The Sun.
London, England, 1826-12-05 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF CH A LACER Y.—(Ts, is • Dar. )
H ABEAS CORP tis—NEW4,QUESTION.
IN THE !HATTER OF CARP ANO JACKSON, namsciturrs.
In this matter Samuel Jackson, the partner of IVnt.Parr,
bankrupts, late silk-dealers and chaptnen in Birmingham, ap-
peared in the custody, of the Warwick Gaoler, upon a suit of
Habeas Corpus, to submit to the Lord Chancellor that he was
entitled to his discharge.
His LORDSHIP desired the Return.to be read.
The Return was read, from which it appeared, that the hank.;
rupt had been committed on the Sd of October last, brought up
again, and re-committed on the 9th of the same month, by Messrs.
Edward Coxhall, Thus. Lee, and J. P. Slater, Commissioners,
for not satisfactorirt, answering the questions they had put to him,
but the return did not set forth oneeyllable, either of the questions
that had been put, or the answers that had been given.
Mr. floater, for the bankrupt, wished to know what his client
had Teen committed for ?

His Lounentr—That's what I want ni know.
Mr. Hoawa did not know how to argue such a case.
His Lonnsmte—This struck me as a very singular return.
Mr. Houma did not think the Court could call on Counsel to
argue such a case.

His Loansitte—Why did you not set forth a copy of the war-
rant, Mr. Hart ?

Mr. HART submitted, that if a party had been legally com-
mitted, and the individual having that Fitly in custody had been
guilty of an irregularity, that that could be no ground on which to
-discharge the prisoner.

Mr. Hpaws did not shape the case thus; he took it that this
was an accurate return of the commitment.
Mr. Morr.sou, (with Mr. Horne) wished to know, if at this
time of day, Counsel in this Court were to be driven to argue,
whether the Court was to have any other thing .brought to its
notice, ;upon & question to discharge a prisoner, than what ap-
peared upon the face of the return ?
Mr. Haar could not think it possible that his Lordship could
discharge a.prisoner on account of
,an imperfection on the part of
the officer, in whose custody the prisoner was: The utmost, he
thought, that could he done was, to let the officer amend his
return.

Its Loapitutp--How am I judicially to know that it is his
mistake ?

Mr. HART said this oiniculty had not occurred to him, but
certainly it deserved consideration.
his LOI9IIISNIT-1 agree that it is a point of very considerable
importance, and you may take till to•niorroiv to consider it.
Mr. HART'S opinion was, that it would be the greatest ano-
maly that could possibly be thought of, Wit were to be laid down
that the greatest culprit was entitled to 'be discharged, because
there had been a mistake in the return made by the officer, into
whose custody that delinquent had been eornmitted.
Mr. Holum said there were but two mistakes on the part of
Mr. Hart in this propositiorh—first, he maimed that there had
been a mistake in not having made the return agreeable to the
commitment; andoext, that the present bankrupt was one of
the greatest culprits that had ever been committed—in both of
which positions he was totally wrong.
Mr. Ha ttr did not mean his latter position to apply
to the
present case; bet he had confidently to submit, that when one
man legally committed another in pursuance of justice, he was not
to be foiled in having the benefit of what the law had provided for
him, resulting from that commitment, by any mistake on the part
of the gaoler, when the prisoner appeared in Court.
Mr. HORNY wished to know whether Mr. Hart was inutructed
to state, that the commitment was different to the return ?
Mthis objection,
r. HART was taken by surprise byand, there..
fore, was not prepared to say what appeared on the commitment.
His Loansure.—Constquently you had better take till to•
morrow morning to consider the ease.
Mr. MONTAGU could sceroely conceive that a suers important
question could possibly be submitted to the Lord Chancellor.
A prisoner was brought up by a writ of Habeas Corpus ; the
Judge was to determine upon the question of discharge upon the
return. The Counsel against the prisoner said they had some-
thing beyond the return to submit to the Court, and therefore
they asked that the prisoner might be sent hack to prison, that
they might have the opportunity of further preparing themselves;
but the Counsel for the bankrupt had to contend upon all that was
due to the consideration of depriving a subject in this country of
his liberty, that the Court was bound to look at the proceedings
now before it, and upon thenito declare either that the prisoner
was entitled to his discharge, or that his imprisonment be legally
continued.

iIIS LORDSIfIP--111$ ie quite a new case before me, and I shall
consult rove of the Common Law Judge, upon it in the course of

this morning. I wish, however, it to be understood in the coun.
try, that where a person is committed by Commissioners, if the
Commitment contains all the questions and answers, the gaoler,
by his return, is bound to set them all out. If the return, in this
case, is according to the commitment, there can be no doubt that
it is as bad as had can be, •
Mr. HAAT hoped to be able to show, that the commitment was
as good as good, could be.

