The Sun.
London, England, 1827-11-07 00:00:00

ROE V. BRENTON.

Mr. BROUGHAM showed cause against a rule Nisi
obtained by the Attorney-General. This action,
which was to be tried at the bar of the Court, related
to certain valuable mines within the manor of Tew-
ington, in Cornwall ; and as the inhabitants of that
county and of Devonshire were supposed to have a
great interest in mining questions, the rule had been
obtained for having a jury chosen out of Middlesex.
Mr. Brougham now proposed that the jury should
come from Hertfordshire.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said, that as the trial
was to be at bar, and must therefore be in Middle-
sex, it would be less expen.ce to have a jury from
that county.
Mr. BROUGHAM, however, objected to Middlesex,
and again proposed Hertfordshire, to which, at last,
the Attorney-General consented.

THE KING v. LINDON.

Mr. -BnouctiAm showed cause against a rule ob-
tained by the Attorney-General for an attachment
against the 'defendant for not attending, pursuant to
his subpoena, at the Old Bailey,on the trial of Owen
Daventry, indicted for a capital felony. The charge
against Daventry, who was a postman, was for se-
creting money enclosed by Lindon in a letter. Lin-
don attended at Bow-street, where the prisoner was
committed on the capital offence, and Lindon was
served with a subpoena to give evidence at the trial,
and was also bound over in a recognizance. • Lindon
attended at the Old Bailey, and remained an hour,
when he was obliged.to go to the inn for a call of
nature, and during his absence the trial came on ; he
was called upon his subpoena; it. was said that the
Court waited for him nearly an hour, and it was
insinuated that in consequence of his non-appear-
ance the prisoner was acquitted. Mr. Lindon's affi-
davit set forth :that the prisoner was afterwards
tried upon the clergyable offence, when he
attended and gave precisely the same evidence
he would have done on the capital charge, but the
prisoner was acquitted. Mr. Broughain hoped that
this,-if not a sufficient excuse, would, be alldwed in
mitigation, for his absence was not frOm carelessness
or neglect of the writ, or contempt 'of the authority
of the Court, for which, in his
.affidavit he professed
the most bumble respect. It was right, however,
that the Court should understand that the affidavit
stated that he had on his mind that a man's life de-
pended upon his evidence, that he was never placed
in such circumstances before, that`the money sent in
the letter was his own, and that he wished to pass
the offence over without notice ; but, notwithstand-
ing, he had made up his mind, and did go to the
Old Bailey with a determination to give his evidence;
but the thought of what he was abou to do so
affected him, that he was taken ill, and his nerves
were so weakened that he could not then resolve
to give that evidence lie actually went there to give.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL Was unwilling to press
the case with severity, but what was to become of
the administration of justice
Lord TENTERDEN said it was clear the rule muqt
be made absolute, and the party must go before. the
Master, and purge himself upon interrogatories.

THE KING V. RAMSDEN AND OTHERS.

Mr. F. Pommel( applied for the indulgence of the
Court, that the defendants, who had been convicted
for a conspiracy, might not be brought up for judg-
ment during this term, on the ground that Hudson
the prosecutor, and the most important wit,:oss at
the trial, was under an indictment for perjury.

Lord TENTERDEN—Have you a eopy'orthe in-
dictment ?
Mr. F. Pota.9eK—There was an affidavit. If the
jury had thought that Ramsden had not been indebted
to Hudson, there would have been no case.
Lord TENTERDEN—I very much doubt that, in-
deed, and that makes me desire to see the copy of
the indictment. My mind will act be sadsfied with-
out seeing it.

MR. IJENRS MINT.

Just before the rising of the Court, at four o'clock,
Mr. Hunt stood upon the floor of the Court, and
was about to move (as we understood) to discharge
the recognizances which he entered into in 1822, for
his good behaviour for five years.

