The Sun.
London, England, 1821-10-24 00:00:00

STAGE COACHES.

ACCIDENTS.—An inquisition was held at the
Coach and Horses, Isleworth, before THOMAS
STIRLING, Esq. on the body of Mrs. M. 'Jot,-
KI:VS of Isle worth, a widow lady, who was killed
by the upsettting oT the Isleworth Stage, on
Thursday morning last. The first witness
examined was the coachman who drove the
coach from _London to Isleworth on the morning
the accident happened. He stated that he
took up the deceased in London, between seven
and eight o'clock on Thursday morning. About
nine the coach was stopped by him opposite the
Catholic chapel, Isleworth, for the purpose of
letting a female passenger out of the coach. He
opened the door, and at that instant the horses
set off. The lady drew back into the coach
again, and he ran as fast as he could to endeavour
to stop the horses,ibut he could not overtake
them. The horses galloped near to the side of
the road, and the coach came in contact with a
post. The shock was so great that the coach
was overturned in an instant, and the deceased
fell upon her head at some distance from the
coach. Her head was much injured. In cross-
examination this witness admitted that there
was no person at the horses' heads at •the time
he opened the coach door to let the lady out.—
There was also another female besides the de-
ceased injured by the accident. She kept her
bed the day the accident occurred ; but is likely
to do well. Her illness was produced more by

fright than any thing else.—This evidence was
corroborated by several other witnesses, and the
Jury returned a verdict—" Accidentally killed
by the overturning of a stage coach."
On Friday last an Inquisition was held before
the Coroner ,for Middlesex and a respectable
Jury,at the King's Arms, Hounslow, on the body
of a youth named William Lynch, residing at
Hounslow, who was killed in the following man-
ner:—The Englefield-green Stage-coach was
passing through Hounslow, on Tuesday se'nnight,
and the horses were going at a sharp trot, when
the deceased, William Lynch, very imprudently
got up behind the coach, with the intent,
no doubt, of riding a short distance. He
had not, however, gone far, when one of
his feet unfortunately slipped, and he fell
against one of the wheels of the coach ; his
apparel became entangled in it, and his body was
drawn, by the velocity of the wheels' motion,
against the spokes, and between' the wheels and
the body of the coach. He screamed for assis-
tance the moment his foot slipped, but in a few
seconds he was-senseless ; his breast bone was
broken and beaten in, his body was crushed
nearly flat, and his limbs were dreadfully lace-
rated and fractured by the turning of the wheels.
The boy was taken from the coach wheels a
breathless corpse. He had left school a short
time previous to the accident. Verdict—" Ac-
cidentally killed."

COMMITMENT OF WITNESSES.—Mr. Baron GRA-
HAM, in his charge to the Grand Jury, at the last
assizes for Somersetshire, said, that it was to him
always a painful duty' to say any thing which
might appear like casting an imputation upon the
committing Magistrate ; but there was a commit-
tal which he could not pass over without the ex-
pression of his strongest disapprobation ; he al-
luded to that of John Graddon, only eleven
years of age, who had been sent to gaol for want
of sureties, to give evidence against a man who
had been committed on a charge of felony. lie
had not expected to meet with such an instance
in this county, in the present enlightened age :
it resembled the barbarous practice of days long
since gone by. The Jury might take the law of
commitment of witnesses from him. When
witnesses had given their depositions, it was
the duty of Magistrates to bind them over
to appear at the Assizes or Sessions, to give
evidence against the prisoner ; and perhaps,
in some cases, they were justified in requir-
ing sureties from the witnesses, as in the case
of a responsible person refusing or wishing
to evade attending—then the Magistrate might
say to the unwilling witness, " If you do not
enter into recognizance to appear, will commit
you." But if a poor man or woman, not resi-
dent at or near the place, should be a necessary
witness, it was too much to require sureties, and
in default thereof to commit them ; the Magis-
trate's duty was to bind them over to appear on
their own recognizance, and not to require in--
possibilities. But for an innocent child, only
eleven years old, without friends, to be sent
to gaol for three months, because he could
not obtain two responsible persons to be bound
for his appearance to give evidence, was
most unjustifiable ; it was inflicting upon him,
considering his tender age, by an imprison-
ment of three summer months, a greater punish-
ment than the culprit himself would, if convicted,
receive by one even much longer protracted. In
Italy, it was true, this practice prevailed ; but
what was the consequence ? Why, when assas-
sination, and the most atrocious crimes were
openly committed in their streets, persons instead
of. preventing, or appearing against criminals, ran
away and hid themselves, because, in that coun-
try, the witness were sent to prison to secure their
attendance at the trials. Ile could not refrain
from making these strong animadversions on this
practice, which, he trusted, would never again
occur.—(Chester Courant, Oct. .3.)