Hts
LORDSHII.-.--I have nothing to say as to the act of the gaol-
er if he has made an improper return ; I have nothing to do with
that, but he may have a good deal to do with it.
Mr. 11IciwrA au apprehended that if a prisoner was brought up
in a criminal Court, to take his trial, on a charge of the foulest
crime that had ever disgraced human nature, and there was no
evidence brought forward against him, the Judge would unques-
tionably, at once discharge that prisoner.
His LORD9HIP—I think, Mr. Montagu, you have known me
long enough .to be assured, that no man could ever have Moiled
with more willingness than I have always done to any thing that
could be advanced on behalf of the liberty of the subject, nor
shewn a greater wish on all occasions to discharge him than I
have done, when by law I could possibly do it; but I think, on a
question, that .never came before sue on any former occasion, that
I am entitled to have the opportunity of informing myself accu-
rately what the law is upon that question, particularly when 1
pledge myself to lose no time iu so doing. It was then agreed
that the matter should come on again to-morrow morning,. and
that the bankrupt's residence, ad interim should till then be made
more comfortable than it had been since yesterday, he having
been detained all night in Clerkenwell prison.

VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT._(Tors Day.)
SHARLAND P. BAICIR.

In this case an injunction had been obtained to restrain the de-
fendant from proceeding in an action at law against the plaintiff.
The case arose out of the following circumstances :...The defend-
ant bad,, in September 1825, entered into an agreement with the
plaintiff for the delivering up to him, on the 25th March follov
Mg, the White Hart Inn at Tiverton. The parties met at that
inn on the 24th March, but the inn was not delivered up accord-,
ing to the contract. The defendant, as appeared from hie an-
swer, tendered the purchate-money and conveyances to the plaintiff
at that meeting, and expressed himself satisfied with the title which
the plaintiff was enabled to give him of the premises. In the course
of the next Month (April) the parties again met, and the defen-
dant, still anxious to get possession of the inn, offered to abide by
the original agreement, provided the plaintiff paid him Compen-
sation for the loss he sustained by reason of the non-performance
of the contract, alleging, that as the inn was 'much deteriorated
in value, he was on that account entitled to large compensation.
It appeared that the inn was then in the possession of a 'person
named EdWards, who, being in embarrassed circumstances, was
not enabled to conduct the business in a proper manner. The
consequence was, that the profits of the establishment were daily
diminishing. The defendant subsequently brought an action
against the plaintiff for the non-performance of the contract.
His Howoua, after hearing - Mr. Wakefield in support of the
injunction, and Mr. Lynch against it, said that the defendant, by
his offer at the second meeting, waived any claim for the non-per-
formance of the contract on the 25th of March, by making a de-
mand for,' compensation." The injunction must therefore stand.
His Hoxoua subsequently intimated, that if the defendant made
the demand for compensation with a protest; that demand would.
not have the effect of precluding him from bringing his action.
This last remark was made by his Honour after Mr. Lynch had
left the Court.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH.—(Tins DAY.)
FINGEY V. CROOKS.
_ _

t Mr. MA R [WATT stated,
,thatthisZan action brought to-re-
Over compensation in damage* for the injury which the plaintiff
sustained, in consequence of defamatory words used respecting
him by the defendant. The plaintiff resided in Ogle-square, and
the defendant lived contiguous to him in Upper Spring-street.
On the 4th of November, 1825, a quarrel arose between the de-
fendant's step-son and the plaintiff, respecting a hen-house which
was built et the end of the defendant's house, and darkened the
window of the plaintiff, who threatened to pull it down; where-
upon the defendant came out of his own house and asked where
thief was (meaning the plaintiff) you robber, you
thing,' you pimp, said he, if you come out here, I will serve you
as you ougkt to he served. .J:hese word, having been publicly'
spoken, materially affected,We '
plaintiff's character, for which lie
now sought damages,

John
trooke examined by Mr. RxanEn—Was present at the
qUariel above alluded to ; heard the defendant calling the plaintiff
a housebreaker, a robber, a thief, and a pimp, and saying
that the plaintiff was in the habit of hitting out his beds at three
guineas a night, and that he kept 150 loose character. in his
house; witness believed this of-the plaintiff for 4 considerable
time, until he went to his house and found it tri be othenrise.
Several other witnesses proved to the same eoiet. Another
witness proved that the plaintiff had his lodginks unlet for several
months after.