Cord TENTERDEN—,We cannot hear you now,
you must come some other day
_ _

Mr. Hunt—l suppose your Lordships are going
to dine together, and I should be sorry to detain you.
Lord - TENTERDEN—Whether we are going to
dine together or not is no matter; but my strength
is exhausted. If you were the Attorney-General, I
would not hear vou at this hour.
Mr. Hunt--Your Lordship said a little while ago
that you'would hear short motions.
Lord TENTERDEN—You have misunderstood me:
I said, motions of course—not short motions.
Mr. Hunt—lf I attend to-morrow, will your
Lordship hear me at the rising of the Court ?
Lord TENTERDEN—You may attend ; but you
must take your chance, like all other suitors in the
court.—ML Hunt bowed, and retired.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Nov. 6.
(Sittings in Banco.)
After having breakfasted as usual with the Lord
Chancellor, the Judges proceeded to Westminster-
Hall, and commenced sitting in their respective
courts. The Lord Chief Justice of this court, how-
ever, had not sufficiently recovered from kis recent
attack of the gout to resume his seat to-day; but
from what dropped from the Court it appeared
probable that he would be enabled to do so very
shortly. His Lordship is expected in town to-day.

ADMIRALTY COURT, Nov. 6.

IN THE MATTER OF A SLAVE WOMAN CALLED GRACE.

Lord SToWELL gave sentence in this highly im-
portant case. His Lordship said that, in conse-
quence of infirmity of eyes and voice, which ren-

