The Sun.
London, England, 1829-11-23 00:00:00

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.

IN THE :MATTER OF GEORGE LANCASTER•
Mr. lIICHARDS moved to discharge a rule which bit 4-
been obtained in this case, calling upon the Governor 0,
Nottingham Gaol to show cause why a writ of habeas
corpus should not issue, to bring up the body of George
Lancaster, a prisoner committed to that gaol for offences •
against the Spiritual Courts, in order that he might be
discharged. 'I he Learned Counsel said his ground of obi"
jection lo the rule was, that the Court of Eschequero-iO7 •
such cases, had no jurisdiction, the Act o fthe 53d Geo.,'
111., cap. 123, limiting the jurisdiction to the Courts 0,
Chancery and King's Bench.
Mr. lIUMI.HREY said he would spare his learned frieria
any further trouble; he was convinced the objection NO/
fatal ; but when be obtained the tu'e he did not supee
for a moment any objection would he made : as it hao
however, they must go into the Court of King's Bench ;
It
was only keeping the prisoner in custody a few daY'

longer.
Mr. Baron GARP ow said the High Court of Delega,lt7t
in the case of Lord Westmeath, had settled the point, t°
the Court of Exchequer had no jurisdiction to issue a W,
of haws to bring up persons confi.i.ed for contempt
other offences ag iinst the Ecclesiastiell Courts.
The remainder of the morning was occupied in heal
a motion for a new trial of an ejectment cue, of no pubb
intt rest.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH.
THE KING V. DAT.

sr'

Mr. Serjeant I,IEREwEATHEA (with whom leenjby,'
PATTER soN) showed cause against a rule nisi obts7oe
the Attorney -General for a writ in the nature tye
warrant() against Mr. Thos. C. Day, who has t.ell'iwiebi
office of Inspector of Corn Returns for the city of .0° 4 the
at the same time holding the situation of Alderman"lol
said city. the former office being subject to the conBrt.-ipg
the Magistrates, and the Mayor of the Corporation —ask •
always a Justice of the Peace after passing the Cheiffe -•
the Attorney General contended that the two ofbce. os.
incompatible. The Learned Serjeant, however, 11,
tended that the two offices were not incompatible. lip
however, the Court were of opinion that they trete, he
Day would willingly give up the latter office, to white, -
had been elected, rather than throw the affairs of hi'
poratien into confusion. 'I he Learned Counsel, hotrethih
e
contended, that the rule obtained had not specified that
_.O
defendant had been sufficiently inst.lled in his office to 01

for a quo warranto.
MT. ATTORNEY- GENERAL (with whom
CAMPBELL) replied, and the Court ultimately made
rule absolute.

THE KING V. war AUGUSTUS ROBECIER. the,
Mr. ATTORNEY-GENERAL moved the judgment 0.
fed
Court against Win. Augustus llobecker, who had offetbe
judgment to go by default, in an indictment for sellieg,:;,(
appointment of a Mr. Luttrel to the situation of ou.'"s,
officer of the Coast Guard service, which the defends°
represented to be worth 4s. a day pay, besides perquislil
and a house to live in, with the rank of Lieutenant:
informed the complainant that he had the power of obtsito .
ing the appointment through the influence of a persoo If is
was much about the person of the Duke of Clare:lo/lo'
whom lay the appointment, for the Wm of 8001.
sum was raid by the complainant to defendant, and
trel was appointed to the office, which he held only treo
months, as it was discovered that he was over-age :fel
appointed. He had since frequently applied to the 'if tie
dant, who had thus deceived him, for a return °Lie,
money paid, but could obtain no part of it. The I`,
dant's affis'av:ts stated that he was a poor roan, hiv'-'ll
wife and eight children ; that be was only the corral/to
dent, and paid the money he received from comPisi°sl:hint
a person who had procured the situation, who el-
-201. for his trouble. ieties
The COURT thought that there had barn incliw—_phdont
elsewhere, and that the most criminal party was ecit— do"
them, and upon Mr. D. Pollock undertaking forte one',
fendant to do everything to find him, judgment11
pcnded.

COURT OF UiItIMON PLEI
SHERWOOD V. TAYLOR. g trait
Mr. Strjeant WILDE shelved cause agaii o"
tairecl in this case, calling upon the g°rjt
de endant's costs in :in alleged IHRIIC:OUI r Afrittiv:s
peared horn the affidavits, that in the 301 it In •
plaintiff contracted with the defendant to
Pin manufactory in the London Road, this htlo7