The Sun.
London, England, 1821-12-15 00:00:00

mischie

LAW INT ELLIG ENCE,

COURT OF CHANCERY, DEC. 14.

LIGHTING THE TOWN OF CARDIFF WITH GAS.
REES AND OTHERS V. EROADMEADOW AND OTHERS.
Mr. KNIGHT asked leave to move for an Injunction to re-
strain the defendant, Broadmeadow, from disposing of his inte-
rest in a contract to furnish the town of Cardiff with lamps, and
lighting them with gas, and the other defendants from pur-
chaSing his interest. e had made the motion before his Ho..
nour the ,Vice-Chancellor yesterday, and be refused it on the
ground that an injunction was unnecessary, as the bill being
filed, was binding on the defendant Broadmeadow from selling,
and the other defendants from purchasing. He (the Learned
Counsel) attempted to contend against- that doctrine, but was
silenced by the Learned Judge. The circumstances of
the case were, that the defendant, Broadmeadow, contract-
ed with the inhabitants of the town of Cardiff to light
the town with t,r-as ; he being in want of pecuniary assistance to
carry it into effect, applied to the plaintiffs, and they advanced
him from time to time the sum of 5001. he promising to give
theft] a mortgage -6n the profits of the contract. A mortgage
deed was actually drawn up and approved of by the defendant
Broadmeadow, which he promised to execute, but afterwards
refused, and was about to sell his interest in the contract to the
other defendants., It was positively sworn that the defendant
Broadmeadow was insolvent, and had held out to the plaintiffs
that if they proceeded for the recovery of their demand against
him, he would go to prison and take the benefit of the Insolvent
Act. He trusted that his Lordship. would agree with him (Mr.
Knight), and be of opinion that tins was a case for the interfe-
rence of the Court in the way of injunction. . .
The LORD CLIANCELLOR—" Hand me up the bill ; at
present I am of opinion that this is a case for the interposition
Of the -Court. I will read the bill, and give you my decision
upon it to-morrow morning."

COURT. OF KING'S BENCH, DEc. 14.
Middlesex Adjourned Sittings after Michaelmas Term before
the Lord Chief Justice and Special Juries.
TILE KING V. DRENVE.
This was an indictment against the defendant.for Wilful and
corrupt perjury, alleged to have been committed before a Com-
mittee of the House of Commons, balloted to try the merits of
a petition against the return of Lieut.-Colonel John Bailey. for
the borough of Hedon, in the county of York. The perjury
was assigned on an alleged false deposition of the defendant,
Who was a free burgess of Hedon, that Colonel Bailey had- of-
fered him, previous to the election, a present of 201. or 301. for
his vote in his favour.
The prosecution was conducted by Mr. ScAnr,tVr, Mr.
ADAM, and Mr. F. PoLLoc*, and the defence by Mr.
,
TURTON.
Mr. Gurney, the short-hand writer, read his notes of the de-
fendant's evidence given before the Election Committee ; and
Colonel Bailey, Mr. Wells and other persons were called to
falsify the defendant's statement.
Mr. TuRToN addressed the Jury on behalf of the defend-
ant, with considerable ability.
The-CntEr JUSTICE summed up the evidence; and
The Jury after a few minutes' deliberation, found the de-
fendant Guilty.

VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT, DECAL
GRAHAM V. WHITMARSH.
In this case the plaintiff had laid claim to part of the pro.
perty of a gentleman who died in the West Indies, as the le-
gitimate children of a Major Graham. The defence was, that
they were not legitimate children. An issue bad been directed
on the question of legitimacy, to be tried in Ireland. At the
last Cork Assizes,_ a Jury bad found the plaintiffs legitimate.
A motion was this day made before his Honour for a new
trial.
The VICE-CHANCELLOR said, that he had been in error in
directing the issue to be tried in a country in which the Court
had not the necessary jurisdiction, and from which the usual
'returns. could not be made by Jiulges to that Court.. The case
Would therefore stand as if no issue had been ordered.
CONSTITUTIONAL ASSOCIATION.
• THE KING V. DOLBY.
This was called on for trial. It was a prosecution by the
Constitutional Association against the defendant, a stationer in
the Strand, for the publication of an alleged libel, intitled "The
Political Dictionary ; or, Pocket Companion."
On the panel of the Special Jury being called, three Gentle-
men Fisher, Esq., John Pattison, Esq., and
Francis Tatton, Esq. answered to their names.'
. Mr. -GURNEY (for the prosecution) then played a tales.
Mr. SCARLETT (for the defendant) interposed. The She-
riff, by whom the common jury was returned, was one of the
prosecutors of the indictment before the Court, and he could
not be permitted to return a jury, which jury was, in fact, to try
a prosecution of his own.
Mr. GURNEY said that Mr. Scarlett, in that case, ought to
challenge the array.
Mr. SCARLETT was about to do the very thing. He merely
wished, first, to have cited an authority for so doing. •
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE had so understood Mr. Scarlett.
Mr. SCARLETT was then proceeding to state his authority,
when
The Loup CHIEF JUSTICE observed, that the challennv
ought first to be put in.
The challenge was then put in, and read. The ground of ob-
jection taken was this:—That John Garratt,Esq. and Alderman,
one of the Sheriff's by whom the. common jury panel was re-
turned, was, in truth, at the time of his returning such panel,
one of the prosecutors of the present indictment.
Mr. GURNEY observed, that the challenge was written upon
paper. It ought properly to have appeared upon parchment.
Mr. SCARLETT said, that it might be put upon parchment
hereafter.
The LORD Clan? JUSTICE thought that, whether upon
parchment or paper, it ought to be presented in the form in
which it was to remain.
Mr. SCARLETT said, that it conld, if necessary, be copied
upon parchment in a few moments.
Mr. GURNEY then withdrew his formal point, and denied
the matter contained in the challenge.
Mr. SCARLETT, was content to put the fact in issue.
The Loma CHIEF JUSTICE.—The next thing, then, is the
appointment jurymen o e triers. In a case, I believe at Maidstone, two.
special
appeared, against whom there was no objection ;
and upon a challenge to the array, those two Gentlemen were
named as triers. As there are now three special jurymen- in
the box, I think we cannot select any triers more likely to be
disinterested.
Mr. SCARLETT assented.
William Fisher and Francis Tatton, Esqrs., were then
named, and sworn to try the issue in dispute. The issue was
put to the triers thus :—WasJohn Garratt, Esq., or was he not,
one of the prosecutors of the 1.11- sent indictment, at the time
when he returned the common jury panel ?
Mr. SCARLETT addressed a few words to the jury, merely
to inform them of the question they had to decide. Mr. Alder-
man Garratt, the present Sheriff, in the course of his duty, re-
turned the common jury : and he (the Alderman) was Mem_
ber of a Society calling itself " Constitutional," and prosecut-
in,g the present indictment. That Mr. Gamut was a Member
of that Society would be distinctly proved. His name, in fact,
appeared in a list of subsclibers furnished by the solicitor for
the prosecution to the solicitor of the defendant, and that list
had since been printed and made public. The Alderman was
a subscriber at the commencement of the prosecution ; but
something would lie set up about his having since withdrawn his
name. That something so set up, he (Mr. Scarlett) should at
once put down. If Mr. Garratt had withdrawn his name from
the lists, he had not withdrawn his money from the funds of the
Society ; and the money was the sinew which enabled the so.
ciety to Act. A partner could never cease to be a partner so
long as he left his money in the firm ; and a partner was liable,
even after he withdrew, throughout those transactions which
had been undertaken in his time of office.
William Nettlefold being called and examined, said—l am
Attorney to the defendant in' this case. I appeared, at the Crown
Office, to strike the Special Jury, and I then demanded from
Mr. Murray a list of the Members and Subscribers of the Con-
stitutional Society ; Mr. Murray admitted that the Society were
the prosecutors, and sent me, on the 29th of May, the list I have,
in my hand. In that list I find the name of Garratt occurring:
twice : there is a Sir George Ciarratt, and a John Garratt,.
styled an Alderman. Opposite to Mr. John Garratt's name,
there appears a subscription of 51. ss. I have no doubt that
the Mr. John Garratt there named is the present Sheriff.
John Roberts knew the person of Alderman Garratt, and
was at Guildhall at the time when the Alderman was chosen

