The Sun.
London, England, 1842-01-13 00:00:00

IN READING GAOL-HABEAS CORPUS.

Mr. JAMES applied for a writ of Habeas Corpus, di-
rected to the Governor of Reading gaol, directing him
to bring up the body of Bernard Cavanagh, a prisoner
in his custody. He made this application on the ground
that the warrant under which Cavanagh had been com-
mitted to Reading gaol was illegal. Cavanagh had
been committed by the Mayor of Reading as a rogue and
vagabond, and sentenced to three months' imprisonment
with hard lahour. It appeared that Cavanagh had gone
down to Reading as a sort of physiological curiosity,
having acquired some celebrity as the fasting man, but
he had never levied any contributions within the mean-
ing of the Act of Parliament, under the provisions of
which he had been committed, which was the Act of
5 George IV., commonly called the Vagrant Act. The
offence set forth in the committal was, that he, Ber-
nard Cavanagh; had gone about and endeavoured
to procure charitable contributions under a false
pretence that he could abstain from food for five years
and three months. Now, his Lordship would see that the
commitment was bad upon the face of it. Cavanagh
had not attempted to collect alms or charitable contri-
butions by any false pretence within the meaning of the
Act. The fact of his having represented that he could
do without food for five years, would rather militate
-against his collecting alms or charitable contributions.
He therefore submitted; first, that Cavannagh had com-
mitted no offence within the meaning of the Act ; and,
next, that if he had committed, any, it was not properly
set forth in the commitment. It was not pretended
that Cavanagh had sought to levy charitable contribu-
tions by stating that he had abstained from food for five
years and three months, but that he had stated he could
abstain from food for five years and three months, in
future, thus rendering it impossible to set forth a dis-
tinct averment that the pretence was false and fraudulent.
Now, in commitments of this nature, much greater pre-
cision was required than in commitments for safe cus-
tody, because it was the only notice the prisoner had
of the charge against him. It was necessary that the
false pretence should be stated with the same precision
as in an indictment, and in an indictment it was always
! necessary to introduce an averment distinctly negativing
the false pretence. Lord Tenterden had drawn the dis-
tinction between commitments of this nature and com-
mitments for safe custody in the case of the King v.
Gourlay, and in the case of the King v. Perrott, it was
distinctly laid down that an indictment charging a person
with obtaining money under false pretence was bad,
if it did not set out the false pretence, and distinctly
negative it. Now, in the present case the false pretence
was set forth in such a manner that it was impossible
to negative it. He therefore submitted that the com-
mitment was bad upon the face of it.
Mr. Justice WILLIAMS would look over the commit-
ment,
and consider it.

His Lordship afterwards sat at Nisi Prius, and dis-
posed of several undefended causes.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Jan. 12.
The Court was occupied the whole morning with
motions, which presented nothing of general interest.

ARCHES' COURT'—Jan. 11.

This being the first day of Hilary Term, the Eccle-
siastical Courts were opened with the usual forms.

HARRISON v. HARRISON.

This was originally a suit for nullity of marriage by
the wife against the husband in the Consistory Court,
against the decision of which an appeal is now entered.
In the course of the proceedings in the Court below a
decree was issued, directing the husband to appear for a
certain purpose.' This decree he disobeyed, and he was
prononnced in contempt ; but the case was still allowed
to go on, the arguments were heard, and judgment was
pronounced in favour of the wife's prayer for nullity.
Against that definitive sentence this appeal is brought
by Mr. Harrison ; but for his wife, it is contended, that
,
a verus contempt " has no right of appeal against a
definitife sentence pronounced during his contumacy in •

an inferior Court. On this point of law a long argument
took place.
The COURT postponed its decision.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
MANSION-HOUSE.

