The Sun.
London, England, 1827-11-24 00:00:00

CRIMINAL INFORMATION.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAi, moved' for a rule to
show cause why a criminal information should not
be filed against William Arundel' Harris Arundel],
Esq., of Lifton-park, in Devonshire, and a Magistrate
of that county. It was stated in the affidavits, upon
which lie moved, that Mr. Arundell resided near
Lifton, and that there were two or three per-
sons in that village against whom he had
declared a determined hostility. On the 6th of
September last, a man of the name of Thomas
Emery, a carter, and in a small way of business, was
employed in delivering a cart-load of barley at the
premises of Mr. Robert. Palmer, a maltster, in the
village of Lifton. Mr. Palmer's malt-house is oppo-
site the Bell Inn; of which he is the proprietor.—
As soon as- he had delivered the barley, Emery
drove his cart to the other side of the road, and
placed it close up to the-wall of the stable-yard be-
longing to the Bell Inn, intending to let it remain
there till he had got back the sacks in which the
barley was delivered. Plenty of room was left be-
tween his cart and the malthouse ; and though the
road was none- of the widest, nine feet, according to
admeasurement, had been left clear for the passage
of carts and waggons. Whilst Emery was thus em-
ployed, Mr. Arundell came riding past in his gig,
and observing the cart standing in the highway,
threatened to ,fine Emery, the driver of it, lOs.--
Emery said to Mr. Arundell, " I hope, Sir, that
you will not; I am but a poor man and cannot af-
ford'to pay it." Mr. Arundel] told him in reply,
that-fine him he would.' Mr. Palmer, who came up
while this conversation was going on, addressed Mr.
Arundell on behalf of the carter, saying, " I hope
you will not inflict this fine upon him, he is a poor
,man, and has a large family." Mr. Artindell replied,
" I don't care, I shall fine him ; he has no business
to be standing with his cart in the King's highway."
Mr. Palmer rejoined that the man's cart was only
standing there till his sacks were re-delivered, and
asked Mr. Arundel' if the law did not allow a man
to stand with his cart a reasonable time in the street,
in order to load and unlirad it. Mr. Arundell then
said to Mr. Palmer, " I am not to be taught law by
you, Sir, I had only fined him 105.,—1 shall now
fine him 205.; and unless he pays it immediately, I
shall vommit him to the House of Correction."—
Emery then joined in the conversation, and
said that he was a poor man, who did not
live in that village, and that he had not money
with, him to pay such a fine. Whereupon
Mr. Arundell ordered the landlord of the Bell to
send for a constable to take Emery into custody-.
The constable not being then to be found, Mr.
Arundell gave Emery into the custody of a man
named Benjamin Chubb, and ordered him, if the
fine was not paid by three o'clock, to bring Emery
to Lifton Park, when he would commit him to pri-
son. He must now state to their Lordships, that
Palmer, who was a very respectable man and the
owner of the Bell Inn, at Lifton, and of another inn
at another place, was so surprised at this transaction
that he deter Mined to go to Launceston, to consult
his attorney upon it. On his road there, he met
his'attorney, and returned with him to Lifton. As
they, were standing together at the door of the Bell
Inn, Mr. Arundell came driving back, and on seeing
Palmer and a gentleman talking with him, asked
him whether he had been at Launceston to consult
his attorney whether he could fine the man. Mr.
Palmer said, "Yes, I have :" on which Mr. Arun-
dell again ordered Chubb to bring up Emery at
three o'clock to Lifton Park. Accordingly, at
three o'clock, Emery was taken to the house of this
magistrate. The magistrate asked him if he was
prepared to pay the fine. Emery replied in the ne-
gative. He said that he had no money with him,
but that if he was allowed to return to his house,
which was at some distance, he could get the mo-
ney, and would pay the fine. Mr. Arundell hereupon
said, " I'll give you to five o'clock to pay the money,
and if it is not paid by that time, I will commit you
to the tread-mill for a month." He then ordered
the constable to carry Emery back to the village.
On his arrival there, the annunciation of the man-
ner in which he had bioeu treated caused a con-
siderable sensation, and several of the villagers,
among whom were two persons of the names of
Aldridge and Kennel, assembled together to discuss
it. At that time Emery had been in the custody of
Chubb for nearly the whole day, and had had no
meat at five o'clock. Mr. Palmer mentioned this
to_ t,,,,h!,,ect04„n iylloualtlohwe
jths
osi.
to-n.orrow, or, if ha does not, I will." The con-
stable, however, refused to let 'F•- '''' °-
then turned upon Chubb said, " Pray, have you
got a warrant to detain this man ?" Chubb said,
" No, I have not," Then said Aldridge' " I do not
knew that the man is bound to go with you, and if
I was in his situation, I would not." Emery, how-
ever, was of opinion that he ought to go with the
constable, and accordingly consented to be taken
again to Lifton. As he was on the road there, he
repented of his determination, and told Chubb that
unless he produced his warrant, he would not go
NwV iht him
oh
did. n ao t
s e
d Emery
to
o detain t en left
ime
‘Cv
ehulabtb,
o
the village, got his cart and horses, and returned
home. Chubb took the number of his cart, but
made no further opposition to his departure. At
12 o'clock the next day, being the 7th of Septem_i
ber, Emery went to Lifton-park,
.and on being ad-
mitted to Mr. Arundell, told him that he was come
to pay the fine impdsed upon him the day before.
Mr. Arundell then said, " You must now pay 20s. :
10s. for the original fine, and 10s. more for the ex-
pense of my issuing warrants to the constables
from whom you ran away, to take you up."
After a short conversation Emery paid the
money. Mr. Arundell then said to Emery, " Did
you not see Mr. Palmer shake his fist at me yes-
terday, whilst he was 'standing before the Bell
Inn?" Emery did-not see any such thing. Mr. Arun-
dell then asked him whether he knew who the
parties wire standing before the Bell inn ? Emery
gave him their names. He took them down upon
paper, wrote a few lines, and then asked Emery to
make. his mark underneath what he had written.—
Emery did so, but without having any oath tender-
ed to him. On the 10th of September, Aldridge,
Palmer, and a roan of the name of Keller, were all
summoned to appear before Mr. Arundel', to answer

