The Sun.
London, England, 1826-11-16 00:00:00

ATTORNIY-GRNRRAL V. COILONZR OF STAFFORD.

This matter also stood to be argued before the Lord Chancellor,
with the aid of the two Common Law Chiefs.

Mr. AGAR said, it came on upon,s petition for the purpose of
having the election of Mr. Dent as Coroner for the County of
Stafford, declared void, and that the Sheriff might be ordered to
amend his return, or to issue a writ for a new election. Ths
points were two, which arose upon the 58th of the late King,
chap. 95, and were then, that the Coroner had not lands sufficient
in the County to satisfy all people, and that the election took place
at an improper period. . .

The Loan CHANCELLOR intimated that the Common Law
Judges wished to have the point* argued separately, and the last
point first.
Mr. AGAR could say nothing more upon the last point than
merely to state the facts, and read the Act of Parliament. The
Act required that the Sheriff should proceed to elect a Coroner at
the next County Court, after a vacancy, unless the same should
fail to be holden within six days after the receipt of the writ.
In the present instance the nett County Court did not fall within
Mist days: it Cell on the 11041 itr...April, which was a considerable
timei after the sixth day; and when the *election ought to have
proceeded, but which did not, in point of fact, till ths 27th of the
same month.

Mr. WurATrxv appeared for the coroner, and submitted that
he had been duly elected. The 13th was the day on which the
election WAS to have proceeded ; on that day the Sheriff read the
writ by which he considered he had opened the proceedings, and
adjourned the polling till the 27th, which he had full power to do.
Mr. LovA.rr was counsel for the Sheriff, who had been served
with the petitioo. He had no wish but to act with the utmost
impartiality. The statutes relating to the appointment of a coro-
ner, were the 3d. of Edward 1., the 14th of Edward HI, the
28th of Edward 111. and the bßth of George 111., none of which
prohibited the adjournment of the proceedings at the county court ;
and though the Sheriff wished only to act as the court might think
right, yet he did confidently submit, that he bad the
power of adjournment, and that the proceedings that had taken
place, had been in obedience to the law. If however there had
been any sort of mistake, so as to affect the validity of the election,
he trusted the Court would consider that he had hid no corrupt
motive, and that neither the Coroner nor himself ought to be vi-
sited with the pains and penalties annexed to a Coroner's entering
into office without being duly elected.
Mr. AGAR replied.
The Loan CHANCELLOR said, after the Chief Justices had
made up their minds upon this point, they would have the good-
ness to state their opinions; if not, they would take their time to
consider it. .

The Lord Chief Justice Bear's humble opinion was, that this
was not a valid election of the Coroner for the county of Staf-
ford. Whatever might have been the law previous to the making
of the last statute, the preamble of that Act was so clear, that those
who ran might read. The 13th of April was the day on which
the Sheriff ought to have proceeded to the election ; and if it had
been found necessary, the only adjournment he could have made
was from day to day : he had not even commenced the election on
the 13th, nor had be done so until the 27th.
The Lord Chief Justice Bur again said, the last Act had been
expressly made for regulating the appointment of a Coroner; it di-
rected that the election should take place at the holding of the
next County COurt, provided that did not fail to be within biz
days after the receipt of the writ. The 13th of the month was
beyond the 6th day, but the Sheriff had not proceeded on thel3th,
nor could be, indeed, legally have done so ; became, as early as the
sth of the month he had deprived himself of that power, by giv-
ing notice on that day to the candidate; that he should nut pro-
ceed to the election till the 27th. Under them) circumstances,
his humble advice to the Lerd Chancellor was, that he ought to
delare the election void.

The LORD CHANCELLOR concurring in the opinions given by
the Lord Chief-Justice, declared the election that had been made,
to he void. Before he had heard the opinions that had now
been given, he was very strongly of opinion that the election was
not a legal election; but feeling it to be a thing of the, greatest
importance to have declared the election void, as well as to have
a Coroner unduly elected, he had been desirous of giving every
attention to the question before he dinow done. Re now ordered another writ to issue for a new elec-
irpow of it, which he had
elec-
tion.

Mr. AGAR wished to know if the Court would do any thing
about the costs ; but the Court refused to interfere.