amongst whom were some of those who were at the
A ease of a very alarming kind, in which fourteen
young men were the defendants, came on before Alder-
man Wilson yesterday.
Mr. Church, a baker, residing at No. 12, Cannon-
street, in the City, stated, that at a quarter before six
o'clock on Tuesday evening, ten or twelve
,young men,
bar, walked into his shop, and helped themselves to
as they pleased.
Alderman WILSON—How many have been recog-
nised as having committed this depredation ? Mr.
Church replied that four were identified as having been
bread, and whatever else was within their reach, and
then returned to the street, and divided what they bad
stolen amongst thirty or forty others who were in the
street, and who appeared to be a gang determined to do
in the shop, and as being ringleaders. Many of the
others at the bar visited the shop of a neighbour, and
served him in like manner. The conduct of the pri-
soners was formidable in the extreme.
Alderman WILSON—Was the door of your shop
open at the time ? Mr. Church—lt was.
Alderman Wresote—And bow much do you judge
you lost ? Mr. Church—Perhaps about four shillings'
worth of bread, biscuits, and cakes. The crowd outside,
with whom they divided the bread, were hooting and
hallooing.
The four persons spoken of as the ringleaders here
said that they ate the bread because they were all
hungry, but they denied that 'they had entered the
shop. They were amongst the outside crowd of poor
fellows, and about fifty of them, amongst whom ware
many navigators, had been at Clerkenwell Police-office
requesting relief, which they did not receive. They
had expected some direction there as to the course
which it might be proper for them to pursue, as they
had been refused assistance at the workhouse in that
district,
The policeman who apprehended the four ringleaders
said that they declared it they were not committed to
prison they would repeat the outrage.
Alderman WILSON—Then they made no resistance ?
The policeman—Not the least. There was no dispo-
sition to anything of that kind amongst them.
Mr. Church—Some of the men said that they liked
the seed cakes very much. They did not confine them•
selves to the household bread.
Another policeman, who charged the ten other pri-
soners with having divided amongst them the bread of
another baker, staled, that. having been informed,
while on duty in the neighbourhood, that there was a
mob feeding at the expense of Mr. Cluney, of Cannon-
street, he went to the spot, and found a number of
men eating in the street. He apprehended two who were
pointed out to him as having been in the shop, and
having divided the bread amongst the rest. When he
took the two to the station-house, eight others followed,
and said they were part of the gang.
Alderman WILSON—They made no objection to go
with you ? Witness—Not the slightest. They all
followed me without hesitation. Some of them said
that they had been refused relief at the Union, and
that they bad applied in vain at Clerkenwell workhouse
also. They also said that upon their application to the
Magistrates at Clerkenwell police-office for instructions
what to do in such an emergency, they were told by
those authorities that they must go back from whence
they came, as the Magistrate 3 could do nothing for them.
One of the prisoners, who said his name Ras Gar-
diner, stated that he went with about forty or fifty
others,a be appeared tobe in as destitute a condition as that
in which he was unfortunate)", placed, to the workhouse at
Clerkenwell to ask for some relief. They were told if
they consented to Lava the Workhouse they should have
something ; and alter having waited about two hours
outside, a policeman came to them, and said to them, if
they pleased they might follow him, and state their case
to the Magistrate. They accordingly accompanied the
policeman to the police-oflice at Clerkenwell, and after
having deseribed their destitute condition to the Magis-
trate, were told by the Magistrate to go to the place
from whence they came.
Alderman WILSON--Did you say that you were in a
starving condition ? Gardiner--Yes, we said so, and
lie tell us to go to the place we came from. What
could we do then ? We were obliged to take some
bread.
Alderman WresoN—What brought you into Cannon-
street and Bow-lane, from Clerken well ?
The prisoners made no reply to this question, but
Gardiner said he had no claim upon Clerkenwell, his
parish being at Margate, to which he had not moans
to go.
Alderman WILSON—It is too bad that you should
come into London to commit depredations because you
were refused relief in Clerkenwell.
Several of the prisoners, who looked very much tat-
tered end hungry, here cried out with one voice," It is
hard to starve ~nd perish in the streets."
Alderman Wiesosr—lt appears to me that many of '
you set out with a determination to rob. Every one of
you knows that, independently of the Unions, there is
a House of Refuge for the houseless ; and you all have
parishes to which you can go.
Some of the prisoners declared that they had been at
the Refuge, but they were turned out at seven o'clock
in the morning.
Mr. Hobler said the parishes ought to be compelled
to assist every case of real destitution.

Mr. Jupp, one of the relieving officers of the City of
London Union, stated that he had frequently relieved
many of the prisoners by sending them to the Peckham
hquse, which belonged to that Union.
The prisoners said that they had been turned out of
the Peckham house at seven o'clock in the morning also.
Evans, the street-keeper in the neighbourhood of the
City of London Union, assured the Alderman that, if
the prisoners chose, they might have stopped and
worked in the stone-yard.

The prisoners stated that they were not permitted to
break stones, and remain, although they had shown the
greatest willingness to do any sort of Libour.
Alderman WlLsoN—Well, I shall remand all the
prisoners, in order that inquiries may be made, and that
I may consult with the Lord Mayor as to the propriety
of committing them to Newgate for the robberies they
bare thus daringly committed. A stop must at once
be put to such a nefarious system. If it be permitted
to go on, the most serious and extensive plunder may
be apprehended.
The two bakers stated that plunder of the kind just
&scribed bad beets repeatedly committed in the neigh-
bourhood of late.

The prisoricrs were then remanded, evidently to their
great satisfaction. _ _

A suggestion, which was made to the City Magis-
trates some time ago, is, we are given to understand, un-
der their serious consideration. It is to the effect that
when offenders are prosecuted for depredations commit-
ted under the impulse of hunger, after having been re-
fused relief by the parochial authorities, although such
offenders should not be permitted to escape punish-
ment, the respective parishes should be compelled tode-
fray the expenses of the prosecutions.
Captain Robertson, the Chief Constable of Hert.
fordshire, attended at the Justice-room, to inform the
Lord Mayor, that the Government had ordered the
reward, which had been offered for the apprehension of
Blakesley, to be paid to the two Hertfordshire
constables, stationed at Hitchin. The Chief Con-

stab!e considered it to bi his duty to mention
that be had received an order for the payment of
the 100 i. trom the Secretary of State's office, as it had
been reported from the Mansion-house that as Blakes-
ley had resigned himself the constables were not entitled.