The Sun.
London, England, 1817-11-22 00:00:00

SIR WATKIN LEWES V. MO2GAN.

This was an application respecting the payment
of the interest of some money, relative to which
order been made in this Court in 1793,
and a subsegitent order in 1794. A. variety of lo-
ctimenta vve:'e produced, with which his Lordship
stated 11-e had formerly been aegnainted, in con-
sequence of his having at that time been Counsel
for Sir Wtakin. He sincerely wished the case
could stand over for a few days, till he should
have an opportunity (..t reading over the papers,
because it was utterly impossible for him, in any
way whatever, to hear a case which necessarily
involved a series of orders made from 1793 to
181 7.—The case had_been long prolonged to Lis
own regret ; but till be had rend over the papers
• • he could not on any account consent. to' give it a
bearing.--Gase postponed.

COURT OF•KING'K BENCT-I, Nov. 21.

TIIE BLACK DWARF.

THE KING V. T. 3. WooLER.

The arguments upon spvcial dernuricrs, ap -
poi wed' for this day, busing been concluded, their
LordshipS called upon the Solicitor-General, who
said that he attended in consequeve of.a notice
of !notion given by •the defendant in the CaSC Of
the King v. Wioler.

.Mr. Wooler soon afterwards took his place on
the floor of the Court, observing that his object.
was to move for a rule to show cause why the list
of perslns, flamed by his Majesty's Coroner and
Attorney to form the jory'on the trial of the in-
tornicion against 'T. i4Vooler, should not he
cancelled, on the girinrxlthat such persons have
been in►propetly, illegally, and partially selected
by the• said Coroner and Attorney; and %%by the
Sheriffs of the city of London „should not again
attend the said Coroner and Attorney with their
fi
b ,ok or l'st of persons qualified to serve on Juries
whhin the said city, for the purpose of 48 persons
being named for the trial of the issue joined.
application was founded ilium three Affidavits
which Mr. Wooler put in, and they were read by
Mr. Dealtry, Of the Crown-office.,

The fires was that of Mr. Charles Pearsall, soli-
citor to the.defendanr.,wbich stated, that in poor-
snance of notice, he, accompanied by the defend•;.
ant, had attended at the Crown-office, for the pile-
pose of witnessing the nomination of 4g persons
for the trial Of the information of the King v.
NVooler ; that the secondary of London produced
several books', lists, and prpers, purporting to
contain the names of persons qualified to serve on
Juries for the City of London., which be presented
to the Coroner ; that the Coroner then commeneed
a selection of names : the deponent, as solicitor
for the defendant, protested against the mode
of selection as illegal and unjust, and intimated his
determination to appeal against it ; that the Coroner
then pretended to take the names indifferently, and
turning his eye from the book or list, professed
to put down as part of the 48, such names as'his
pen lighted upon accidentally ; that the Coroner
did not act fairly in this respect ; for, 'whenever
his pen was opposite to a name he did not aro,
prove, he • took another that better suited his
views ; that one of those names was Richard
Tapley, rag-merchant, in whose stead, the (..;0.7
roper took a wine-merchant, the deponent pro-
testing against the proceeding, stating that Mr.
Tapley was a man of the greatest respectability,
and if commercial knowledge werea recommenda-
tion to a jotryman, Most competent to discharge the
duties of that situation ; that this remonstrance
was in vain, as the Coroner persisted in excluding
Mr. Tapley's name, and inclUding among the 48
that of the wine-merchant ; that the Coroner also
announced the name of Mr. William 'Gilman as
a person upon whom his pen bad lighted in the
list, but be immediately afterwards retracted his
nomination and substituted a Mr Fellowes, whOui
he liked better, .notwitliganding the representa-
tions of the deponent and his client, that Mr.
Gilman•was a most respectable Banker,l perfectly
substantial, and indifferent between the. parties ;
that the deponent_ had subsequently noade'
ries respecting Mr. Fellowes, and fotind thpt he
was a broker in the habit of being employed by
Government in the sale of old stores, &c. , Thus
affidavit concluded w:th the assertion, that the
WhOle 48 names were selected by the Coroner in
the manner he thour,ht proper.
The second 'affidavit was that of T. J. Wonler,
the defendant, which confirmed that a his Soli-
citor- in the most material points, adding, that
when they remonstrated against are unfair and ar
bitrary manner in- which the Master of the Clown
Office was proceeding, that Otbe'er complained of
the troutte gi%'ca him reg4fding an old bot:k in

- .
nltich the r..rites of role-,Tiirors wer p-ArAed for
"special' purposes. -
Th'e. 'third nl,O bf Mr Charle!
Pearseitl, rind it reeiti:d I.lvo acts 'Of the Cotrinvot
Council of the City of litotollo, nnlde in 1518 and
rega'rding the !node ‘7llit'll ref:it/Ns' 1.11/1•
petent to serve opon f'irand -tnrl Petty.Juric4
should be Beier:let!. Tire (I,..pot;etir
that the hanks or lists frurnwnich the 48 mAtnee
on this occasion were ;
ta:,en- were not frainc,tl 'ac-
cording to the reglilations of those acts rotal.
they were not illhrie up under the direction of the
Aldermen of the sevcrd Wards', and certified by
them ; but I.l;at st:me t! signed by the Dept,.
ties Only, others by the Beadles, and only-one b$
the A.;derman and his Depute instead, at o, cat
being annnAlly inepared, one was of 1814, ano-
ther or 1315, and oire ere!) as old as 1812. Front
some tit the Wards no lists or books wet c retutnetl
at all.

TheSe affidavits having been read , by the Of.
ficer, Mr. Wotiler observed, that having been
subjected so recently to a trial', and consi-
dering the intervention of a Jury, impartially
named as the only barrier left for the protection.
of the personal liberty of the subject, it became
a blither of irhportance to him to inquire into the
nature and .construction of a Speciul jury.
Lord ELLENBOROUGif interrupted the defendant;
and observed, that it was unnecessary at present
to enter into dethifs ; what was stated in the
fidavit4 regarding the partiality of the, ofieet:
a snflicient •gromid for granting a role to show
cause ; of the other matters in the affidavits his
Lotilship Would say nothing.—Rule to slum cause
grorited. '