The Sun.
London, England, 1828-02-02 00:00:00

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.

MANSION-HOUSE.—Yesterday Hyams Phillips, a
Jew, was charged before the LORD MAYOR, on suspicion
of having improperly obtained a 5/. note.
Phillips was remanded for further examination.

DELAYS IN THE RETURN OF LErrEas.—A letter was
sent fiorn the ManSion-house; on the 19th of November
last,•directed to Mr. Clarke, Cheapside, Liverpool. It
was upon a subject of an official nature, but no notice was
received until yesterday, when the letter was returned, en-
dorsed as follows :—" Left—not known where gone;" and
the endorsement was dated Nov. 23, so that it was ascer-
tained in four days that the person addressed was not to be
found, and yet more than two months elapsed before the
letter was returned. The note accompanying the letter
was as follows :—" My Lord, the enclosed letter, not hav-
ing been delivered for the reason assigned thereon, was re-
ceived here by the officer appointed by his Majesty's Post-
master-General for that purpose, and is now returned to
you as the writer.—l am, my Lord, your obedient servant,

" FRANCIS FREELING."

GUILDHALL.—EarIy in the week Sir P. LA ITEUE
summoned all the Judges to appear before him, and answer
the complaint of the overseer of St. Dunstan in the West,
for refusing to pay their respective shares of the poor-rates
for the premises they occupy at Serjeants'-inn, Chancery-
lane, in that parish. Yesterday was the day fixed for the
hearing, and Mr. Hewlett, the Secondary to the Court of
Common Mew, attended as the representative of all the
defendants. A desultory discussion, which occupied an
hour and a half, ensued.

After Sir PETER had explained that he felt all possible
respect for the dignitaries of the law, but that he also felt
he ought not to recotscize any parties in the discharge of
his magisterial duties,
- - - -

Mr.-Howlett did not impugn the mode in which the
Judges had been rated : he questioned eie right to assess.
Sir PETER, closing the rate book, observed that he had
been satisfied on that head before he issued the summonses.
It was stated to him that a verdict had been obtained by
the parish, deciding that the inn was liable to the rate.
Mr. Hewlett admitted that such a verdict was given
four years ago as to Serjeants'-inn, in Chancery-lane, but
a year and a half ago the parish tried the same question with
Sarjeants'-inn, Fleet-street, and failed. There were con-
flicting verdicts on the same point, and he submitted the so-
ciety whom he had the honour to represent had a right to
view the question as unsettled.
Sir PETER knew nothing of the proceedings against
Serjeants' inn, Fleet-street. The right of the parish to
rates from the other inn had been established by a verdict,
submitted to by all the Judges for several quarters.
Mr. Seely, one of the overseers,, said that till the ver-
dict Was set aside, the -parish must be entitled to the rate.
Mr. Hewlett thought the Magistrate would not interfere,
till the right to the rate was proved. The entry in the
books and the verdict against Serjeant Lens in 1814 did
not prove it.
Sir PETER asked if he contended that the other residents
were not as liable to the rate as Sergeant Lens ?
Mr. Hewlett said he did.
Sir PETER said he would like to hear Mr. Hewlett on
this question.
Mr. Hewlett said that there was no difference between
the inns. Sergeants' inn, Chancery-lane, had for 400
years been occupied as chambers by the judges and ser-
geants. In Fleet-street the judges occupied houses till
about '7O years ago ; but although they held whole houses,
the houses were leased in sets of chambers, like the other
inn—at least he was so informed by the agent of the Dean
and Chapter of York, the lessors. It was said the inns
were distinct bodies, because they had each a chapel. He
denied that the place in the inn in Chancery-lane could be
properly so called ; and when, in 1649, an inquiry was set
on foot respecting the church-property, in reply to
in the
question what chapels there were pariah,, the offieeis
,
of St. Dunstan's stated to the Commissioners that there were
none. From the days of Elizabeth, until four years agei,
the inns had never been called on for a rate. In the recent
Act of Parliament for settling the commutation of tithes in
this parish, there was a schedule containing all the houses
in it, and there was no mention whatever of either of the
inns.

assure Sir An overseer interrupted Mr. Hewlett, to
PETER he would be kept in his seat till ;light, if he recei-
ved all the evidence on both sides. Mr. Hewlett was striv-
ing to perplex the Alderman with facts and points, while
the whole case lay in a nut-shell. •A verdict declared the
inn liable to the rate, and it must be paid till the rate was
overturned.