statediAi esshdi
'Sheriff. At the conclusion of thefirat day's poll, Mr. Gartatt
I,,ation i that 11';eibilu:ad been a member of, the " Constitutional
nt tchnanti,psaitiobciee eithhatisb ennt chosenduty
tn reinAailndearmnwann
them, afid he had therefore ceased to be a member." Witness
was at Guildhall on several following days during the poll for
Sheriffs ; and either on the first or second dap_after that to
'which he had already alluded, he heard Alderman Garrattle-.
tract his former declaration.
..The witness was pressed, Upon his.cross-examination, itnd
-upon his re-examination, and also by the Judge, to give the
words which Mr. Garratt had used, but he could only, he said,
give the sum and substance. Being taxed, on a subsequent
day, with his declaration that he had abandoned the ilndge-
street Society, Mr. Alderman Garratt did retract that de-
claration.
Mr. Guiti4EY, considering that the Sheriff had really nothing
to do with the choice of the Jury, was a little surprised at the
course which Mr. Scarlett had taken. The objection, if it could
be made out, was, notwithstanding, sufficient. The Learned
Gentleman then commented upon the inconclusive nature of
the evidence adduced, and proposed to set the matter com-
pletely at rest by calling John Garratt, Esq. Alderman and
Sheriff.
Mr. SCARLETT submitted that Mr. Garratt was not a com-
petent witness. The objection being to the Sheriff's return,.
the Sheriff could not in person give support to his own act. Be-
sides, by supporting Mr. Gurney's case, and obviating his (Mr.
Scarlett's) objection, Mr. Garratt would further the indictment
of which he was a proSecutor.
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE said that he would endea-
vour, if possible, to recollect some authority.
Mr. SCARLETT confessed that he could furnish none.
Mr. TINDALL, during a pause of some minutes which en-
sued, observed,that jurymen had been all Owed to give evidence
as to their own competency.
.The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE `thought that the eases were
dissimilar.
No authority whatever occurring upon the point, the Learned
Counsel were driven back to argument.
Mr. GURNEY contended, that the question before the triers
was merely a collateral issue, and an issue in which Mr. Garratt
could have no interest.
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE.—I think not.
Mr. SCARLETT begged to be understood, in what he was
about to say, as casting no imputation upon Mr. Ald. Garratt.
To shew that he meant any thing rather than an offence, lie
would begin with citing a case in which a namesake of his own,
a man namedtobert Scarlett, had been the subject-of criminal
prosecution in a Court of Justice. The case, which appeared in
Coke's Reports, was this :—Robert Scarlett became a member
of the grand jury of the county of Essex ; and he was indicted
before the Court of Star Chamber Upon a charge of having
so become a member of the grand-jury, to aid in the finding
of certain indictments in which he (11. Scarlett) was personally
interested. It appeared, therefore, that a person knowing himself
to be interested, voluntarily, and by his own seeking, did that
office which the law required. should be performed by -an im-
partial hand, he subjected himself for such act to public pro-
secution. Now, put the ease that a man became sheriff, in
order, by returning particular jurors, to aid and support a par-
ticular indictment ; he would for so becoming sheriff be actually
punishable , and such a sheriff (the case was merely a case sup-
posed) would clearly have an interest in a collateral issue, like
the present : he would be called to give evidence in a collateral
issue, what the effect of his own evidence might be to purge
himself from misdemeanour. '
The LORD CHIEF JUSTlCE—Supposing such-a case, Mr.
Scarlett, as you have imagined, could the verdict upon the col-
lateral issue be admitted afterwards as evidence upon an in-
dictment ?
Mr. SCARLETT clearly apprehended that, it might. The
issue would be tried before a court of competent jurisdiction; a
verdict of acquittal would be an answer to the indictment ;- and
therefore a verdict of guilty would -be evidence. Such a verdict
would not only be evidence, but conclusive evidence. A court
of law must take it in the same way that the House of Lords
took the verdicts of ecclesiastical courts, without reference to the
proceedings upon which those verdicts had been obtained.
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE, in the absence of all autho-
rity, thought the safer course would be to treat the wit-
ness as incompetent. He by no means meant to pledge him:
self as to the law upon the point, and wished distinctly to be
underitood that his decision could afford no precedent. The
question deserved much serious consideration, and he was only
desirous, at present, of taking the safer side.
Mr. ti CA It ',FAT merely Understood that Mr. Gurney with-
dreW his witness on account of the novelty and uncertainty of
thMr.case.
GtifiNEy.—Certainly. Call Mr. Sharp.
Mr. Sharp got into the box.
Mr.- SCARLETT.--I mean to object to you too. You are a
prosecutor in this case ?
Witness.—l apprehend that there can be no doubt of that.
Mr. SCARLETT.—I apprehend, my Lord, that it is the wit-
ness's interest to complete that whir i has been begun by the
Sheriff.
Mr. GURNEY said that the point was a goad joke ; but leis
Learned Friend could not he serious.
Mr. SCARLETT was quite serious.
The,LORD CHIEF JV sTicE thought that that would be
going a little too far. If lie did not receive the eVidence of Mr.
Sharp, he' ight exclude, upon the same ground, all possible
evidence. ‘,
Mr. Sharp was then examined by Mr. Gurney. •
Ilave you attended every meeting of the Committee of the
Constitutional Society since January last ?-1 have.
In the months of May and June was Mr. John Garrett a
member of the society ?—ln May certainly, and; I think, in
June. -
'Did he cease to be a member some time berore he was elected
Sheriff ?—Yes.
Had -he ever attended any meeting of the society ?—No.
Has lie done any thing but give 51.:5.?--=Nothing.
Cross-examined by,Mr. SCARLETT—What are you?
the HonorarY Assistant Secretary. -
you, do,not mean to say that is your business.: I ask you
what you are ; what is your business ?—I mean to say that
old that situation:,
Yes ; but what business do you follow ?—I am of no busi,