The Members of the 'Caledonian Hunt, at their
meeting at Ayr, on the I`2th inst. generously re-
solved to distribute 55 guineas amongst the poor
of that and the neighbouring parishes.

L W INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, OCT. 23.

Their Lordships sat this mornri►s; 2n Banco,
and heard ar;u►rtents in special eas►;s. •The bu-
siness had no public interest. Mr. Justice BA Y-
LEY was not ii► Court. ,

LORD MAYOR'S COURT, GUILDHALL, OCT. 23.
CURIOUS AND IMPORTANT CASE AND DECISION. •

A question of some importance relative to the adinisSibility
of bail came on for decision in the Mayor's Court today, be-
fore Newman Knowlys, Esq., •he Common Serjeant, in the
case of Anthony Harding and others, plaintiffs, against Peter
Augustus Heyliger, defendant, and Sarah Alchorne, gar-
nishee.

Mrs. Heyliger, the wife of Capt. Heyliger, the defendant, a
gentleman of fortune and great respectability, 1411 obtained from
several tradesmen a variety of goods, consisting of wearing ap-
parel, books, household furniture, &c., which had been sent to
Mrs. Alchorne, a respectable packer in the city, to be packed up
in order to their being forwarded to Mrs. Heyliger, then at St.
Omer's, in France. Against these goods, which, from their
quantity, were contained in no less than 56 packages, several fo-
reign attachments were issued while in the hands of Mrs. Al-
chorne, the garnishee, and among others by the plaintiffs,
Messrs. Harding and Co., of Pall-mull, for a claim of 2521. due
to them. Messrs. Holditch, coachmakers, of Long-acre, whose
attachment was the last issued of eight or nine, accidentelly got
information as to the correct Christian name of Capt. II eyliger,and
filed a. second attachment in the name of Peter Augustus, all the
other attachments describing the defendant as Peter Heyliger
only. By this piece of management, Messrs. Holditch 's at-
tachment, from being the last, became the first ' and from the
value of the property. attached, there apt.e.ared every probabi-
lity Of their recovering the whole of their debt. • The garnishee,
however, was advised to try.the case with them, upon the ground
that the goods were not delivered tQlier in the name or as the
property of Capt. Heyliger. On the trial in the Mayor's Court
the Jury found a veraict for the validity of the attachment,
thereby deciding the property to be the defendant's. Notwith-
standing this decision, the garnishee persisted in going to trial
upon the same point on every other attachthent against the goods,
to the -aniount of eight or nine, the verdict in each case be-
ing the same as in the first. Messrs. Holditch now looked
upon themselves as secure from loss, when the garnishee put
in bail to their attachment, and the goods, not without suspi-
cion of some private arrangement between her and the plain-
tiffs, Messrs. Harding and Co., who had the second attach-
ment, were publicly sold by auction at Mr. Murrell's room in
Skinner-street, an Augu-st last. Though the sale purported,
according to the printed catalogue, to take place under an at-
tachment, no precept of appraisement, it appears, had been re-
turned ; and the property, which, according to Mrs.i Heyliger's
statement, had been recently purchased at an amount of nearly
2,0001., produced at the sale between .5001. and 6001. only :
among other articles, worked cambric handkerchiefs, which
had been invoiced to her at three guineas each, sold at the sale
for no more than 9s. a piece.
Capt. HeYliger is, it seems, at the Island of St. Croix ; but
Messrs. Holditch seeing the property thus sacrificed, and them-
selves thrown out, gave information to Mrs. Heyliger, at St.
Omer's,_ who immediately furnished them with instructions to
put in bail on behalf of the defendant, to all the attachments
that had been issue.: against the property. As the bail in these
Cases must be Freemen of London, Messrs. Holditch applied
to their Iron Merchants, Messrs. Daly and Kipling, of Upper
Thames-street, and through them procured as bail a Mr. Quint,
of Bush-lane, and a Mr. Bickennan, of Tower Royal. When
the bail appeared before the Lord Mayor at the Mansion House
to justify, Mr. Andrews, .as Counsel for the present plaintiffs,
and Messrs." Beynell and Ogle, Attornies for the garnishee,
opposed the accepting of them, pot on account of their insuffi-
ciency, their solvency being undoubted, but upon the ground
that they had not been applied to by the defendant to become
his bail; Mr. Andrews contending that, under such circum.:
stances, the bail could not, in conformity with the practice of
the superior .Courts, be received, and the Lord Mayor not
choosing to take upon.himself to decide so important a question,
the case was referred to the next sitting of the Court, which
took place at Guildhall to-day.
Mr. NouToar, as Counsel for the defendant, now tendered
the above-mentioned bail.