Lord TENTERDEN —lf this should be answered,
Mr. Attorney—
. Mr. Justice BAYLEY—You have mentioned names,
Mr. Attorney, and, as you well know, all this will
go forth to the world.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL stated, that there were
parts of his affidavit which could not be answered,
and to which no contradiction could be given. After
Mr. Arundell had sent Mr. Palmer from his house
to Exeter Castle, his heart misgave him. He sent
a constable to bring Mr. Palmer back; and when he
got him back, made him enter into recognizances,
which he ,had by him ready written, to keep the
peace towards himself and the rest of his, Majesty's
subjects for the space of the, next twelve months.
The sessions at which these persons were bound
over to appear commenced on the 16th of October,
and as they had had notice of the indictments to be
preferred against them twenty days previous to their
commencement, those indictments must necessarily
come on then for trial. They had two witnesses of
the name of Hurd and Snell, who had witnessed the
whole transaction for which they were to be indict-,
ed. On the night of the 15th of October, Mr.
Arundell became acquainted with the fact that those
two persons were subpoenaed as witnesses for the
defence. He sent' a constable with a summons to
them to appear forthwith at his house, not on any
subject of charge, nor for the purposes of public
examination. When the constable first went to them,
they told him, they could not attend on Mr. Arun-
dell, as they were going off early the next morning
to the sessions. The.constable told them, that they
must not think of going to Exeter without first go-
ing with him to. see Mr. Arundell. They accord-
ingly went with the constable to Lifton-park. When
they got there, Mr. Arundell took out his papers,
and examined them minutely both as to the details
and as to the tendency, of the testimony which they
were going to give. He then told them that Emery
had sworn that an assault had been committed upon
him by Palmer, and that he had seen Palmer lift up
his fist and shake it at him. But this was not all,
he likewise told them that if any person swore dif-
ferently to Emery, he would have them indicted for
• perjury. The next day these men' left Lifton and
went to Exeter, which is about 35 miles from that
place. A bill was preferred against' Palmer and
thrown oat. He had affidavits, in which it was
sworn that some time before the occurrence of this
transaction, Mr. Arundel' had displayed a determin-
ed spirit of hostility towards Aldridge and Palmer.
One of his affidavits contained part of a copy of a
letter written by Mr. Arundell, in which he spoke
of his aversion to the family of Aldridge, and of hii
determination to drive them out of his village. In
another affidavit it was sworn that he had publicly
declared that he would get the licence of the Bell
Inn refused to Mr. Palmer, at the first meeting of
the Magistrates, and also that of the other public-
house of which that gentleman was the proprietor.
The COURT, granted a rule to show cause.
LICENSING MAGISTRATES.