I—l am

ness.
Theo this is your only business ?—I have no business what.
ever.
Youlive on your fortune ? I live on the means that I possess.
Were you ever in any business ?—I was in the Manchester
trade.
How long ago?—Two years.
And you have been two years without any business?:—Yes.
You say that Mr. Garratt became a member of this Associa,
ton by subscribing his money ?—Yes.
That was the case with a great many people, T believe ?—Yes.
Have you returned the Alderman his money ?—I am not
aware that the money has been returned. .
What has become of it has gone into the general fund.
Were you the treasurer ?--No ; Alderman Atkins is.
And what do you mean by Mr. Garratt 's having ceased to be
a member?—lle did cease.
The Lou]) CHIEF JUSTICE.—What act did he do ?—lle
addiessed a letter to me as Secretary.
Have you the letter ?--No, it is at home.
Mr. SCARLETT thanked Mr. Gurney's witnesses for the
support they had given to the defendant's case.
The Loan CHIEF.JUSTICE slimmed up, the evidence. The
question was, whether, at the time of returning the July, the
Sheriff had, or had. not, been a prosecutor of the indict-
ment. The indictment was preferred on the 17th of May ;
and on the 29th of May, Mr. Garratt's name appeared
upon the list of the Association. The name stood Mr.
" Alderman Garratt;". it was clear, therefore, that Mr.
Garratt was a member subsequent to the time at which
he became an Alderman. The evidence had clearly ,proved
to the jury, that at the time. of the finding of the indict-
ment, and for some time after, the Sheriff was a member
of thelProsecuting Association ; and, the only question was,
whether, before his return of the present jury, he had with-
drawn himself from that situation. The fact of.his having been
a member being in proof on the one side, it was incumbent on
' the other side td-shew the withdrawal, and to she that with-
drawal by very satisfactory evidence. If the triers were satis-
fied that Alderman Garratt had withdrawn himself before the
return in question, they would find their.verdiet for, the prose-
cutor; but if they were not fully satisfied upon that point, the
safer course would be to.find for the defendant.
The question was then formally put to the triers, whether Mr.
Garratt, at the given time, was or was not a prosecutor of the
indictment ; to which they replied, that lie was.
Mr. SCARLETT supposed that Mr. Gurney would not call
upon him in the other prosecutions.
The LoleD CHIEF JusTicE said that all had better stand
over.
As soon as the above verdict was delivered,
Mr. Thelwall; who sat among Counsel, rose and addressed
the Court. He said that he was one of the persons under pro-
secution by this society, and was ready and anxious now to
state, that sooner than have the proceedings pending any longer
over his head, he should willingly wave any advanta!;e which he
might be supposed to derive from the objection to tne array of
ttie jury now substantiated. Indeed, rather than have his trial
any longer pending, he would consent to a jury taken out of the
very Association itself.
The LORDTHIEF JUSTICE inquited whether he was to
understand Mr. Thelwall as waving his challenge to the Jury
altogether, or whether it was his .wish to take until to-morrow
to consider of the course which he meant to adopt.
Mr. Thelwall thanked his Lordship, and said he should take
until to-morrow, to consult his professional agent. He then re-
peated his anxiety to go to trial.
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE then observed, that Mr. Thel..

will atilt to-morrow inforiti the Court of his ctzterminatfon, an d
to sake the Jury the trouble of an unnecessary ettet"dirc,2,'.it
might now be understood, that should the defendant wish to
wave his challenge, and gd to trial, the Jury then could be sum-
moned For an early day-L-for Monday, if the defendant wished.
Mr. Thelwall acquiesced in his Lordship's suggestion.
The Seyerat special jury cases,
.at •Voe prOsecutior:ofl47"llo
ConseutiOnal Association," weie then formally postportid-
The, jurors' in attendance were sworn, and .received their
usual fee from Mr. Mdrray, the law-agent of the Bridge-s*ek
Committee.

COURT OP COMMON, PLEAS, DEC. 14.
CORK V. BATT AND OTHERS,
This was an action to recover the sum of 6001. from the de•
fendants, as executors to the will of a Mrs. Henley.
The plaintiff, who is married to the oixe of the deceased,
proved by his solicitor (Mr. Webb) the execution of a deed on
111 rs. Henley's part, by which she bound her executors to pay
to the plaintiff and his wife the sum of 6001. over and above
whatever they might become entitled to by her will.
The defence set up was, that the deed had been obtained by
fraud and covin ; but after a long cross-examination of Mr.
Webb, the plaintiff's, solicitor, it appeared that the deceased
executed the .'ed voluntarily, and was perfectly aware at die
moment of what she was doing. . .
The Jury accordingly found a verdict for the plaintiff—
Damages 6001.