The Sun.
London, England, 1844-04-30 00:00:00

AMANT.

My dear Sir,—Your reply to my "Proposals" reaches me
at the moment when the forthcoming Number of The Chess
Player's Chronicle is at press. This circumstance will ac-
count for and excuse the brevity of the present communication.
My challenge, to the terms of which you have taken so
many exceptions, was a general one, and its conditions, how-
ever equitable, could never be so nicely shaped that they
would dovetail with the wishes and convenience of every
individual. They will not do so, it would seem, with yours.
Keeping them, then, altogether out of sight on the present
occasion ; regarding only the impatience which you express,
and which I feel, for another match, and the assurance you
have given us of your being in London this spring, I have th•
honour to submit for your consideration another "deli."
I will engage upon your arrival in London to play you at
the St. George's Chess Club a match of twenty-five, of
twenty-one, of eleven, of seven, or of five games, at your
option, for any stake not less than 100/. sterling.
These games shall be played at your own appointed days
and hours.

I will undertake to play every day, or alternate days, or
once a week, as you may arrange, under the penalty of one
guinea for each omission.
I will agree that the maximum time allotted for each move
shall be ten, or fifteen, or twenty, or twenty-five, or thirty
minutes, at your pleasure ; and that either party exceeding
the given time shall on every occasion be fined a guinea.
The match shall also be played in public or private as you
may determine ; and, finally, I will consent that in each ganie
both players shall on their first move play king's pawn two
squares.—Believe me truly yours,
JAMES STAUNTON.
To M. St. Amant, editor of Le Palamede.

CABINET COUNCIL.-----A. Cabinet Council was held
at the Foreign-office yesterday, at two o'clock, which
was attended by Sir Robert Peel, the Duke of Wel-
lington, Sir James Graham, Lord Stanley, the
Earl of Aberdeen, the Chancellor of the Exchequer,
the Earl of Ripon, Lord Haddington, Sir H. Hardinge,
Sir Edward Knatchbull, Mr. Gladstone, and the Lord
Chancellor. The Council was summoned on Saturday
evening, by direction of Sir James Graham.
THE ATTORNEY,-GENERAL..—We are exceedingly
happy to hear that Sir William Follett is daily im-
proving in health and strength. Acting, however, under
the wishes of his professional adviser, the Hon. and
Learned Gentleman has not resumed his profes-
sional duties, since his appointment to the office of At-
torney- General ; and it is not expected he will come
down to Westminster Hall during the present term.
Sir James Graham, Sir George Clerk, and Sir
Thomas Fremantle had interviews with Sir Raert Peel,
at the Right Hon. Baronet's residence in Whitehall-gar-
dens, yesterday morning.
SOUTHWARK LITERARY INSTITUTION.—On Friday
evening last Mr. Rumball, the phrenologist, delivered a lec-
ture on the " Fallacies of Mesmerism," wherein he attempted
to prove the whole system to be one of delusion or fraud,
and exnlained, at considerable length, sundry means by
which one or the other could be detected. At the conclusion
Mr. Brookes, the mesmeric lecturer, opened up a battery on
the phrenological gentleman, and read several of his para-
graphs in the newspapers, in refutation of what he had that
evening advanced, but as personality was most untastefully
blended with the discussion, we forbear comment. The lec-
ture went off very well, but the attendance was very small.
QUEEN'S COUNSEL.—It is rumoured in West-
minster Hall that Mr. Kinglake and Mr. Butt, of the
Western Circuit, are likely to be promoted to the dignity
of queen's Counsel,

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, April 29.
(Sittings in Banco.).

THE COLLIERS' STRIKE IA: THE NORTII-EX FATtTE ISAAC

TORDOLF-HABEAS CORPUS,

The party in this case was a collier who had been com-
mitted to prison by Mr. Bennett, a Magistrate of the West
Riding of liorkshire, on a charge of having wilfully absented
himself from his work. He was this day brought up in cus-
tody, in order to have the cause of his commitment inquired
into.

Mr. BODKIN (with whom was Mr. Iluddlestone) appeared
for the applicant Tordolf, and contended that he was entitled
to the discharge, inasmuch as the conviction was bad on
these six grounds :-Ist. It did'not appear on the face of the
conviction that the complaint had been made within the
county, for which the magistrate was acting, and although it
was dated in the words of execution at the end, that lie con-
tended did not help it. 2d. The complaint was described as
haying:been on the oath of Andrew Falls ; it was that Tordolf
hiiving entered into a contract to work for Andrew Falls and
-others,, had violated his contract. He contended .that the
names of those other persons ought to have been set out, and
this defect he contended was not cured by the provisions of
the Act George IV., which extended only to indictments.
3d. The conviction set forth that Tordolf had agreed to serve
Falls as a collier, but there was no averment of the terms on
which he was to work, so that it was impossible for the Court
-.to know whether or Hot the contract came within the mean-
ing of the statute. 4th. It convicted Tordolf of inure offences
than one, for after stating that he had unlawfully absented
himself from the service, it convicted him of having been ab-
sent the 24th, the 26th, and 27th of February, omitting the
25th, thus making a break and constituting two offences.
Mr. Justice PArrEsorr—Perhaps the 25th was Sunday.
Mr. ERLE—It was, my Lord.
Mr. BODKIN had a fifth objection to make, which was—
that the conviction did not set forth that Tordolf had ever
entered the service, which it ought to have done, in order to
show that the contract had been completed; and sixthly and
lastly, he objected that it did not appear from. anything on
the face of the document that the prisoner was present when
the witnesses were examined. On these grounds, he sub-
mitted the prisoner must be discharged.
Lord DENMAN.—We feel the last point to be a very strong
one. We should be glad to hear you, Mr. Erle on that point.
Mr. EItLE contended that the document in question could
not be treated as a conviction—it was to be treated as a war-
rant of commitment reciting a conviction, and all was set
forth in it that was usually sat forth in such documents. It
was not required to set forth all that a conviction was usually
required to contain. It had never yet been required that do•.
cuments of this nature should set forth the whole of the evi-
dence; if the Court were 1 o require it, they would require that
these documents should contain much more than had hitherto
been required.
Lord DEmr.tx—The point as I understand it is, not that
more is required to be set forth than has hitherto been re-
quired, but that it should be distinctly stated that the exa-
mination had taken place in the presence of the defendant.
If I understand Mr. Bodkin aright, he argues that it is pos-
sible that the prisoner may have appeared, and yet the exa-
mination of the witnesses have taken place in his absence.
Mr. DILE said that the same point had been raised before
Mr. Justice Coleridge, who had considered that there was
nothing in it The document stated that the prisoner had
been been brought before a magistrate that day, and, there-
fore, it was to be presumed to be one transaction. It was
clearly one transaction, and it was to be presumed that all
that had taken place had taken place in accordance with the
provisions of the statute.

Mr. YARDLEY, on the same side, contended that, whenever
it was stated in any document of this nature that in one and
the same day the party had appeared, and the facts had been
gone into, the Court would always presume that all that had
taken pace had taken place in the presence of the defendant,
unless it was stated to the contrary, and quoted several cases
in support of his opinion.
The COURT took time to consider the point.
There were several other cases of a similar nature, in which
the same point arises, and which will not be argued on any
of the other points until this point shall have been decided.

EX PARTE COPESTICK-HABEAS CORPUS.

' This was a conviction of a collier for neglecting his work.
No one appeared in support of the conviction, and, the rule
for the habeas being made absolute, the prisoner was ordered
to be discharged.