Mr. BROUGHAM moved for a rule to show cause
why a criminal information should not be filed against
John Crabb, Esq. and Francis Brooksby, clerk, two
magistrates of the county of Essex, at the instance
and on the affidavit of William Mayhew, a wine-
merchant in the city of London, and assignee in a
commission of bankruptcy issued in June last, against
John Aldborough, a publican and licensed victualler
at Chelmsford, in the county of Essex. Mr. May-
hew was a creditor of Aldborough's estate to the-
amoUnt of 700/.,' and had paid 5001. principal and
interest, to have a mortgage on the house of the
bankrupt transferred to him from John Archer, who,
though he had not made a legal assignment of it,
had given him (Mayhew) an equitable right in it by
ihanding over the necessary deeds. Having obtained
this transfer, Mr. Mayhew applied to the magistrafes
of Essex for a licence for the house, intending, as it
was estimated at 6,000/. or 7,0001., to bring it to
immediate sale for the benefit of the general body of
creditors of the bankrupt. The application which he
made was opposed by a person of the name of Archer,
who, it was sworn, had formerly been keeper of the
gaol at Chelmsford, and who now practised in that
town as a conveyancer. Archer was likewise clerk to
thdtwo magistrates against whom this motion was par-
ticularly directed. Mr. Mayhew urged his application
before those two Magistrates, who alone, of all their
body, took a part in the licensing business,—their col-
leagues in the magistracy merely attending pro
forma on the heensing-day. He was supported in
it by two other Magistrates, Mr. Maclaghlen and
Colonel Branastone, whO urged that there was a
t
-11--elicenc—e to that which had been made by. Archer
on behalfif the
olifceanepeewrseorne
given
nd
to Bacon;mayteawn, as dthat
assigneewas
that
of the bankrupt who had formerly held it, it would
always be under the control of the Commissioners,
—whereas if it were given to Bacon, and he refused
to obey --whereas,
orders, they would have no power
over him, and he might rapidly depreciate the value
for the premises. Mr. Maclaghlan likewise urged
that if there was any doubt in law as to which
of the parties ought to have the licence, the
Magistrates had better take the opinion of Counsel
upon it. Mr. Mayhew swore in his affidavit,
that Mr. Brooksby, on this proposition being made
to him, said, " I want no law nor advice of Counsel
on the subject. My mind is made up. My father
used to say that Magistrates had nothing whatever
to do with law." [A loud laugh in Court, in which
Mr. Brougham joined, observing, that this certainly
was a very curious dictum.] " The less," continued
this clerical magistrate, " the less they have to do
with law the better. We, are not met here to ad-
minister law, but to act as justices of the peace.
Give me the papers—l'll cut the Gordon (meaning
the Gordian) knot. I'll sign the papers for. Aicher,"
meaning, n o doubt, Bacon, Archer's nominee, and
. acting, as was known voters did in other places,
who, when they did not know the name of the can-
didates for their suffrages, said they voted for my Lord
whose nominees they were. Mr. Mayhew• swore
tthe
et
particulars
tel
wasu arthse
nmfortehactonefiodnevnert otfin his
as ecohlelec madetion o a
f
distinct memorandum of them the morning after it
took place. Mr. Mayhew said, that he then, repre-
sented to the magistratesthat many customers of
s a or
the house had informed him that they should not be
able to use it again, if there was any longer delay in

the grantipg ottke h ' Hii,observation led to
a diacuagcka 4:11111r. Brooksby
on the oli,et\siclei7.lt9' :find Colonel.
Bramstoie on , as the two latter
gentlemen did no interfere actively,
the licence iMie y t liten to Archer, and
peremptorily refused toMr. ayhew. The house was
shortly afterwards put up to sale, and owing to the
want of the licence, was bought in at 4,4801., being
far below the value previously set upon it. He
must now inform their Lordships, that besides the
mortgage paid off to Archer, Archer had a claim of
1,0001. upon the bankrupt's estate. Mayhew had a
mortgage of 1,000/. upon the house, and another
person of the name of Baker hid also a mortgage
of 1,5001. upon it. Now, Baker had authorized
MayheW.to state to the magistrates, that he was
anxious to have the lieence transferred to Mayhsw
118 assignee of the bankrupt's estate ; so that their
Lordships would see that Mayhew stood before the
magistrates as the represeatatire if claimants for
3,000/., and Archer as the representative of only one
claimant, for 1;0001. The licence having besrimade
out to Archer's clerk, Bacon, Colonel; Brimstone
observed flitthCy had only granted the licenee to
him, to protect :their clerk, Archer.
Lord TESrrinDiN=Be tio good as to inform us
where the corruption in this eastlies. '
Mr. BROUGHAM was just coming, in the course of
his observations, to that very point. Colonel Brarn-
stone, he had told their Lordships, had said that
the licence was 'granted to Bacon to protect their
clerk, Archer. Mr. Crabb said, " Exactly so, that
was our object." Now he contended that the ad-
mission then made by Mr. Crabb was proof Of a
corrupt and sinister inducement acting on the mind
of himself and his colleUßui.
Lord TENTtRDEN—They had to Select between
two persons, and of course "they must prefer one or
the other of them.
Mr. BROUGHAM said that the affidavits proved
beyond all dispute that Mr. Crabb and Mr. Brooksby
acted upon all occasions under the` nauence and di-
rection of Archer; and that thefhad'undaty and un-
fairly granted the licence to 'him.