Sir PETER agreed it would be uselesi to enter on the
evidence. He was content to act on the verdict. The
Judges, he had no doubt, would wish to act liberally ;
perhaps Mr. Hewlett would pay the 1501. due, leaving one
quarter only unpaid to raise the question.
Mr. Hewlett had offered already to pay the money due if

zreceipt were given acknowledging the payment was pro-
tested against. He put in the form of receipt he desired.
Sir PETER LAURIE thought the parish'might give this
receipt without injury. After words to the ordinary
purport, it added, "without prejudice to the claim of ex-
emption," &c.
Mr. Sealy had taken the opinion of Serjeant Merewether
upon this form of receipt. The seijeant thought it would
place them in a worse situation.

---
Sir Pz'rita said no person could place less value upon
legal opinions than he did: He knew a counsellor, now a
judge, who was applied to by both parties in a dispute, and
actually gave each an opinion favourable to his cause. He
was in Westminster-hall on the previous morning, and saw
men carrying in blue bags full of opiniong, &c., and loaded
like porters, following the litigants on each aide.
Mr. Hewlett smiled at Sir Peter's contempt for the
lawyers, and repeated in an under tone Gay's lines.

_
" I know you lawyers can with ease,
" Twist words and meaning as you please."
The City Solicitor said there was a difference between
paying under a protest, and receiving under a protest.—
He thought Mr. Hewlett might be satisfied with the for-
mer course.

'Mr. Hewlett would agree to pay the money on condi-
tion that it should be returned if the verdict was in favour
of the inn in the next trial.

The City Solicitor doubted if the assent of the present
Overseer to such a condition would bind his successors.
At last it was agreed that Mr. Hewlett should consult
his clients, whether they would pay the money due (ex-
cept one quarter from one defendant), under protest wit-
nessed by the Magistrate's clerk; or whether they would
submit to the whole of the warrants being pressed. The
result will be communicated to Sir PETER on Tuesday or
Wednesday next.
BOW-STREET.—On Tuesday last informations were
exhibited at this office by Johnson, the informer,
against Joseph Phillips, . the proprietor of the Cafe de
l'Europe, next to the Haymarket. Theatre, and James
Carter, the ostensible owner of the Old Drury Oyster.
Rooms in Brydges-street, Covent-garden, commonly called
Mother M.'s, for retailing wine without a beer-licence.
Mr. Alley appeared on behalf of the informer, and Mr.
Brodrick for the defendants; the former contending that
the 35th of Geo. 111., under which the informations were
laid, left the Magistrates no other choice but to convict;
and the latter urging the existence of a charter granted to
the Company of Licensed Victuallers (to which both of
the defendants belonged), so far back as the time of James
the Second, by which full power was given to the mem-
bers of that company to keep wine taverns within three
miles of London, for the purpose of, retailing every de-
scription of wine. The question was, whether 'the privi-
lege granted by this charter was or was not actually re-
pealed and done away with by the 35th of the late King.
The case excited an unusual degree of interest amongst
the licensed victuallers, and after both the Learned Gen-
tlemen were heard at considerable length on behalf of their
respective clients,
Sir B. BIRNIE said that he considered the question of
so much importance, not only to the parties directly inte-
rested in its issue, but to the public generally, that he
should defer giving his opinion until he had consulted his
colleagues. Accordingly yesterday Sir R. Birnie gave his
judgment at some length. He said lie had looked over the
different Acts of Parliament referred to, and had also pe-
rused the charter granted to the Vintners' Company, and
the result was, that in his opinion that charter was never
intended to protect persons from the consequences of the
law, who, under the pretence of selling lobsters and other
shell-fish, kept houses open for the entertainment of the
very worst company. Such was the case with respect to
Carter, one of the defendants, who stood forward to repre-
sent that sink of vice and infamy, Mother H.'s. With
respect to the Cafe de l'Europe, he believed that house was
respectably conducted, and he therefore wished, if possible, to
make a distinction between the two cases; unfortunately,
however, the law left him no discretionary power, and he
• was therefore compelled to convict the defendants in the
mitigated penalty of 101. each.
Mr: Broderick, for the defendants, after urging the great
importance of the question, and the propriety of its being
finally set at rest, by the decision of a Court of law, re-
quested that the conviction might be drawn tip in the
common law form, as by that means the parties would be
enabled to carry the question into the Conrt of King's Bench.
After some ferther discussion, it was finally agreed that
Mr. Broderick's suggestion should be adopted, upon the
understanding, however, that Johnson, the informer, who
will appear as plaintiff ;n the suit, should be held free from
all costs and charges attending its introduction to the Court
of King's Bench, and its prosecution there. The expence
of the proceedings will be borne by the Vintners' Company.
Sir Illcii.san BIRNIE took occasion to comment in severe
terms upon the uses to which the supposed privileges of the
Vintners' Company were applied, and he instanced the case
of the defendant Carter as one in which the abuse was of
the grossest description.
Mr. Martin, the clerk of the Vintners' Company, assured
the Magistrate that steps were in progress to remedy the
evil.

