The Sun.
London, England, 1844-05-01 00:00:00

THE DEAN AND CHAPTER OF ELY V. BLISS.-JUDGMENT.

The LORD CHANCELLOR also gave judgment in this case,
which came before the Court upon appeal from the decision
of the Master of the Rolls. His Lordship observed that the
question before the Court turned almost entirely upon the
construction of the late Act of Limitations, the 3d and 4th
'William IV., chapter 27 ; and the question arising out of that
Act of Parliament was a question of great public im-
portance, namely, whether that Act related, as far as
tithes were concerned, to estates between: adverse claimants
of the estates and the tithes, or whether it extended
to cases between the tithe-owner and the occupier of the land.
His Lordship, after going at some length into the isguments
that had been adduced before him, and the facts of the case,
observed that lie could not help thinking that if he was to
pronounce a decision on the construction of the Act of Par-
Eminent adverse to the opinion pronounced by the Master of
the Rolls, that the consequence inevitably would be, from the
nature of the subject, its importance, and extensive opera-
tion, that the matter would go further, and a great expense
and loss of time would take place. His Lordship thought,
therefore, considering this as a mere question of law, of con-
struction of a statute, that would be most extensive in its
operation, and that it might affect the decision of the Tithe
Commissioners, who had put a construction on the Act

supporting the narrower ground of interpretation, and having ,
been, intbrmed on the highest authority that an appeal was
depending in the Court of Queen's Bench, he should best
consult the interest of all parties if he directed a case for the
opinion of the Court of Exchequer as to the construction of
the Act of the 3d and 4th of Win. IV., chap. 27. That case
plight be argued in the course of the next term, so as to
enable his Lordship to dispose of the case altogether before
the long vacation.
. _

The Court then proceeded with the case of Canty v. Holds-
ditch.

VICE-CHANCERY-(THIS DAY).

The Vice-Chancellor of England was occupied the whole
day with the further arguments in the part heard motion of
Booth v. Glover.

QUEEN'S BENCH.-(THIS DAY).
(Sittings in Banco.)
The Court took the Crown paper this morning. No case
of the least public interest had come on up to the hour when
we went to press.

BAIL COURT.-(THIS DAY).
(Before Mr. Justice MAULE.)
_ THE QUEEN v. RICHARD ANDREWS.

Mr. MILLER applied to the Court on behalf of Richard An-
drews, a prisoner in Warwick gaol, on a charge of murder,.
that he might be admitted to bail before the magistrates of
Birmingham, in the county of Warwick. He made this ap
plication on the ground, that there was not a scintilla of evi-
dence in the case to support the charge. The deceased was
the infant child of the prisoner. She was about three or four
years of age. The prisoner's wife was dead, and he lived with
this child in a state of akect poverty, in a small house in a
court of Birmingham. The prisoner had been remarkable for
the very great attachment he had for his child, and the
kindness he invariably showed to it. About half-past seven
in the morning of a day in January, the prisoner hav-
ing gone out some little time, the people in thecourt were alarmed by screams of distress which
proceeded from the house, and going to the window they per-
ceived a fire in the room, and a child (to use theirown expres•
sit,n) " fighting with the flames." They went into the house
and found the child on a bed of shavings, with au old rug
over it—the shavings being on fire. The child, which was
very much burnt, was at once rescued and conveyed to the
hospital. Near the place (and this was one of the grounds of
suspicion) where the child's hand had been observed " fight-
ing with the flames" was a small cinder; which, however, in
his (Mr. Miller's) opinion would, upon the trial, decidedly
manifest the innocence of the prisoner. When the child was
being taken to the hospital by the wife of a man who had
been first to rescue it—and who kept a Louse of ill-fame in
the court, this woman said—" I believe it was her father who
set her on fire." The child, before it had been taken to
the hospital, was asked how she got on fire, and she
replied she had felt .so very cold that she had gone
down stairs to warm herselfthat she had played with the
fire, and then had got into the rug. In two or three hours
after, about eleven or half-past eleven, when in the 'hospital,
somebody spoke to her on the matter. and she said it was
her father put her there. At this time the mind of the child
was giving way, and there was no doubt (and the affidavits
stated it) that, in her then wandering state, she feebly re-
collected what had fallen from the woman when carrying her
to the hospital. Before twelve o'clock the evidence of the me-
dical gentlemen.testified that she was in a state of complete
delirium. lie should state, that as soon as ever the father
heard of the accident he hurried to the hospital in the great-
est agony, and that the moment the child saw him she
strove to get to him, and hugged him in the fondest way,
which she certainly would not have done, had he been the
cause of the dreadful torture she was enduring. Unfortu-
nately the inquest upon the child was taken before a Coroner
who was of the medical, and not of the legal profession,
and who admitted these expressions of the child in evidence,
which the Court would be aware a lawyer would not have
done. The consequence of the admission of this illegal
evidence was, that a verdict of " Wilful murder"
was returned, and the man was committed under
the Coroner's warrant to Warwick Gaol, - to take his
trial. At the last assizes an application was made by the
prosecution to put off the trial, on the ground that the two
persons he had alluded to who first discover«l the fire, were
not present, and their evidence was essential. They, in fact,
were persons of bad character—the police had been after
them for some crime or other, and they had absconded. The
prisoner had applied to the Court that the depositions of these
witnesses should be read, in order that the Court might be
satisfied there was no sufficient evidence against him, and so
authorise him to go at large on bail until the absconding
witnesses were brought forward; but Mr. Baron Gurney
hesitated about this, on the ground that he could not recog-
nize consents in criminal cases. Before the witnesses went
up to the grand jury the solicitor to the prosecution had
very propel ly warned them that they must not repeat to that
tribunal the illegal evidence which the Coroner had so im-
properly admitted before his jury.
Mr. Justice WIGIITMAN—Then the prisoner is arraigned
on a true bill as well as on the Coroner's warrant.