Mr. BOLLAN'D, upon the part of the plaintiffs, put in the
affidavit- of Mr. Alsop, one of the partners In the house, which
stated, that he had, written to Captain Heyliger, at St. Croix,
giving him information of the whole transaction ; and although
sufficient time had elapsed, no answer or instructions whatever
had been received from him, nor from Mrs. Heyliger, nor their
son, to both of whom lie had likewise given notice : and he
verily believed the bail now tendered had not in any way been
applied t by te dendant or autorized bY him.
The bail were then called, , and exhamined by Mr. Bor,Laxn;
and in answer to the questions put to them, stated that they had
not been applied to to become bail either by Capt..Hevliger or
by Mrs. Alchorne, the garnishee; that Mr. Kipling,of Thanies-
street, had procured them to be bail as the friend of the defend-
ant, and had undertook to bear them harmless. They bad been
introduced to Mrs. Ilcyliger, since her return from the conti-
nent, by Mr. Kipling's brother, as the persons who had, as he
said, kindly undertaken to become bail in the business.
Front thiS examination Mr. BOLLARD contended that, ac-.
cording to the uniform practice in the superior courts, this bail
could not be accepted, as it was now in proof that they had had
no communication whatever with the defendant, and conse-
quently did not offer themselves to become securities at his in-
stance or by his authority.
Mr. NORTON urged the peculiar nature of the foreign at-
tachinent as taking the question out of the reasoning yf the rule
of the superior courts. In the superior courts the defendant
had always personal notice of every suit against him, either by
arrest or service of the copy of the writ, and consequently' can
communicate with his intended bail ; the offering of bail, there-
fore, with whom the defendant has had no communication, WAS
upon the very face of it objectionable and suspicious. But in
foreign attachments it is necessarily implied, and indeed general-
lyis-the case, that the defendant is out of the kingdom. In
the present instance, the defendant is at St. Croix, and Ins wife
in prison in } ranee. How, then, were they to communicate
with freemen resident in London ? Indeed, had Capt. Heyliger
been upon the spot, he must have employed some such friend
as-31r. Kipling to procure bail to thLse attachments, as, from
his habits and situation, an officer of Dragoons, he was not.