COURT OF KING'S BENCII.—(This DAY.)
JUDGMENTS ON SMUGGLERS.
Thomas Wood, who had been convicted on an information
filed by the late Attorney-Getters), of having attempted to bribe
a person in the Preventive Service, on the coast of Sussex, to
up fin, judgment. The evidence having been read, the prisoner
permit him to land some contraband goods, was this day brought
handed in an affidavit, alleging that Chipman, to whom he had
offered the bribe, had some months ago proposed to him to carry
on business in that manner.
The SOLICIToa-GinaRAL said, that the offence
of
which the
prisoner was convicted was by no mean* alleviated by the circum•
stances stated to the Court. It was not probable that Chipman
should have encouraged him to offer a bribe, and afterwards have
given information; he could have no interest in it. If it were
the case, the prisoner ought to have pleaded
guilty, and then
offer this circumstance in extenuation of his guilt. Fourteen
convictions of a similar nature had taken place within the last two
years, there were several others to he brought up, and if the
Court *hewed any indulgence towards them it would sender the
object of the preventive service entirely useless.
Mr. Justice addressed the prisoner, and said, be Was

convicted of having attempted to bribe a man to permit him to '
work some tubs orliquor, which if he had done, he would have
been guilty of a dereliction of duty towards his Majesty ; his
I:::tement in his affidavit, that Chipman had made a proposal of
this nature. :.7
him some months ago, could not operate in extenua-
tion of his guilt, for if tr i lad acceded to the proposal at the time,
The Court taking into con-
it would render them both crio.nll*
sideration, that he had a wife and seven t*:,!'ildren depending on
him for support, and that this was his first offend,would len-
tence him to one month's imprisonment in Horsham Gaol.
Wm. Snow, Win. Hamington, and Wm. Holt, were brought
up on a similar charge—they pleaded Guilty, and in extenuatiore
of punishment put in affidavits, which in substance denied their
guilt. The Court deeming this inconsistent with their plea,
would not perMit them to be read, and ordered the prisoners to
be remanded until this day week, in order to have their affidavits
amended.
Mr. Justice BAILILY observed, that the attorney concerned in
drawing up the affidavits was guilty of a high misdemeanour.
The prisoners stated that their attorney was Mr. Holmes, of
Leominster.
William Young, John Delman,. and Henry Limerist were
brought up on a charge of a similar nature ; they pleaded guilty.
It appeared that Limerist had offered a bribe to a person in the
preventive service, and that the other two had been apprehended.
hi the act of running sonic goods on the coast of Sussex.
The AT.roarrEY-GENERAL appeared on behalf of the Crown,
but did not urge a severe sentence, on account of the contrition
which the prisoner., manifested.
Mr. Justice BAILEY, after a suitable address, sentenced them
to three months' imprisonment in Horsham gaol, and to give secu-
rity for their good behaviour for three years, themselves in 20/.
each, and two sureties in 101. each.
Michael :Bourne and William Ryan, convicted at the Chelms-
ford Assizes of having offered a bribe to an officer belonging in
the Preventive Service, to permit them to run some goods, being
brought up for judgment,
Mr. F. WILLIAM IttareSSed the Court on behalf of Ryan, who
it appeared had acted in a subo:flinata capacity.
The ATTORNEY-G EN ERAL on the other side, pressed for a severe
sentence.
Mr. Justice BAILEY addressed the prisoners Ito !aid, flint they
bad been convicted on several charges of having conip::ed toge-
ther, with a view of persuading W. Horne, an officer under s.ll°-
vernment, to connive at their running some prohibited goods.
The act of bringing such goods into this country was in itself a
serious offence, but their attempt to persuade others to be guilty
of a dereliction of this duty, was an aggravation thereof. Bourne
had pleaded not guilty, and now that he had been convicted on
clear testimony, he acknowledged having offered the bribe. The
sentence of the Court was, that Bourne be imprisoned in Chelms-
ford gaol for six calendar months, and pay a fine of Wt. to his
Majesty. The Court taking into consideration the mitigating cir-
cumstances in Ryan's case, do adjudge that he be imprisoned for
four calendar months, and that the prisoners do give security for
their good behaviour for three years ; themselves in 201. each, and
two sureties in 10/. each.
Elizabeth Foram, convicted of having assaulted a female, who
was about to give evidence before the Magistrates in Hastings, on
an information against the prisoner's husband for selling spirits
without licence, was brought up for judgment.
An affidavit was put in on her behalf by her husband, stating,
that she had a family of young children, and that he would
willingly pay any sum not above 10/., rather than that she should
be imprisoned. The Court, however, were not influenced by this
offer of a compromise, and sentenced her to be imprisoned for one
-ear.