%Ir. &mum addressed the Jury for the defendant. This
action, he observed, was founded on a quarrel, and the words com-
plained of, were a mere ebullition of passion, and point nothing.
A housebreaker was a very appropriate term on 'that occasion, as
the plaintiff had threatened to pull down the<lien-house.—
(Laughter.)—A b y thief was also appropriate' towards a
man who had fought on the Continent, under the Doke of
Wellington, as the plaintiff, who was an old pensioner, had.
IN (Mr.. Scarlet) would venture to say that the plaintiff
had often called Buonaparte's Generals, thieves.—(Laugh-
ter.)—The plaintiff, no doubt, was entitled to a verdict, but lie
submitted, that under all the circumstances, a shilling damages
was the utmost he ought to get.
The Cum Justine in charging the Jury, said that the plain-
tiff was entitled to a verdict, but as the words were used in a pas-
sion,
and not in cool blood, the damages ought to be moderate.
Tii; Jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff-40amages 5!.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS-41'ms MY.)
LIBEL.
VTOCKLIT V. CLICURNT.

Mr. Cluny opened the pleadings, Mr. Sergeant WALnit stated
le Me.

This was one of those actions which now a days occupied such
a large share of the time of Courts of Justice ; actions for libels in
newspapers were now as common as actions for recovery of debt.
They would of course increase as long as the libellers found it their
interest to publish slander against private character, and until
Juries by their verdicts threw an odium on the authors. The
defendant in this case was well known as the editor of that ex-
tensively circulated paper, the Aforning Chronicle, and it was
for publishing in a copy of that paper, of the 20th October, 1825,
the following advertisement, that the present action WWI brought
"To BILI,BROKEaI AND Ornsas.—Catenost.-111wAxn.
—Whereas information has been given to me that attempts have
been made to obtain the discount of a bill of exchange, bearing
date London, May 2U, 1825, and purporting to ,be drawn by
John Stockley upon, and to be accepted by, the Dowager Lady
Page Turner, for six thousand pounds, with interest, payable 1,1
months after date, to the order of the said John Stockley, fir
value received ; L do hereby give notice, on behalf of the said
Dowager Lady Page Turner, that she has not accepted such bill,
and that if her name should appear on any such instrument, the
same has been forged, or her Imnd-writing (If genuine) has been
obtained by fraud, and in total ignorance on her part of the in-
tended effect of the signature, Any person who will give posi-
tive information to me of the party in posmession of: the said in-
strument shall be handsomely rewardeiL—Thomas Monk
New Inn, Oct. 19, 1925."

INlioever thii Mr. Hinny might be, if it were true as slated in the
advertisement, that Lady Turner did not knoW the effect of her
signature, he has treated- her as idiot; he (the Learned Ber-
grant) would produce the paper containing theadvertivement ; he
would also produce the bill of exchange, and thereby prove the
falsehood of the charge.

A Gentleman of the Stamp-office. was then called, and produced
a copy of the paper.
Robert Hare, cashier to Coutts and Co. produced the bill in
question.
Cross-examined by Mr. Pr...tar—h well acquainted with Lady
Tturner's.band-writing; witness paid 10001, to account of the bill
in question by her Ladyship's written order (which' he produced)
knew nothing of the transactions between the plaintiff and her
Ladyship, but believed the transaction was effected at their house
by Mr. Mutts.
Mr. Walter Hodson was a partner of the late banking firm of
Hodsoll and Sir W. Stirling; believed the hand Writing to the
bill was IJuly:ruiner's.

could not say she was
y
Cress-exatniticil—Saw her wr;te frequently; should suppose
intelligent.' ,
By Mr.
currry,—..,\V as not so intelligent and sensible as most
ght be about eighty year* of age ;
ivsehedreiens); at times she did not understand much business.
Btockley, brother of the plaintiff, believed the signature
to the bill as drawer and indorser was hit brother's, but the bad
of the bill was not his hand-writing.
Cross-examined by Mr. Serjeant VAUGIIAN.—M brother has
been at large for about . four months ; he was previously in the
Kings Bench prison for about six months i cannot say he was there in October Mb ; he told me had done some business for
Lady Turner, and I heard him say he was distrained for rent at her
instance, and that an execution was made on his effects. I should