WORSHIP-STREET.--Information was yesterday
given, that the dwelling-house of Mr& Yellowley, at
Wiuchniare-hill, was broken into on Thuriday night.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF CHANCERY, FEB. 1.
IN RE OWEN, A BANKRUPT. •

Mr; Alexiinder'lSaacs-was brought up on a habeas
corpus from Newgate, to which place he, had been
committed by the Commissioners. of the fourteenth
list, for having given them unsatisfactory answers to
their examination.

Mr. KNIGHT moved that he should be discharged,
because the answers he had given were as satisfac-
tory as the case admitted of.

Mr. ROSE and Mr. WRIGHT insisted that the com-
mittal was justifiable, and required by the answers.
The LORD CHANCELLOR was of opinion that the
answers were not satisfactory, nor the
_best that Mr.
Isaacs might have given.l therefore ordered
him to be sent back to New—gaieii-ig same trine re-
commending the Commissioners to give him an im-
mediate opportunity of rectifying his answers.
Mr. ROSE said that might be done to-morrow, as
was the constant course.

COURT OF KING'S. BENCH, FEE. 1.
EXPARTE ROBERT GOURLAY.

In this case, it will be recollected, a rule was ob-
tained on Saturday last, calling upon Mr. Halls, the
Magistrate, to show cause why a writ of habeas
corpus should not issue, directed to the Governor
of the House of Correction, Colbath-fields, to bring
up the body of Robert Gourlay, in order that he
might be discharged. The ground of application
was, that the warrant of commitment, under which
the party had been detained in custody since June,
1824, was illegal. _ _ _

Mr. CAMPBELL now moved that the rule might
be made absolute.

Lord TENTERDEN—NO; we most consider a little
before we do that.
_ _ .• .

