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

EX PARTE JOHN BIRD, AND OTHERS-HABEAS CORPUS.

The parties in this case were five colliers, who had been
committed to Leicester Gaol by Mr. Abney, a Magistrate of
the County, for having neglected their work. A habeas corpus
had been obtained, and the gaoler had made his return
which came on for argument this day.
:Mr. BODKIN, in contending that the prisoners ought to be
discharged, .drew the attention of the Court to the return
made by the gaoler. He returned that he detained them by
virtue• of two warrants delivered to him on April 8, authoris-
ing him to detain them for three months, and en two other
warrants delivered to him on April 15th, but dated the Bth,
convicting tliem•of the same offence. Now, it was evident
War the magistrate having discovered that his first warrants
were bad had endeavoured to amend them. In these second
warrants reference was made to a conviction, ivhich convic-
tion must be considered to be the first warrants, which as
convictions were bad.

Mr. WHITEHURST, who supported the action, admitted
that the first warrants were bad as convictions.
Mr. BODKIN contended further that the second warrants
were bad, inasmuch as although dated the Bth of April,
they were not delivered to the gaoler until the 15th, and
that they authorised the gaoler to detain the prisoners for
three months, without stating from the date of the warrant,
for an offence for which the prisoners had already been
in prison seven days, and therefore they committed
the prisoners for seven days more than the magistrate
had any right to commit them for. The taking also under
the first warrants was illegal, inasmuch as they convicted
the parties of several offences in the same warrant, and there-
fore the prisoners were entitled to their discharge.
Mr. FRY followed on the same side.

Mr. WHITEHURST, in support of the return, contended
that the gaoler, having returned a good warrant of commit-
ment, dated April 8, for three months, that was quite suffi-
cient, and that the Court would not notice the bad warrant
which had been returned with the good c ne.
Lord DEN3IAN interrupted the Learned Counsel, in the
course of his argument. The Court was clearly of opinion
that the return was a good one. The defendants were in
custody upon a valid warrant, and must therefore be re-
manded, and the rule discharged.—Rule discharged.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, April 29.

VALLANCE AND DIERLEX V. THE DUNE OF BRUNSWICK.

In this case a rule had been obtained by Mr. Sergeant
Byles, to set aside the taxation of costs with regard to
SOL 10s., the payment of which was alleged never to
have been authorised by the Duke of Brunswick, and
also with regard to that portion of the costs which re-
ferred to the case of Barnard Gregory v. the Duke of
Brunswick and Mr. Valiance, fur which it was alleged
Mr. Valiance was equally liable with the Duke of Bruns-
wick.

Mr. Sergeant TalsounD now showed caused against
the rule. He expressed his regret that it should be ne-
cessary to enter into this case, but thought he should be
able to show from the affidavits of the plaintiffs that the
Duke of Brunswick was labouring under a mistake
when he denied that he ever authorised the payment of
the 801. 10s. The Learned Gentleman then referred to
the affidavits of Mr. Valiance and Mr. Bierley. It stated
that Mr. Valiance acted as solicitor to his Lordship from
1341 to November, 1843, and it denied the affidavit of
the Duke of Brunswick and his equerry, Count De
Witts, that he (the said Duke) had forbad the payment
of this 801. 10s., or that he had said he would not per-
mit it to be made. On the contrary, he had autho-
rised the payment, and knew for what purpose it was
elpended. he being told of it by Mr. Valiance. The
money referred to consisted cf money paid to a person
named Banks, for making inquiries respecting the case
against the Duke by Barnard Gregory, and to certain
extracts which were printed at the request of his High-
ness, several copies of which came into the hands of his
Highness, and for which 351. was paid by the plaintiffs.
Mr. Valiance stated in his affidavit that Count De Witts
was not present at the conversation which was sworn to
have taken place on the 3d of November ; but that in
the month of October the Count De Witts called on him
at his office,
.and proposed to him to participate in the
profits of his costs, which he (Mr. Valiance) refused to
accede to, as it would be both illegal and immoral. Se-
veral interviews and conversations took place afterwards.
On one occasion, on the 20th of October, Mr. Valiance
deposed that the Count De Witts called at his office
and offered him 501. for his costs; and upon Mr. Valiance
expressing his surprise, the Count took a second 50/.
out of his pocket, which he offered to Mr. Valiance,
which was likewise refused. The Count then said that
the Duke desired him to offer 501. to Mr. Valiance, and
if he did not accept that to offer him the second 50/.;
but, if he did not accept them, to bring back both. Mr.
Bierley also deposed that during a conversation he had
with the Duke, De Witts offered him 1001. to satisfy
Mr. Valiance, which he (Bierly) refused to accept.
On the 21st of October Mr. Valiance attended the Duke,
at his request, at his houso in Bryanstone-square, and
after informing him of what took place respecting the
offer of the two 50/. notes, he was paid 150/., which
formed part of 8001. which had been paid by the Duke,
and fore which credit was given him out of the 1,6141,
the amount ,of the costs. On the 27th of October Mr.
Vallancereceived a letter from the Duke of Brunswick,
showing6that he still enjoyed the confidence of his High-
ness;, celled on the Duke on the 3d of November, the
day on which. the conversation took place at which the
Duke was said to have rejected the payment of 80/. 10s.,
when the Duke produced a book of solicitors' charges
.to him, which he purchased in Chancery-lane, according
to the charges in which the Duke required that Mr.
Valiance should make out his bill of costs.—(Laughter.)
This Mr. Valiance refused to do, as the book was of no
authority.. ,Three days after, he had a conversation with
the Duke, in the presence of De Witts, and on the 11th
November; he wrote a letter to the Duke, on which day
he received a summons from the Duke, requiring him to
deliver his bill of costs to Mr. Graaf, who was henceforth
to be his Highness's attorney. On the 13th, Mr. Val-
iance received a letter from the Count De Witts, refer-
ring him to Mr. Graaf, who was now, by his (the Count's)
advice, the attorney of his illustrious master. Mr. Val-
lance was most reluctant to bring the matter before the
public, and before the bill was taxed by the Master,
be wrote to his Highness, reminding him , of all
he went through for him, and all the vituperation
and slander to which he was subjected on account
of the relation in which he was placed towards
his Highness. With regard to the second point, he
(Sergeant Talfourd) admitted that his client Mr. Val-
iance was indiscreet in going to the theatre with the
Duke of Brunswick, when Barnard Gregory appeared to
play the part of Hamlet ; but Mr. Valiance was made a
defendant in that case, entirely in consequence of his
elations with the Duke; and the affidavit stated that
the Duke of Brunswick promised that he would bear all
the expenses of that action, and that Mr. Bierley was
his attorney in that case.
Lord Chief Justice TirtnAL said that • the rule was
moved for on two grounds. The first related to the
801. 10s., the second ground was, whether the Master, in
taxing the costs, ought to have taxed them against the
Duke of Brunswick alone, or whether Mr. Valiance
should be considered as liable to pay jointly with him. It
was sworn that there was a promise of indemnity made
by the Duke which he should have an opportunity of
answering. The matter must therefore go before the
Master on this point.
Sergeant WILDS said that they should be certainly
desirous of having an opportunity to answer the second
part of the rule, though he thought ho could give an
answer from the affidavit of the plaintiffs themselves.
His client the Duke of Brunswick was subjected to. sin
action in consequence of his attorney appeering.:with