„
likely to have much acquaintance with freemen of London.—
The rule laid down by his learned friend, if strictly acted upon,
would therefore prevent, in most cases, the possibility of giving
bail at all. The rules of the superior courts were not necessarily
binding, especially upon a process that has no similarity- with
any of their proceedings, upon a court of local jurisdiction.—
In this case the bail were authorized by Mrs. Heyliger ; and a
wife, under such circumstances, ought to be considered as the
proper agent of her husband, especially as the greater part of
the property in question consisted of her own wearing apparel ;
and she was ready to swear, if necessary, that she has acted in
the arrangement of her husband's business since his absence,
and that he has a just defence to the action. No injury could
accrue to the plaintiff's by accepting the bail ; they were ac-
knowledged to be solvent to the amount, and the rapid progress
of the proceedings of that court would render them liable for
the payment in a very short space of time, in case of a verdict.
Mr. BOLLAND, in reply, said the acceptance of bail would
place the plaintiffs in a worse situation than they stood at pre- .
sent; inasmuch as they now had their remedy both against the
goods, and also the person of the defendant; whereas, if bail
were taken, they would lose one part of their security, viz., the
goods, and get the personal remedy only..
The COmmON SERGEANT, in gi, ing his judgment, said,
that as the rules of that Court differed from those of the com-
mon law, it was of importance to take care they were not impro-
perly- extended. The Court was therefore bound in its deci-
sions to keep strictly to the custom. By the custom, the de-
fendant and the garuislee were entitled to give bail within the
space of one year and a day ; even after judgment had, and af-
ter the goods had been seized and the appraisement made ; and
the plaintiffs were bound, upon payment of their claim, to re-
store the goods or the value to the defendant. The defendant's
claim to give bail, therefore, was undoubted ; and the only
question was, whether bail was now properly offered. The rule
in the superior Courts was for the purpose of preventing impro-.
per bail, or such as might be put in for the mere purpose of liti-
gation. In this case no objection was made to the sufficiency
of the bail ; and the wife being a party to the transaction, it did
not appear to him that the object was mere litigation. Ilis judg-
ment therefore was, under all the circumstances, that the bail
should be accepted.

THE LORI) MAYOR AND CORPORATION OF THECIT-Y

OF LONDON V. .sr M. BUTTERWORTH.

This was an action brought by the Corporation of the City of
London against the defendant, who is a contractor and master-
scavenger, to the parish of Ald gate, and an extensive district in
the City, to recover the sum of 81. 14s. for tolls charged to be
due to the plaintiffs.
Mr. BoLLAND and Mr. .ARARIS were for the plaintiffs;
Mr. NORTON and Mr. BARNAItD for the defence.
It appeared that the City have a toll at Bishopsgatc-street,
and other streets entering into the City, where a toll of 2d. is
demanded on each load of goods entering into or returning out

,
of the City, that is not the pre.nerty of a -non-fre?rnan ; a free-
man, .5f the name of Townshend,. had the contract for the col-
lecting of the tiust of the parish of Aldgate, an extensive.
nict under the Control of the Comoli,sioners of Sewers and
Pavements. In Midsummer 1420, th,.! pr,s2nt defendant, who
'was at that time a non-freeman, • soc;:c.:oed to the contract, but
being liable to a toll of 2d. :upon each load.on the numerous
carts which he had daily passing and-:Lpi.sslng, he retained the
name of Townshend upon the'carts fen than half a year
until he had taken out his freedom, which ‘vould protect him.
The fact of the change of oWnership having been discovered,
the Corporation now sought to recover the amount of the tolls
for the half year that the carts had pass4l and repassed under
the name of Townshend.

• - .
Thomas Bushnell, the. City .Comptrolleri who was erigaied
in letting the right of taking the City tolls; deposed, that the
right of taking the prescriptite toll at diishopsgete was let to
Thomas Smith for three years, at a rental of 3,0004 per ann.
The right was a prescriptive one, and the witness had never
known it contested.

-Thi.Collector of the Tolls for Mr. Smith proved, that from.
June 24, 1820, to January 14 following, the-defendant's carts
passed and repassed constantly each day. He had 21 carts
which passed upon an average six times (men day. The toil on
each load was 2d. From the average taken, it was deemed that
the defendant had evaded, from the 24th June to the 14th of
January,. 1844 tolls.

The Clerk to the Commissioners of Sewers put in the Con-
tract by which the defendant had held the right to collect dust
for more than half a year, which he had collected in the name
of Townshend.

