The Sun.
London, England, 1828-06-09 00:00:00

INTELLIGENCE.

&tit OFbF CI ANCERY, Jena 7.
f27.ni HONOIL COIiCPTON, A LUNATIC. •
Mr. CHING matted reference to the Master
to inquire whether the persan on -Olose behalf the
application were made was a lunatic or not. She.,
*as in possession of a very small income, amounting,
to not more the 4O per annum, and the expencc
of a commission de itaidied inquirendo would con-
sume a great --part of this scanty Atm, which was
already barely sufficient for her maintetieUrce. lie
therefore applied to his Lordship to dispense With
that which was the usual proceeding, and, under the
pEsidiar circumstances of the case, to make the re-
,
farente at ttncti to the Master, to inquire, in the first
place, whether she flis lunatic or not, and, if she
should be found to be so, then to appoint a commit-
tee and take the ordinary measures for preserving
her•prelperty-
• and taking care of her person.
The Logb CitANCELLon -regretted extremely,
that in this case, the diet:instances of which made
it a very painful one, he coald not de that which was
required of him : but he felt it would be inconsist•
ent with his duty to accede to the application:

VIOE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT, Jura. 7.

LORD YORTMORE AGAINST WILLIANITAYLOR AND OTHERS.

Mr. Bruce this day read his petition, praying, that
the court would be pleased to order his name to be
reinserted as a defendant, and that he might be at
liberty to answer the bill and all charges therein
contained against him, and that in the mean time
Mr. Surman, solicitor•' to Lord Portmore, and Mr.
Bolton, solicitor to Taylor; be restrained from in-
vesting 8,00/. of Mr. Bruce's property iri the 3 per
Cents., in the name of the Accountant-General, un-
til the Lord Chancellor's judgment in the bankruptcy
of Bruce, Brown, and Scott, shall have been pro-
nounced.
The VICE CHANCELLOR-7-1 cannot make any or-
der upon
,this petition until the bankruptcy is super-
seded. At present, the assignee Taylor represents
Mr. Bruce as a defendant in this suit. Should the
bankruptcy be superseded, then of course this suit
cannot proceed without making Mr. Bruce a defend-
ant,—indeed, the only defendant.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, 'JUNE 7.
THE YINO V. JOHN PEACHET,
This was a rule nisi for a' criminal information
against. Mr. Peachey, a Magistrate of 'Sussex, 'for
having refused, from corrupt motives, to grant a
licence to Richard Clark, the proprietor of the. Royal
Clarence Hotel, at Bognor. The rule was obtained
by Sit James Scarlett last Hilary Term,_ on an affi-
dayit- of Mr. Clark's, which stated the following
facts :—ln 1824 Mr. Clark purchased the lease of
the hotel at Bognor, which was then licensed,
and he continued to keep it till .1826, when it
was destroyed by fire. For the purpose of continuing
the business, he then purchased two houses contigu-
ous to the former building, and, forting thein into
one, house, fitted them up is an hotel, there being
no other house in the place fit for the reception of
persons of respectability who resort to Bognor dur-
ing the summer-months. In July, 1826, he applied
to the Magistrates in session for a transfer of the li-
cence. The application made under the act of the
6th of Geo. IV., 81, was refused by the Magis-
trates,- Mr. Peachey being their - chairman. Mr.
Clark, being ender a bravy rent (3321.) for the pre-
mises burnt down, built a new house at an expense
of between .12,000/. and 14,000/., and they, on
the
regular licensing day in '1827, he applied to the Ma-
gistrates for a licence for that house, having procured
the usual certificates, and otherwise complied with
the requisitions of the Act of Parliament. The
Magistrates refused granting the licence, but without
assigning any reason .for their refusal ; and two sub-
sequent applications which Mr. Clark made to them
were also rejected, The general charge against Mr.
Peachey was, that be, being tie Chairman of the
Sessions at which the licenc4; Was rcf,,,L,e(.., ;rid; froiii
personal hostility tor.-ird4 Clark, unduly in-
fluenced the rest of th.-: Magistrates, and perSCiacied
them not to grant the licence; and this unjus:iteiblo
conduct was . attributed.: to :he circunibtancc of Mr.
Clark's having some •Cuivbefere taken an active
or ..rantaitii:
proving the-town and r. cighbeurtsend atilaajuor,i;to
which Mr. Peachey was averse, it bcieg neetesary,
for the purpose of making arublic cariiage road-us n'
the town, to take some law!, in which Mr, Machey
had an interest as tres,ee,.and. talc/die wai, unwil-
ling to give up. This,i was allaged,wastne ortittaf
the enmity of Mr. Peacitey towards Mr: Clark. Toril
the purpose of fixing upon Mr. Peachey the charge
of corruptly refusing the licence; various harsh ex-'
pressions were stated to have been used by him, ana
it was sworn, that on Mr. Clark's addressing a letter
to the Magistrates, remonstrating against the de-
cisi4.sci they had coma to, Mr. Peachey repulsed him
with rude and acrimonious langaage. Mr. Clark
also swore, that some time after the licence bad
been refused,: he . met, at Horshatn, the Duke of
Richmond, who was one of the Magistrates at ,the
Sessions, and that his Grace told him that in his
opinion the licence ought to have been granted.
Besides the refusal of the licence in the manner
charged, ether acts of harsh and improper conduct
Were attributed, to Mr.Peachey.
The SoiAderott.GENERAL, Mr. Sergeant Ras-
SELL,
and Mr. LONG, now showed cause against it
upon affidaviti of ' Mr. Peachey, and the other
Magistrates
acting with him in session when the
was refused. Among the Magistrates were
tho
licence
the Duke of Richmond, Mr. Wood, Mr. Fulfill,
and Mr. Diggins.
They all distinctly negatived the
pcharge of corrupt motives on the part of Mr.
e y
and stated that the sole reason for the re-
ch of themin the thatir op Mr. Clark was an unfit person to.lons by Mr. Peachey, 'and de
opinions
of the licence was a conviction in the mind of
each
keep an hotel. They denied that they had been in-
fluenced
elated that they had- acted on their own belief of.
the-Orsonal unfitness Of Mr. Clark to be licensed.l
--
With regard to the certificate and memorial which
were laid before the magistrates, it was observable
thffiat d
perstheyonsnoof who
the
a
signed those documents had de-
clared that their_ object was, not to certify to the
character of Mr. Clark, or his fitness to be ee-
had been heard to say that he signed the
trusted.with a licence but solely for the purpose obecause he considered that the town
gaming. an had opened at Bognor. -'l'he •..11.arl of
Arran
injured for want of an hotel, and that he had
wceartsifiincr
" signed fur the beim, and not for the ma."—
With respect to the personal. hostility ascribed
.to
Mr. Peachey for the part which Mr. Clark had taken
in supporting the Act of Parliament for the improve-
ment of Bognor, that was also •flativ contradicted,
not elormerly a banister, and had
himself, but by Mr.'Hasler,
a
been authorised by the inhabitants of Bognor to
bayte, M
whorP Peaches
superintend their interests with respect to the Act-
not
in question. In addition to the affidavits contra-
dicting the statements contained in Mr. Clark's affi-
davit, the'rewere the affidavits of the Duke of Rich-
mond, Lord • Egremont, Mr. Huskisson, and ten or
eleven other persons of the first rank;deposing to
the high character of Mr. Peachey.
After Sir J. SCARLETT (with whom were Mr.
GURNEY and Mr. FOLLETT) had, addressed the
Court in support of the rule,
The COURT said it would take time to ,consider
its judgment.