. .„
him at the theatre, where he ought not to have er
peared. But now he was not content to bear any par
of the responsibility which grew out of his own act, and
his Learned Friend moaned over his client, because he
could n.A make any profit of the matter. With regard
to the first point, the Duke of Brunswick swore that he
newr authorised the paymet:i cf the M.
The matter was referred to the decision of the Master.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER, April 29.
The Court took the special paper to-day. In the co"
that came before their Lordships the arguments wine pure.l7,
technical. on points of law, as is usually the case on epees'
paper day. They therefore do not call for any partials:
notice.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
(YESTERDAY.)
MARLBORO GII.S7'REE T.
FASHIONABLE PICKPOCKET.—MichaeI Richardson, a ve:l
stylishly dressed young man, was placed at the bar on the
folloWing charge. Mr. Robinson, the solicitor, attended en
the prisoner's behalf.
Mrs. Emily Peach, a married lady, residing near LiverPo°l'
but at present staying at the York Hotel, Albemarle-stree,"
Piccadilly, stated that between eight and nine o'clock P_2
Saturday evening last, as she was walking along New B 0 '
w
street she felt a person's hand in her pocket, and on turnini
round found the prisoner close behind her, and she seized !WI
of his hand, as it was still remaining in her pocket. lie
then broke from her, and set off running up Sow;
Molton-street, but was pursued by a police constable an
taken into custody. She directly afterwards missed b..?!
pocket-handkerchief,
pocket-handkerchief, which was a few minutes before wifeoll
the same pocket she had found the prisoner's hand in. There
were three other fashionably dressed young men, evidently
company with the prisoner, and on the detection of the Fri.
soner they immediately separated, taking different direction&
Mr. MALTBY inquired if the prisoner was luiornfr;
Mr. Frowd, inspector of the C division, said that he. low
been informed that the prisoner had lately been seen in We'
pany with several well-known pickpockets.
Mr. Robinson said that was impossible, as the accused hjd
for several months been confined by illness to his than'
of which fact Dr. Curtiss, of Oxford-street, who had attetiar
him, had given a certificate.
Mr. MALTBY said that the facts were so clearly and fall/
stated by the prosecutrix, that no reasonable doubt of me
prisoner's guilt could be entertained. He should, however
remand him until Wednesday next; and in the meantime Dr
quiries would be made about him.
UNION-HALL.
Ann Taylor, a well-dressed young_ woman, was charged
with uttering a counterfeit shilling.
It appeared that the prisoner went into the shop of ,3f,
Rathbone, druggist, of the Kent-road, on Saturday even'n„':
and asked for a small box of anti-bilious pills, in paYl"
for which she tendefed a counterfeit shilling. The shol°9-.7,;"'
seeing the coin was bad, mentioned the fact to the
who, snatching it off the counter, attempted to eonve'thit
her mouth, with the intention of swallowing it, and b)
stratagem destroying identity. She was, however, Pre-
vented from doing so, and the coin, being cut in halves VI
the shopinan; she was given into custody.
When questioned by Mr. Lulu. on the subject, the Pri;
soner refused to give any account of her possession of the
counterfeit shilling ; and as she is suspected to belong t "
~__„e
gang of utterers of base money, a system of fraud which hie
been carried on to a great extent on the tradesmen of tr.
district, she was remanded to give the solicitor of the
Mint an opportunity of attending and prosecuting loorlbr
the offence.

to have ar
ear any part
own act, and
because ha
With regard
'yore that he

the Master•

ril 29

In the ease.
wore puillf
we on speciAl
ny particular