The Sun.
London, England, 1845-06-12 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER, June 11.
(Sittings in Banco.)
HABEAS CORPUS.—IN RE CARUS WILSON.
Mr. WATSON, in the course of the day, applied for a writ of
habeas corpus to the vicomte and gaoler of Jersey, ordering them
to bring up the body of Mr. Carus Wilson on affidavits, stating
that that gentleman was" now detained in custody in that island
without any lawful cause. As this subject has been already before
the public in another Court, when the case was fully gone into, it
may be sufficient to state that the application was grounded on
three objections; the first of which impugned the competency of
the Court by the order of which the applicant had been committed
to his present custody; and the two others, the propriety of the
proceedings consequent on that order. The Learned Counsel was
about to state, that when berme the Court of Queen's Bench, the
application was disposed of on a point beside the merits, but he
was interrupted by

Sir F. POLLOCK, who said—l do not think that we are called
upon at this stage of the case to go into the merits or the proceed-
ings in Jersey. If Mr. Wilson or any one conversant with the
laws of Jersey distinctly states on oath that the Court was incom-
petent to commit that gentleman to prison for the alleged contempt,
or to inquire into any matter affecting him, that is vtiough to
entitle him to his writ.

Mr. WATSON—That most distinctly appears en the affidavits.

Sir F. POLLOCK—Very welt, then that is enough.
take your rule.

You may

A long discussion then ensued between the Bench and the
Learned Counsel as to the prorer period at which the writ shou:d
be made returnable, and it was ultimately decided that the mattn
should be again brought before the Court tomorrow (this day).

BAIL COURT, June 11.

HOBBS V. HARVEY

Mr. KEnsciixEn was instructed to show cause against a rule
which had been obtained by Mr. Peacock, calling upon the plaintiff
to give security for costs. Ile had an objection to make to the
copy of the rule which was drawn up on reading the affidavit of
Alexander Dubie, calling upon the defendant to show cause.
Mr. PEACOCK did not then know on whose behalf his friend ap-
peared. Was it for the plaintiff or defendant?

Mr. KERSCHNER said he appeared for the plaintiff.
Mr. Justice COLERIDGE—It is so obvious a mistake-4 What is
your cause?

Mr. KERSCHNER said he had two affidavits going to the fact
whether the plaintiff was resident in England. It was a qui lam
action, brought to recover penalties for advertising foreign lotteries,
and it appeared that the press of this country, as well as Scotland,
had fallen heavily into a liability to penalties. He had the affi-
davit of James Macaire, who was the attorney and agent for Hobbs,
in several suits, who stated that it was not necessary for the plaintiff
to reside in Scotland while an action was pending, but the
course and practice was to give his mandatory, and the deponent
hail received instructions from the mandatory appointed by the
plaintiff, and the defendant stated that the plaintiff was not now
resident in; Scotland, but was permanently resident in England,
and that his belief was that the plaintiff intended to continue

to reside in England. Then he had the affidavit of Hobbs,
himself, who stated that he left Scotland last September for Lon-
don, intending to return to Scotland as soon as he had arranged
his private of drs—that he was detained there a considerable time,
and he then determined to endeavour to find employment in Eng-
land, and lie returned to Scotland on the 28th of February to
settle his affairs, wi th an Intention of returning to England ; that
.-... __ . .

he did return in March last, and had lived in several houses in the
parish of Lambeth, where he intended to continue to reside.

Mr. Justice COLERIDGErMr. Peacock, are you not answered ?

Mr. PEACOCK—No, my Lord, 1 think not.
Mr. KERSCHNER thought the affidavit showed all that was re-
quisite—that the plaintiff continued to reside in England. There
was another motion—this was a qui tans action, and the Courts had
generally rather supported the plaintiffs, and had not called upon
them to give security for costs. There was a case in 2 Dow. 259,
where Mr. Baron Bayley had said, the Court would not compel a
plaintiff in a qui tam action to give security though he was sworn
to be a pauper. His Lordship would hardly favour an application
of this kind where injustice might be done. The Acts of the Le.
gislature could only be carried out by this class of men—they must
be considered as public servants.