The Sun.
London, England, 1844-11-21 00:00:00

THE: QUEEN U. BARNARD GREGORY.

Mr. Sergeant TALFOURD, on being called on to move,
said that he appeared for the prosecution in this case,
hut he understood that his Learned Friend, Mr. Platt,
was about to make an application on the part of the
defendant.

Mr. PLATT had to make two applications—first, that
the period fixed for the bringing up the defendant to
receive the judgment of the Court on an indictment to
which he had pleaded guilty should be enlarged ; and,
secondly, that the trial of the defendant on a criminal
information, which at present stood fixed for the 29th of
the present month, should be postponed. The defendant
had pleaded guilty to two indictments in the Central
Criminal Court, the one charging him with having pub-
lished a libel on the Duke of Brunswick, the other
charging him with the publication of a libel on Mr.
Valiance, the Duke's attorney. On these indictments he
had been sentenced to two periods of imprisonment in
Newgate—the one of eight months, the other of four
months.

Lord DtbiNAN—,Wbien will the whole term of his im-
prisonmenirexpire
Mr. Pi47.2oii the,26th of this month, my Lord.
The Leargeil Gentlemen then proceeded to state that in
support of' this application he•had the affidavit of the
defendant, which stated that he was suffering severely in
his health in consequence of his imprisonment, that he
had been visited by Sir Charles Scudansore, and Sir
James Anderson, physicians, and Mr. Blood, Mr. Pelly,
and Mr. M`Murcio, surgeons, who had certified to the
Secretary of State for the Dome Department, that his
health was in a dangerous state—that his health had
been still further impaired recently by the rupture of a
blood-veisel, and that he was incapable, from illness, of
peeparimlo-:vke his:trial. The affidavit also stated
that thie4WwiiS' 'o44lie gaol did not allow the free
,4 use of lot ,1-Itnor did they permit him to have
free access to his' tri fie papers, which were necessary
for the preparation of his defence. The application was
made bona fide, and not for the purposes of delay, for
if he wete compelled to attend the Court his life would
be endangered. a -
Lord DENmAN—Do any of the medical men make an
affidavit ?
Mr. PLATT—No, my Lord.
Mr. Sergeant TALFOURD—If there was an affidavit
from any ene medical man, I would not resist the appli-
cation.
Mr. PLATT—Do your Lordships think that the de-
fendant should be bro:::ht up at the risk of his life, for
the purpose of giving his
Pt,:sieseecxors an opportunity of
indulging their vindictive
;s ? Their object is
L o r d plain—theyT)tN3i wishAN to_ destroyßut,
3slr this
Platt,m a n
e we
Ir
we want
decide to ascertain if his life will really be in peril. At
present we have little more than the statement of the
party himself to that effect.
Mr. PLATT—A habeas was obtained in the other
Court for the purpose of bringing him up for judgment,
and Mr. Justice Patteson on application enlarged the
rule. The Court has already once consented to the post-
ponement
of this case.
Lord DENmAN—Perhaps the application was not op-
posed at that time ?

Mr. PLATT—On, yes, my Lord, it was. There has
not been a single step taken in this case in which we
have not been opposed.
Mr. Sergeant TALFOURD said, that if the present state-
ment had been supported by the affidavits of the medical
men, it would not have been befitting in him to have
opposed the application, so far as related to the judg-
ment of the Court.

Mr. PLATT presumed that it would make no difference
if he were now to add the affidavits of the medical men.

Lord DENmaN thought that course might perhaps be
adopted if Mr. Sergeant Talfourd would consent ; but
it was not because the case had been postponed before
that a further indulgence was now to be craved. If such
affidavits were made as were satisfactory to Mr. Ser-
geant Talfourd, the better course, probably, would be,
that both the period for bringing the defendant up for
judgment and the period fixed for his trial should be
postponed.
Mr. Sergeant TALFOURD only resisted the application
because he mistrusted both the statements which had been
made.

It was ultimately arranged that the further consi-
deration of the application should be postponed until
Saturday, and that in the meantime the affidavits of the
medical men should be filed.

BAIL COURT.—(THIS DAY.)
(Sittings in Banco.)
THE QUEEN V. JOEL SPINNER.

Mr. POULSON moved for a rule to show cause why
two inquisions taken on the bodies of two persons, who
had died from accident on the river, should not be
quashed. The proceedings had been already removed
into Court by certiorari. There were several objections
on the face of the inquisitions.—Rule granted.
THE QUEEN V. THE REV. JOHN HAILSTONE.

