beyntone
the mandate of which was, that the insolvent (Yates) sheltie'
'be removed from the Fleet prison to the gaol of Bristol on er,
before the 26th of December instant, the deponent averring,' ,
that he at the time of such service tendered to the said Warden;
15/. in a note or notes of. the Governor and Company of the
Bank of England, for the expence of such removal ; and fur•
tiler, that the Warden aforesaid refused to obey the said rule,
touching the removal of the said prisoner. He (Mr. P.)100"
dens that the Warden said, " there is no order made em *
me to do any thing, and therefore I will not part with or
prisoner."
Commissioner R4raus....l suppose tture was only a rob
served upon the Warden.
.51r. PoLLocx—Certainly, Sir, the order is made on no
one—he was merely served with the rule of Court, and the
money tendered.
The CouaT thought that it would be better to defer grant-
ing the order relative to Bebee until the question was discussed,
because, otherwise, any order the Court might make would out
be complied with, as in the ease of Yates. AIL Pollock was
ordered therefore to mike his motion de novo on a future day.
[This is another
.proof of the inadequacy of the law upon
which this Court is founded, to carry that into 'effect which
appeared to be the intention of the Legislature. PeshalT,
there is no Statute which has cost the Legislature so muLf;
time as that " for the relief of Insolvent Debtors," it having
undergone three revisions since .the expiration of Lord Ruder.
dale's Act, and it is equally problematical whether there has,
during the like period, emanated from the Senate an MI
fraught with so much ambiguity.)