Mr. Justice B 4,YLEY-If they' thought that Ar-
cher could carry on the business, what objection
could there be togranting the license to him ?
Mr. BROUGHAM said that Archer could not be
put into possession of the premises. Mayhew, as
assignee under the commission, was in possession of
them. Their refusal to give him the licence com-
pelled him to put up the house to sale without it.
Bacon, who got the licence, had refused to accede
to certain terms proposed by the commissioners, and
therefore was not allowed to enter ihto-possession of
the premises. The affidavits of Mayhew, who, he
ought to observe, appeared this
,day in Court on
behalf of the creditors of. the bankrupt, proceeded to
state that these two Magistrates bad signed the cer-
tificate, which it was necessary that *con should
have, before he could be• entitled to apply to the li-
censing Magistrates, or, in other words, to them-
selves, for the grant of a licence. Mayhew likewise
swore that he verily believed that these Magistrates
did not refuse him the licence in the due and fair•?'
and impartial discharge of their duty, but that they
signed it 'corruptly, and therefore illegally, to throw
it into the hands of their own clerk, Archer. The .
consequence of their corrupt conduct in this matter
had been exceedingly disastrous tothe creditors. If
they had :got the licence 2,6061. or
.8,0001. - ;
have been saved to the creditors, who had now bulii`".
little chance of recovering it. The refusal of the '
cence to Mayhew had caused the house to remain f
untenanted, and to drive the customers of it to other r.
places of entertainment. He would not apply to the,
Court for a writ of mandamus in this case, because
he. only knew of one instance, in the whole of his
experience in that Court, in which the rule for a
mandamus had been made absolute, owing to the
strong proof which the Court called upon the appli•-
cants to produce of corrupt motives acting on the
mind of Magistrates..
Mr. Justice ilsiturr.—lf the assignee had suf-
fered Bacon to go in,thehouse would have remained
open. It appears to me 'that it was not with such
a view as you state that the licence to him was
granted.
Lord TENTERnEN.--Take a rule to show cause,
Mr. Brougham ; but take it at your peril. You are
aware of the consequences of failing in such proce-
dures against magistrates.
Mr. BaotrottAnt.-=-oh, my Lord, I am perfectly
aware of that, arid will still take a rule. • set
MAYOR OF STAFFORD.
On the motion of Mr. CAMPBELL, a rule was
granted to show cause why 'an information, in the
nature of a quo warrant°' should not he filed against
Francis Hughes, Esq., for exercising the office of .
Mayor of Stafford, without being properly elected.
thereto.—Rule granted.
CRIMINAL 'INFORMATION. .
Mr. FRENCH, who' bad been waiting in Court •
during the, greater part of the day, being.ealled upon
in turn to move, rose and said, "I rise with the
same wounded feelings,' and with the same trem-
bling agitation, which I felt when I intruded myself
yesterday on the notice of the Court. I wish to
move for a rule to Bhp* cause why a criminal infor-
mation should nothe filed,agaHnst a person called J. '
Barry and Co. 3,.,Bride-lane, Fleet-street, London;
and against J. Robins and Co., Ivlr lane, Paternos-
ter-row, London.
Mr.justice.BAYLEv.—You can't go against Co.,
Mr. French.--(A laugh.)
Mr. #IIENCII said, .that it was not a newspaper,
but a weekly publication, that had is this instance
sought to injure him. There was an Aci of Parlia-
ment which enjoined that the names of the printers
and publishers of these weekly papers should be
regularly registered at Somerset-house. He had
been at Somerset-house, and had discovered that
this .paper had not been registered there pursuant to
the terms of the Act. He was thus without any
means of obtaining the Christian names of the parties
who had printed 'and 'published the most atrocious
libels against him. Under such circumstances, surely
he might proceed against them under, the title by
which they had designated themselves' to the
Lord TENTERDEN.—There must be plenty of per-
sons who know their names if you will only apply for
them.
eu Tom get at them, to enable us to afford
.
must .
Mr. FRENCH—I have inquired of various pormms
in their neighbourhood, but I learn one name on
2CAVEPVngirnistisnac"-e - natoes and
dress. yo'o re-