Mr. GUNNING in this case moved for a mandamus
directed to the Rev. John Hailstone, Vicar of Botisham,
calling upon him to show cause why he should not re-
store Thomas Flack to the office of parish clerk. He
was appointed to the office of clerk fifteen years ago, and
performed the duties of his office till the 14th of July.
He was told by the vicar that he was removed from his
office, and no reason was assigned by the vicar for such a
proceeding. The clerk attended in church on the fol-
lowing Sunday, from which he was removed by two con-
stables, by order of the vicar, who gave notice to all per-
sons who might be desirous of having the office to send
in their claims. Upon this the solicitor for the clerk
applied to the vicar to know who his attorney was, as it
was his (the clerk's) intention to apply to the Court.
Mr. Justice PATTESON thought the proceeding a very
extraordinary one, and could not but think that the
whole of the facts were not before the Court. He would,
however, grant a rule.—Rule nisi granted.
EXPARTE C. C. WILSON.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL said that the other day an
application had been made by Mr. Peacock for a habeas
corpus to the Island of Jersey, on behalf of Mr. C. C.
Wilson, and that application was made on the
affidavit of Mr. Wilson himself. That affidavit did not
state what was the peculiar law of the Island of Jersey,
stating merely that lie was in custody for an alleged con-
tempt of the Royal Court of that Island. He (the Soli-
citor-General) was now to apply to the Court for a rule
to show cause why that writ should not be quashed quia
improvide emanavit, or why a supersedeas should not
issue. He thought it only respectful to his Lordship to
bring the subject before him, because he believed if the
circumstances of the case had been fully stated, his Lord-
ship would have hesitated before he granted the writ.
The Court was quite aware, from the case of The King
v. Hobhouse, that the granting of a writ of habeas dur-
ing term time was discretionary. He (the Solicitor-
General) made the present application on the affidavit
of the Procurator. General of Jersey, who stated that he
had held the office of ProeufatOrGetteral sines 1893. He
always understood, and believed, that the Island of
Jersey, and the other Channel Islands, were annexed
to the Crown of England .at the time of the
Conquest by William Duke of Normandy, and that they
were the only portions of that duchy which remained to
England i, that Jersey was governed by peculiar laws
and customs, essentially different from those of Eng-
land ; that the Royal Court of Jersey was composed of
the baillie, twelve jurats, the Procurator-General, the
Advocate-G eneral, &c., who had jurisdiction in all matters
civil and r.krittiinel. 'the affidavit then weht oti to state
the circumstances under which the Court ordered Mr.
Wilson to be imprisoned. He (the Solicitor-General)
would now draw the attention of the Court to the point
whether this Court had power to isetie a *fit Of habeas
corpus to the Island of Jersey ; and in the next place
he would submit that if the Court had that power,
it was discretionary with it witelltr it would grant it or
not, and that the circumstances of this case were sticil Xs
would induce the Court not to exercise it on the present
occasion. The Learned Gentleman then referred to
['ord. Coke's 4th institute, p. 286, to show that a writ of
habeas corpus would not run in Jersey, though the
King's commission would. It was true there was a
habeas corpus granted in the case of Overton, one
of the regicides of King Charles, who took refuge
in Jersey, where lie was imprisoned several yeafs.
The note upon that case, however, was very imperfect.
The 12th sec. of the 31st of Charles IL, which was the
Habeas Corpus AC;; yetely refored
ito itylpiisotan( my
where the pn,rtips had been sent wow', and uetalfled iii
prison in the places specified in that section of the Act.
There was nothing in the Habeas Corpus Act applicable
to the circumstances of this case, where the party was
not sent op ,t of 1141111; but imprisoned foe an offence
COmitiitted in JerseSe t aPpbittedi trent a note in Mt.
Justice Coleridge's edition of Blackstone, col.
that " prerogative writs from the King's Bench, such as
thatidatiottis, prohibition may issue to every part of the
dominions of the Crown of England. The slietinction
was between a foreie dominion, which belonged to a
Krinse atieeeedin4 td the dirt* Pr England, such as
Hanover, and territories obtained hy dotitititist Or in any
other mode annexed to the Crown of England. liddelsl..
nig tts this distinction pferogatite writs would not run
in those islands as a part of the .buchY of Iftmenandy.'
He (the Solicitor-General) 'would not go the length of
ing that the Court had uoJurisdlOtiou at all With reglifd to
this point, but he prayed in aid the doubt which eXieted,
The usual course of proceeding in those cases was to
apply to the Queen in Council, and it would be most in-
convenient if the Court, by granting a *Fit of habeas
corpus, were to bring persons from Jersey or the Planta-
tions into this Court, where there was no person to
ap-
pear for them. Under those circumstances, he thought
that the Court, supposing it had the power to grant the
writ, would hesitate, before it exercised the discretion
with which it was vested, in a case like the present.
The Court could, if it thought proper, order the de- •
fendant to go at large upon bail.
Mr. Justice PaTTesoN—lt is quite clear that you
are entitled to a rule. When the motion was made be-
fore me I was certainly struck by its novelty, (And asked
.5