The Sun.
London, England, 1818-11-30 00:00:00

MATTER OF PRIVILEGE.

Mr. SCARLETT on a former day obtained a rule
to shew cause why Dr. Battine should not be dis-i
Charged out of custody, tinder an execution for
debt, on the grounds of his privilege
,font arrest,
he being one of the Gentlemen of his Mgjesty's
Privy Chamber in ordinary.
Mr. V. LAWES and Mr. CHITTY now slimed
cause against the role, and contended that the
office held by Dr. Battine in his Majesty's house-
hold was not such a one as entitled him to the
privilege in question ; inasmuch as it was not an
office'which required the attendance of the delen-
(hint about the person of his Majesty. It being
laid down in Lord Coke's Second Institutes, and
recently held in the cases of Barnett v. Hobbs,
and Rex v. Foster, the first Deputy, Clerk of the
Kitchen, the last Body CoaChmati to his Ma-
jesty, that such constant liability to be called on
Was necessary to give the royal servant privilege
from arrest. In the present case, Dr. Battine
was appointed in 1812, and he had never once,
since that period, been called into attendance.
Mr. SCARLETT and Mr. MARRYAT, on the part
of Dr. Battine, contended that he was privileged;
although, as stated on the other side, the defend-
ant had never been called on to attend the King,
yet he was liable to be so on state occasions,
whenever the Sovereign should think fit to require
his attendance. The reason why he had not been
called on might !'e found in the lamented indispo-
sition of his Majesty. It appeared that the duty
of the Gentlemen of the Privy Chamber was to
attend the Sovereign on the occasion of Royal
Marriages, Royal Funerals, the reception of Fo-
reign Ambassadors, and generally on state occa-
sions.; and, in fact, several of the Gentlemen
bad been ordered to hold themselves in readiness
to•attend the solemnity oilier late Majesty's Fti-
neral on Wednesday next. The Court had recently
held, in the case of the fire and candle lighter to
the yeorifen of the guard, and in that of one of the
children of the kitchen, although the first exe-
cuted the duties-of his office by deputy, and the
child of the kitchen_had only been required, in a
course of several.-yea'is;•tagive his attendance on
one. occasion, that both these persons were.privi-
leged, because they were liable to be called on to
attend at any time.
-The Cum? JUSTICE said, the practice of the
Court appeared to have been, that where there
was no, doubt existing .of the privilege. of the per-
ion applying, they would-discharge him on mo-
tion ; Wit-where there was a doubt, then the right
course to be .adopted would he to put the indivi-
dual on the, production of his writ of privilege.
At first the Court 'were inclined. to think Dr. Bat-
tine lead this privilege; but it was evident the pri-
vilege was given for the convenience and comfort
of the Sovereign ;- it was, in fact, the King's pri-
vilege to protect his servants. it now appeared,
that. no personal inconvenience ercnld arise to his
Majesty from the detention of the defendant. The
Court would not..tliereforeorder his. discharge,
but would put hint, If he thought tit so to do, to
sue out' his writ -of
„,,The .Rule for his liberetiore was accordingly dis'.;.
charged. ,

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, N0v.28.

NIMIGHT•t.•BRAH AM.

oo,a (carper day, Mr. serje,ant VA.UGHAN moved
for, and obtained a ride to chew cause why the
prOceedlogs taken by the itssigneeq of the phintifi
in. this case against ihe defendßif- 'bald not be
stayed. This motion was foundtd. on an affidavit,
which state+, that the parties had-co-me to an ar-
ra-n,..gement, andthat in,.poitit7of fact the sum
sought to he recovered by the assignees of the
plaintiff -land • already been :.paiol to the plaintiff
himself. The short facts of the case are these :
It will be recollected,, that an action was brought
by the plaintiff, Mr. Wright, against the defend-
ant, Mr. Braham, lot ituinal conversation with
ttis wife, and that the former obtained a verdict
of 10001. damages. At this period Mr. Wright
eras indebted*.-trt MTAlralialt in-the sum of 6401.;
. .
subs:el:l66u to the trial, it was mutually
agreed, that-,5001. of this;swn should be admitted

as a set-off against the amount of the damages.
Under thiS agreement, the Attornies of both par-
ties met on the 29th of September, 1816, when
three receipts were given : the first on the part of
Mr: Wright, acknowledging the receipi of 10001.
(the atnount of the damages obtained by him
against_Mr. Braham); that was to say, 5001. in
cash, and 5001. in payment pf a debt due from the
plaintiff to the- defendant ; the -second was for
1301. costs ;. and the.third was a receipt from the
defendant to the plaintiff for 5001. which the
plaintiff adenitted to be owing to him. Mr. Wright,
ialmediately after this transaction, was (Iceland a
bankrupt ; and it appearing that he had commit-
ted an act of bankruptcy previous to his compro-
mise With Mr. Brabant, and that consequently
Mr. Braham had paid this money in his own
wrong, the assignees under the commission now
soughs to recover the whole amount of the da-
mages for the benefit of the creditors.
Mr..Serjeatit LeNs this day rose to sbew cause
against the rule obtained by Mr. Serjeant Vaughan.
The LOAD CHIEF JUSTICE—I asked, when the
original motion was made, if there was any affi-
davit ofthe parties denying collusion.
Messrs. Serjeapt VAUGHAN and COPLEY admit.
ted that there was:no Such affidavit ; hut it this
were necessary Mr. i3raltam was perfectly ready
to make_ one. He was out of town when the
former application was made. Under the circum-
stances, they truilted the Court would allow the
matter to stolid over till next term.

Mr. Serjeant LENS said, that on the part of the
assigneci he could not consent to the., proceedings
being suspended. The assignees wanted this money
for the benefit of the creditors, and could have
nothing to do with the adjustment entered into by
the bankrupt. Even supposing there had been no
collusion, which fie did not mean to-dispute, in
• Rolm of law the creditors were entitled to the
• amount of -the (+images. in question. It woukf
oppear that the docket was struck agaiast Ur.

• fled;
Might on the very day the receipts were og-wed
and that on an antecedent day he had 000'
an act of bankruptcy. • de.
Mr. oft
COPLEY.—In an action OEOO
as
ceription, of a criminal nature, where the
vr boo
heen no judgment, the assignees can hae
iight to recover. i e nter-
The CHIEF JUSTICE—The Court canna. the
fere, inasmuch as there is no affidavit denying. t"

collusion. •
Mr. Sojeant VAUGIUN—The plaintiff never en.
tered up his judgment.
Mr. Justice PARK—The Court intimated
°lt'
affida its denying collusion should be produce.V
the wish of the Court has not been complied "
and therefore they cannot make-any order..""*
Rude must be discharged.
Mr. Serjeant COPLEY-1\1r: BrahaM the
in
neighbourhood, and will make the affidavit re'
quired. •
The Court would not wait this proCeerling,264.
the Rule was discharged.

t./

11TUm

EC
to th
at •
'Pee 0 the
Ititigy
on
1,6 t+
1141:4 k 44
-!14: PTif:vrit
7z. 0r ‘:hi,
will
•'tk -void
t" btr
),6;
ou,
'll •
4
,11,11.., the,
Wit
;14i ''!4:4l
0,