Mr. CAMPBELL—To avoid discussion, in case the
individual on whose behalf the rule had been ob-
tained should be brought up, he (Mr. Campbell)
would at once refer their Lordships to some authori-
ties in support of the proposition he had submitted
to the Court on his application for the rule nisi. The
first authority he would refer the Court to, was in the
second volume of Bale's Pleas of the Crown, p.
122, where it was expressly laid. down, that the
words of a commitment for felony ought to convey
with certainty the cause of the commitment, in order
that if the party obtained an habeas corpus, it might
appear to the Judges, before whom he was brought,
whether the act charged amounted to felony or not.
It was not enough to express generally that the
cause of commitment was that of felony, but it must
be made distinctly to appear what was the particular
act alleged to have been done. The case
of Dr.
Grenville, in p. 213 of the same hook, supported
this doctrine. There it was held that the cause of
the commitment ought to have been clearly ex-
pressed, and there was, besides, a whole class of
cases, which showed that it was not enough that
the warrant should follow the words of the Act
of Parliament, but it must set forth in clear and
definitive terms the cause of the commitment.
He would- refer their Lordships to the case of the
King v.' Cooper, in the 6th Term Reports, p. 509,
and the case, of the King v. Rodes, in the 4th Term
Reports,which was a commitment under the Vagrant
Act. That commitment was held bad, because it
did not state the particular Act for which the indi-
vidual was convicted. There was also the case of
the King v. Brown, in the Sth Term Reports, p. 28,
which was completely analogous to the present case.
What were the words of the warrant ?—" That the
said Robert Gourlay hath been discovered under cir-
cumstances which denote a derangement of mind,

and an intention to commit a crime, namely—an
assault and breach of the peace; and the said Robert
Gourlay being brought before me, and it appearing
to me that I ought to issue a warrant for his com-
mitment, as a dangerous person suspected to be in-
sane; I therefore require you to- receive the body
of the said Robert Gourlay," •&c. Here there was
no statement of the circumstances which " denoted
a derangement of mind," nor did it appear what
assault was about to be committed, or on whom.
It ought to have detailed the .partieulars, and to
have shown on whom the supposed assault was in-
tended to be committed. It omitted to do this, and
therefore he submitted that it was insufficient, and
that the•rule ought to be made absolute.
The COURT held a conference of several minutes,
after which, •
Lord TENTERDEN said the commitment under
this Act of Parliament is of a very peculiar kind : it
is not a commitment for safe custody, in order that
the party may be brought to trial ; nor is it a com-
mitment in execution of a sentence for any offence
committed against the law ; but it is A commitment
for safe custody, not only to secure the persons and
property of his Majesty's subjects generally, but also
to take care that the unhappy individual who is com-
mitted may be taken care of. That being the object
of the Legislature, I think it ought not to receive
that consideration which I should give any other
Act of Parliament differently circumstanced. The
warrant for the purpose of this Act is entirely dif-
ferent from one for the safe custody of a party
_about
to be.brought to trial; and it is also different from
a warrant for commitment in execution of a sen-
tence and, upon the whole, after perusal and con-
sideration of the Act of Parliament in this case, we
think there is enough to show that the Magistrate
had good grounds for committing the party, and
that consequently we cannot discharge him by habeas
corpus.—Rule discharged.

THE KING V. EDWARD DYER.
Mr. STEERS moved that the defendant might be
brought up to plead to an indictment found against
him by the Middlesex. Grand Jury, for the publica-
tion of an obscene libel.

The defendant immediately appeared on the floor
of the Court, and pleaded " guilty."
Mr. STEERS then moved for his commitment.
The defendant applied for leave to put in bail.
Mr. Justice BAYLEY told him he could not be
bailed after having pleaded guilty.
The defendant was then removed from the Court
,in custody, it being intimated to him that he would
be brought up for judgment in the course of the
present term.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Fin. 1.
GULLEY V. THE BISHOP OF EXETER.

This was an:action to deter Mine the ralidity of a
deed. The plaintiff claimed a right to a certain ad-
vowson within the diocese of the Bishop of Exeter,,
who is only the nominal defendant in this action, and
he grounded his claim upon a deed which he' con-
tended was granted by the original posgessOr to his
ancestors, .bearing date 1672. The defendant, on
the contrary, contended that • the same person had
granted a deed to his ancestors, which was dated in
1692, and he insisted, upon the strength of this
deed, that he alone had a right to the advowson.
He admitted, however, that if the alleged deed of
1672 could be established as perfectly valid, his
claim would fall to the ground. The action was
tried about two years since before Mr. Justice Park,
at Exeter, when the plaintiff was nonsuited on some
technical objection. Determined, however, to pro-
secute his elaim he had commenced another action,
to which the defendant pleaded an almost innume-
rable number. of pleas, which appeared to the plain-
tiff to be irrelevant to the real merits of the case, and
he therefore applied to Mr. Justice Gaselee at chamL
herg to strike out the greater part of them. That
Learned Judge did strike out a considerable number,
but fearing to go too far, recommended an application
to the Court.
Mr. Sergeant WILDE, accordingly, on the day of
the last term, applied for and obtained a rule, calling
on the defendant to show cause why all-the pleas
upon the record should not be struck out, except
those, which related to the deed bearing date 1672,
or why the plaintiff should not be at liberty to amend
the declaration.