Mr. FRENCH—He gives his name as J. on the
JayT sR
Ename i
an
yFbr
be
nseoe:
but it is not onv
booLko,radndTEN
in England.
Mr. FRENCH—How then am I to proceed, my
Lord, to vindicate myself from these libels
Lord TENTERDEN—YOU must condescend to ask
for redress on the same conditions with the other
suitors of the Court.
Mr. FRENCH.—May I mention this matter again
to-morrow?
Lord TENTERDEN—At any tine you please, only
you must come with proper materials:
Mr. FRENCH—I asked the question, my Lord,
because I thought your Lordships did not like to re-
ceive motions for criminal inforrnatiosis so near the
close of the term.
Mr. Justice BAYLEY—You must not apply any
more for a rule against J. and Co.
Mr. FRENCH—Your Lordships shall hear no reore
of .1. and Co., I promise you.
The Court broke up at half-past five o'clock.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, 'Nov. 23.
lIMLIS V. SCHMEACK AND TROIILit.
The further arguments in (11S casts Which wa,
not concluded when we went to press yesterday, Were
postponed till td-morrow.

PREROGATIVE COURT, Nov. ts.
JAMESON T. COOK AND OTHER%
This was a suit to decide the validity of an al-
!edged codicil to the will of Mrs. Lydia Ellison,. of
York. The circumstances of the case .re rather
singruhtr. The testatrix, a Woman of somewhat ee-

centric character, died at York in May, l 82(. Dui -
ing the- confusion. occasioned by that occurrence,
seversd ntrangers got admission into the house, and
some wearing apparel, as well as a few sovereigns,
was missed, together with a curious old pocket.
book, in which the testatrix kept her private papers,
and which she always carried about with her. Sus
picion fell upon the nurse. The testatrix had exe-
cuted a.will in 1796 ; the property she left was con
siderable, the peisonalty amounting to 8,0001. Soinv
months after her death, her executor, Mr. Jameson,
received a letter, with the London post-mail, of
which as a literary curiosity, an exact copy is sub-
joined.:----" Sir, i am the person who from tierce)
take the two sovreins i found at Mrs. Ellison's house,
also thipaper, but cannot get no rest; the sovrins
is
gone, and i hope you'll forgive that, but this paper
sentalong way of,because she durst give it you for fear.
Hoppin all is right, and no person to take harm, i
shall hear on it from your humble servant, I shall
never do
.so no more, don't tell Mrs. Robinson.—
.September 3,182 G." In this letter was enclosed
a scrap . of dirty paper, in which was written, in
pencil, the codicil now propounded, which hid ori-
ginally commenced as a letter to the confidential so-
licitor
.of .• the .testatrix :—" Mr. Wetherby—Sir."
This had been erased, and the deceased declared
that she left ker. hOuse at York, and her money in
the funds, between Mrs. Cook, of Great liaddow ;
Mr. Edward Ball, of Stamford-street, London ; Mrs.
Watkinson, cf Burwell ; Mrs. Warn, Mrs. Nunn
(if living). The paper was dated " York, August 3,
1824."
The COURT, , after hearing the arguments of no
less than sixl earned advocates engaged in the cause,
rejected the paper, which it held to be impossible
to regard as a testamentary document, and decreed
probate to the will of 1796.

SMITH V. BLAKE.
Dr. DODSON moved the Court on behalf of Ge-
neral Robert Lindley Blake, the defendant in this
suit, to rescind the conclusion of the cause, and to
admit his allegation. The defendant was a legatee
to the amount of 6000/. under a will of the late dow-
ager Lady Blake, who died the 13th of March last,
leaving property to the amount of 16,000/. General
Blake sought to set aside this will, propounded by
the Rev. Hugh Smith, the executor, in favour of a
former will, which cause was to come on to-day.
The I earned Counsel read an affidavit from General
Blake in support of the application.
Dr. LlifilllNGTOti opposed the motion.
Sir J. NICHOLL said that it would be contrary to
justice, aud a great oppression to the other party,
to comply with this motion ; he must reject it, and
proceed w pronounce sentence in the cause. The
Learned Judge saw no reason to doubt the validity
of the will propounded, and pronounced for it ac-
cordingly. -