Mr. MILLER—Yes, my Lord ; but I have affidavits to prove
that, though warned not to do so, the witnesses did give the
same illegal evidence before the grand jury that they had
previously given before the Coroner's Court.
Mr. Justice WIGIITMAN—How can you properly know
what passed before the grand jury ?
Mr. MILLER—The affidavits of the witnesses are now in
my hand.
Mr. Justice WIGHTMAN—Had the prisoner been kept in
custody simply on the Coroner's warrant, my course would
have been pretty clear, but when he is detained by reason of
a true bill found by the grand jury, the case takes a very
different aspect. Can you give me a case in point ?
Mr. MILLER would endeavour to do so.

Mr. Justice WIGHTMAN—I will take time to consider the
matter, and to mention it to Mr. Baron Gurney. But you
must be prepared with a case in point when the subject is
again brought before the Court.

EXCHEQUER COURT-THIS DAY

(Sittings in Banco.)
The Court took the special paper to-day.
THE QUEEN V. EMANUEL SCOTT AND OTHERS.
Mr. EItLE applied for a rule to show cause why a fine of
5,000/., and some smaller fines, which the Court of Queen's
Bench had imposed upon the defendantS, who are railway
engineers, belonging to the Leeds and Manchester Railway,
for the purpose of compelling them to widen and improve a
parish road over which the railway passed, should not be en-
, tbrced, and why further proceedings in the matter should be
• respited. The road was at first only 18 feet wide, and the
parish authorities required that it should be made 30 feet wide.
Colonel Pasley had pointed out how the improvement could
be effected, and the defendants forthwith set about the matter
and completed the requisite improvement, and as the fines
had been only nominally imposed, in order to compel the de-
fendants to widen the road forthwith, it was now sought to
have the parties relieved from any further process.
Baron ALDERSON said that it was necessary to show that
the public were satisfied with the alterations made in the
road. It might so happen—though he did not mean to say it
was so in this case—that both plaintiffs and defendants
might be satisfied with what had been done, while the public
convenience might not have been consulted in the matter.
It was therefore necessary for the defendants either to get
an affidavit from two resident magistrates, or from Colonel
Pasley, to the effect that the public convenience had been at-
tended to in the nicking of the improvements.
Mr. EnLE—Your Lordship could grant a rule nisi, to be
made absolute on our procuring such au affidavit as your
Lordship suggests.
Baron ALDERSON—Yes, you can have a rule nisi, under-
taking to get such an affidavit.
Rule nisi granted accordingly.
The other cases that came before the Court up to the time
of our going to press, were merely arguments on demurrer,
involving only questions of law.