Mr. Sergeant MEREWETHER now appeared to
show cause against the rule.
The•LORD CHIEF JUSTICE, in the course of the
argument, said, he had heard of the-30th and 40th
plea—he begged to know how many there were ?
Mr. Sergeant MEREWETHER replied, that there
were' 43. _ _ _

Mr. Justice PARK (addressing himself to the rest
of the Bench.)—Most of you know the extent of
the public dining-room at Exeter. Ido assure
you that the record, when unrolled, extended from
one end to the other of it.
Mr. Sergeant MEREIVETHER, in continuation of
his argument, complained of the repeated amend-
ments which had been made in the declaration.
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE, interrupting him,
said," When I hear of special pleas, to the number
of 43, I should feel inclined to allow a plaintiff to
amend to the day of judgment."
Mr. Sergeant WILDE proceeded partially in his
argument in support of the rule, when, at the sug-
gestion of the Court, he consented to an enlarge-
ment of the rule, it being understood that he should
be allowed to repeat the application in a different

PREROGATIVE COURT, Fzn. 3.

As soon► as the Judge had taken his seat this

morning,
Dr. LEE rose, and adverting to a meeting of the
advocates, to which, he said, the Learned Judge him-
self was a party, convened for the purpose of pre-
senting an address to Lord Stowell upon his retire-
ment, began to inveigh against the judicial conduct
of that noble and learned personage, declaring that
he had acted in collusion with the advocates of the
Court, in taking illegal fees and other improper
practices.
Sir JOHN Nicliou desired the Learned Advocate
to sit down; but

Dr. LEE persevered.
Sir JOHN NIcRoLL intimated to him, in very
pointed terms, that unless he obeyed his direction
and sat down, he (the Learned Judge) would adopt
some measure to enforce his obedience.
Dr. LEE, after some further observations, at length
sat down.'

INSOLVENT DEBTORS' DEBTORB' COURT.--FEB. 1.
Thomas Humphreys, many years the proprietor of
a Riding School in and near Waterloo-road, and
Equestrian Tutor to his present Majesty, was
charged. The insolvent being very ill, was ' in-.
said y therehad
not was
theplenty of
brought up to be heard upon his
in-
dulged with a chair. petition to be dis-
The only creditor who appeared to oppose the
discharge, was an Irish female servant, who claimed
3/. 10s. due for wages. The witness complained of
t ip
loi ena. n t S
that he
the
hardship of her case, as she, was turned upon the
furniture upon
power to assist her.
world without her wages, and destitute of a situa-
the premises to pay her.
The COURT regretted her loss, but told the ap.
Mr. Hyman, a broker,
proved that he levied a
distress upon the insolvents premises for 300/. for _i
rent due to the landlord, and took thereby all the
property, which was insufficient to satisfy the levy.'
Abraham King was.-lately a prisoner in the King's
Bench Prison, and wag chummed with the insolvent.
During the time he was there witness was supplied
with money by his friends, out of which supplies
he administered to the wants of the insolvent, or
he ,verily believed that he would have been a corpse.
It appeared, in the, course-of the investigation,
that the noticee:npon all the creditors had not been
served, as directed by Act of Parliament; but it
was stated that consents could be obtained to the
discharge of the insolvent.
The COURT, taking into consideration the afflicted
state of the insolvent, humanely allowed him to be
sworn to his schedule, and ordered that his discharge
should issue immediately that the required consents
are filed. .

PRINTED asnvt PuopßritlcEH,SEDN'oh7llM2:
sYtOranUING, at the