A witness was called, whOproved, that when fie went to make
the demand upon the defendant, on behalf of Mr. smith, the •
former admitted it, and merely objected to the amount.
Mr. Nowrom, lbr the defendant, obl,,cted that the action
}vas not Maintainable in that. Court, as tie Lord Mayor, who
presided and gaze: judgment, was tne..pLintifi, and had ap in-
terest in the case, as had also the Jury,--rilo were bound by. an
xmth to defend what the Corporatiop • cteerned its prieile :z..
The Co i:RT gave it as their opinion,: that this point was de.
•cided before the House of Lords, in .the as of " The Corpo-
- against Mathews," given .in iflr,wri'6 Parliamentary
Reports.'..

Mr. NORTON' submitted that that was a very different case,
inasmuch as there was nothing which might be tried before a
4Tury. He cited other cases, which were posterior—that 'of
" Wood y. the Mayor and Corporation," in Ist ;Sakyll, 397 and',
1269 ; in the Ist Modern, and in the Ist Strange, 639, where
Lord flawkesbury went so far as to say that an Act of Parlia.•
ment which went to make a man a judge in hiS own case would
be null. The objection was argued at great length, but ulti-
mately overruled by the Court. 'rise LeattiedCounsel made two
other objections, namely—that the Lessee ought to have been
the plaintiff; and that sweeping or refuse was not goods, ware,
and merchandise, within' the meaning of the case. - They were
both overruled by the Court. •
The Comstox SERGEANT charged the Jury at considerable
length, that they must. find for the plaintiffs, and the Court
Would reserve the points. put by the Learned Counsel, than they
rnight be.considered in a manner adequate to their importance.
The Jury found a verdict for the plaintiffs-Damages 81. 14s.
subject to the decision of. the Court on the points reserved.

• MIDDLESEX SESSIONS, OCT. 23.
RlOT.—Thomas Mahew, James Draper,.John Smith, wa-
liam Scott, .John Barnes, and, Mary Plumb, were indicted for
a riot on the night of the 10th of September. The defeirdant
John Barnes was not present, having been since the disturb-
ance apprehended as a deserter. On the part of the prosecution,
about half a d )zen watchmen were examined to substantiate the
case against the defendants, and it appeared by their evitlencA''
that -a number of dustmen had assembled between eleven and
twelve o'clock at night, in Bidbury-street, Burton-crescent, tj
celebrate a wedding, and were, according to their own fashion,
ringing their dustmen's bells to the great annoyance of the
whole neighbourhood. The defendant Maliew was a tradcsnlkin
residing in the Old Bailey, but was present on the occasion'
When the watchmen came up, they met with riery
treatment. Some were knocked down, and others recelv,
very violent blows in various parts of their bodies.
female defendant was observed to he peculiarly active e
resisting the watchmen : while they sprung their rattles the
dustmen were ringing their bells, and completely drocrneu
the sound of the rattles. The defendant Scott was heard t°
say that he would knock down the first b•--y watchman that
offered to interrupt them. The defendant Mahew was particu-
larly active in exhorting them to resist the watchmen. He said
to the dustmen, while the watchmen were endeavouring to de
their duty, " D—n their eyes, they are all a parcel of old
crawlers, pitch it into them, and you will do for them all in five
minutes." At another time he was heard to say, when.the
Watchmen were dragging some of the men to the watch-house,
" Oh, poor devils, let them go," and pushed arnong
When the dustnien were in the watch►house Mahew 'addressel
the-mob, saying, " D—n.youreye3,:, break the door opt 0, and
pull down the watch-house ; you-arc no men-if you don't.
There was at that time a great crowd about the watch-house'
and Mahew was exhorting them to interfere on belndl of the
men.

Mr. WALFORO spoke in defence of Malley', and called three
witnesses, who proved that they were present with Ilahew 00
this occasion, and swore that he never uSed*the expression'
puted to him. Illahew, instead of exhorting the people out
the watch-house, went into it, and remained there for 7 or "•
minutes.

The Jury acquitted -31ahew, and found all the other prisoners
guilty. Draper was ordered to be imprisoned for one month,
Smith 14 days, Scott 7 days, and the fe►nale was discharged on
paying a fine of Is.