EX PASTE COLONEL BLIGU.
Mr. WYBURGH applied for a rule to show cause
Siri), Colonel Bligh, who has been in the custody of
the Marshal of the King's Bench Prison for the
last eight or nine years, for want of sureties to keep
the peace towards the Earl of Darnley, should not
be discharged, and permitted, on finding proper
sureties, to proceed to the Continent, and take up
e
his permanent abode there. The affidavit on which
the application was made, stated that Colonel" Bligh
age;
tlAt his
thought ti . 1t his
life depended oil his residing in future in a :nild,er
hweansl ti n'
o was w
u p‘vrds o f
precarious, sixtyand it years
.vasrs of
climate. • , •
•
• Lord TENTERDEN inquired what was the nature

~'

'

of the security he proposed to offer, and woc-o
it had been submitted to Lori Darnley fot

approval ?
Mr. WYriuttott ssid Colonel Bligh ylas redcb;,.t7
provide any, securittzthat the Court might thl'
proper to require.
. Lord TENTErtnEri—That won't do. He te,.
state what persons are willing to become his 61%,
ties, and see whether be can make arrangetnel
with the Nobie. Lord.

_COURT. OF EXcIiEQVER, JUNE 7.
IN THE MATTER. Or PujiLlrE.
iiif this case a rule was obtained on the past °i
Mr. Phillips last term, calling upon his wife air
family to show cause why a writ of habeas core
should not issue, directing them to bring up the De 4
of the said Mr:Phillips, in order that he might
discharged from the restraint which they had
'
posed upon his perional liberty. The rule was er'
posed on the ground that Mr. Phillip's state of toi
rendered him incapable' of taking care of himself
property, and the-affidavits of several medical g.reir
tlemen and others were produced in support of Or
allegation. It was contended, however, on the otlie.
side, that this Court had no authority to try a ntles'
tion of lunacy, and particularly to try it, in a stifled
'nary way upon affidavit. Their Lordships bowel
obseried that this was an application to the disoc,,
tion of the Court, and before they could grant';
they were bound_ to ascertain whether or not tb
party was in a fit state to be brought before thtt
Under these circumstances, they enlarged the or
until this term, to give the parties on both sides $1:,
opportunity of filing such affidavits on that sue
as they should think proper.
Mr. JERvis, Mr. KNIGHT, and Mr. EARL
appeared
_to show cause against the rule; but
Mr. Jervis
the
sesate of Mr.
commencing
toribreilaldipas,smtaind,
ss of affidarl
to show
Mr. BROUGTAM, the leading COnnsel for, the al ~;
plieant, ruse, and suggested to the Court that S.
Learned Friend had no right to enter into the quer
tion, as to -whether Or not this gentleman was einr
petent to the management of his-affairs.
Mr. Baron litaxoctz thought the Court POI,
not refuse this writ, unless -it appeared that the p'
was a raging lunatie,'Or in such a state of mind a!f.'
render his presence in Court dangerous..
Mr. JEnwts would not go so far as to sav that ti'
gentleman was a raging lunatic.
After some further observations by the Court al.
Counsel on both sides, their Lordships directed 001
writ to issue, and be made returnable before ose
the Barons in chambers ; Mr. Baron GARRoIv 501
gesting that his brother Vaughan, from his peoftlw
knowledge on this subject, should undertake tht-if
vestigation.
Mr: Baron VAUGHAN assented, and fixed the `.l°'
insi..for the return of the writ.