junior. counsel in
judgment, which_
requested Dr. Dodson to take his seat beside hum,
and ;the Learned Advocate read' the sentence of the
Court as follows :
This case commences with an information against
a woman named Grace, who attended her mistress
as a domestic servant to England, and returned with
her to Antigua; and consists, in the first place, of
various counts, charging omission of regulations im-
posed upon the importation and exportation of slaves
to and from the Westelndia colonies; and in come-
, quenee thereof, coadonnation, or forfeiture to his
Majesty, is contended for. I have to discharge a
debt of obligation to the Counsel who have argued
the case on both sides, and have taken great pains
in elucidating questions that arise. upon it. I have
likewise to discharge a duty which. I owe to the
Judge below, who' has examined
.the cue With, very
meritorious and diligent acuteness,
,andthrown very
considerable lights upon the general subject. I could
have wished.that, in a case so noyel.in this Court,
it had been.furniehed with mere, both of argernent
and evidence, than have met within the process
which has, been,tranemitled from the inferior Court,
What the arguments were on, either side of the
question in the court hdlow,--ewhat opposition was
given to the maintained by the Court, and
by what evidence that opposition was supported,
or by what arguments resisted,--these papers do
not inform me. In a case very important, and
unprecedented in this Court, I am left to conjecture
what these were, from other public papers, supplied
by the Advocate-General, who argued the cause in
the Court below, which papers were transmitted to
the Secretary .of State for the Colonies, and by him
or his officers,' I; peeetune, submitted to the House
of Conmaosiss ;That is not the way in which the
Supreme. Court usually collects information of what
passes in the inferior Courts. But they come in a
form, to which I may, I think, 'without impropriety,
advert, as containing elle probable grounds of oppo.
sition in the cause, and on which the. Judge decided
in a
,way consistent with his vie* of the question.
The case begins with an information or charge, con-
sisting of, five counts; ,the two first of which may
be immediately dismissed, being not at all applicable
to the real state of the parties, and only urged by
the Advocate-General, as he expresses it, er abun'
xianti cautelii, Without any expectation of their in-
fluencing the judgment. What sort of abundant
caution could arise from the introduction of matter
which 'I understand to have been admitted by the
Advocate-General could net have the slightest in-
fluence on the cause, I am not informed, and find
some difficulty in discovering it ; but from the pa-
ipserfosutirladnesdmiiitpteodn
al
scuopllpeoctsitthioant
oths r
fitheatAttela a
dvoctuten.dGane_s
neral, that if a slave was-returned from England,
upon any pretenee whatever, he was returned as
free person, and so to be considered in that colony
—an assertion which brings that great question di-
rectly before the Court. Having disposed of the
two first counts, I proceed to the third and fourth.
The third count pleads that this woman, Grace, af-
ter the Ist of January, 1820, was exported as a slave
from the island of Antigua, a colony under the do-
minion of. his .Majestye and carried to Great. Britain,
a territory to' his Majesty belonging, without pro-
duction of certificate of registration, and without steal
certificate having been indorsed boyofatnh
jdeaconlaunlalderyecd:oirin,Bat2nhode,.
annexed to the cle=arance of permit given for the ex-
portation of the said Grace. The fourth count pleads
Majesty belonging,
to his.Mejesty be-
ftiorshoiraamatncdaeGftowerferasAatthunenßeigarl
itwsitti
tlajuenalf:yesoaabliordot4inagthioottnohtrihyliist
longing, as a domestic slavein attendance upon the
person of her mistress, without any extract and cer-
tificate of registration_ being on board the ship in
which the said Grace was imported, and together
with her, on her arrival, produced teethe collector of
the customs, contrary to the form of the statute -!
and it has been contended that under the statute tsi
59th of Geo. III„ c.. 120, it was necessary that this
person should have had these credentials, as well on
the voyage from the colony to the mother country,
as also on the return voyage to Antigua. It appears
to me, on a consideration of the act referred to, that
it never was intended to put any restraint on a
domestic Ave accompanying his master. to -Great
Britain, or on his heing taken'hitelcfrom Great Bri-
tain to, the Colonies. :The regulations were made as
well for the; purpose of preventing slaves being trans-
ferred from any, one of our own colonies to other
settlements, as alio to prevent the introduction of
new. ,slares into any of our own colonies; but it has
no reference whatever to the transit of slaves to s and
from this country. UpOn reference to the Act of
Parliament, I findeheae veprds—" With intent that
such slave shall .be.,reenOved to some other colony."
Nothing whatever is intimated 'as to Great Britain ;
nor is there any direction that such certificate of re-
gistration or endorsement, on the clearance of vessels
coming to this country, is necessary ; nor are any
susli credentials demanded, 'or considered as de-
mandable, of vessels coming to this counsry, by the
custom-house here, as far as, upon inquiry, I know
and believe. I cannot help observing here a little
upon the careless manner in which the custom-hoese
officer at Antigua, 'appears to have discharged his
duty, if there Is any duty of this kind imposed upon
him. He 'had come in the ship all the way from
England with the slave and her mistress, and he suf-
fers her to go on shore with her mistress, without any
ot
ptbi
et s
ci
eottln:
papers, if papers were at all demandable; and it is
not till after two 'years that he finds that he had
mistaken his own duty, and omitted to demand'
what he now contends 'were the necessary docu-
ments. I might observe upon the lapse of time be-
liar objections. It states,
tt
chooaut
many snhoet,
fatalhb being i na gt t
objections.
jhrececedt soaunsbas
ject of his, Majesty, was unlawfully imported as a
ld
slave from Great Britain into Antigua, and there
illegally held and detained in slavery, contrary to
aftirilleyeheptir)sscioilritvil:sij(adieeeleg
riltlait,loiollsfhelsseoNo:Tfro
!Is Lordlga.Nd,eor thewrong-doer,
and Kingif
f be scud_
i
the form of the statute in such cases made and pros
msntyst‘Ohl,
aafuaVdettltyery7i beeoebdplenaney.
bsor,
been
,yeutluaalhi
ters,Ttoe buthcaoeywlmmh thinkosdlsee The
of
hugf
enet
lafih
vengeance
techeoesci fosoeafuni
)ntc,het,
he bound to take any such credentials with him, foe
r
has a free person, relying upon uponlatv; wfohro
wmhlai et
an antecedent free-
dom, to show but the freedom of which he is
.so fir
possession, to assert his own right, already acquired,
to maintain his freedom with all its present conse-
quences, and to restore him- to himself without the
aid of such a proceeding as could only be instituted
Could it possibly occur to any p
against a person 'already in a state of slavery ?
situation, to submit to the degrading remedy which
is here sought for ? That' is,—not to assert his
right to a freedom of which he is already in posses-
sion, but to submit to sue for has a slave at the dis-
posalerson in such a
of the Crown, and subject to such a humiliate
ing process as is requisite to restore a slave to a cone
dition of liberty. It would, in fact, amount to a
disclaimer of anypre-existing freedom of which he
was already in possession. It is a process very fit
for the emancipation of a slave, but surely could
never he recommended to a person already in pos-
session of a state of liberty, freely and fairly ac-
quired. But then it- is said, " that this is contrary
to the statute." What statute ? There is no sta-
tute whatever imposing any such duties upon a free
person, as to vindicate his freedom by submitting to
a process so degrading to a freeman, as to sue for it
at the mercy of the Crown, under a process which
places him at the disposal of the officer of the Crown,
and subject to such situations as he may be placed
in, at • the mercy' of such officer. Nov that
any free subject of the King could be imported as a
slave into any of our colonies, and there detained as
a slave, is ,to me a contradiction in terms. The
former charges all describe this person as loaded
with the duty of conforming to the obligations of a
slave; whereas this describes her as a person sail-
ing from Great Britain Asa free subject, and there-
eti lasnnldidaebr tnehstet: