The Sun.
London, England, 1842-01-21 00:00:00

THE QUEEN V. BERNARD CAVANAGH.

Mr. COWLING appeared to show cause against a rule
which had been obtained by Mr. James, calling upon the
Mayor, Magistrates, and gaoler of Reading, to show
cause why a writ of habeas corpus should not issue
to bring up the body of the defendant, who
is at present a prisoner in Reading Gaol. The
Learned Counsel said he appeared on behalf
of Francis Chase, Esq., the Mayor of Reading,
who, being extremely anxious to clear his character of
the imputations which had been cast on him, had filed
numerous affidavits to which he would not now refer, as
he apprehended the rule must be discharged on technical
grounds, witheut going into the merits of the case. In
the first place the rule was made not upon the gaoler
but upon the committing Justice, who, he apprehended,
could not, under the present proceeding, be called
upon to state the ground of the commitment,
as he had not the person in custody. In the
next place it was stated that there were no depositions
and he submitted that no depositions were necessary,
the warrant of commitment being the sole document
that the Court could look to. If that warrant was pro-
duced; he apprehended the case would at once be put
out of the Court. The Court could not consider whe-
ther the conviction were good or bad. If it should ap-
pear that he had been committed by a Court of compe-
tent jurisdiction, the Court could not discharge him,
unless the commitment were bad on the face of it, as it
would be if, for instance, it had committed him for six
months, instead of three. But such was not the case ;
and therefore the Court could not inquire into the vali-
dity of the commitment. That point had been clearly
determined by the cases of the King v. Brass Crosby,
and the King v. Suddes.
Mr. Justice WILLIAMS—The question raised on the
other side is that the commitment is not sustainable in law.
Mr. COWLING submitted that it was. It was in the
words of the Act. The defendant was committed as
having been convicted as a rogue and vagabond in having
sought to levy charitable contributions under the false
position that he was able to abstain from food for five
years.
Mr. Justice WILLIAMS—The argument is, that if he
goes about and says he has lived upon air for five years,
and persons give him money, you may call it what you
will—it is not a charitable contribution.
Mr. COWLING thought that would be too narrow a
view to take of the word charity, and contended that the
case was strictly within the meaning of the Act, which
expressly provided that no conviction should be
set aside on the ground of irregularity. If the con-
viction were bad, the legal method of quashing
was by appealing to the Quarter Sessions, and if they
affirmed it, then by removing the proceedings by cer-
tiorari into this Court ; but such a question could not be
gone into on the present occasion.
The SOLICITOR. GENERAL; on the same side, submitted
that it would be a sufficient answer to a habeas corpus
to show that the defendant was in custody upon a
commitment by a Court of competent jurisdiction. Now,
it was not disputed but that the Mayor had jurisdiction in
this case ; it was not shown that he had exceeded his juris-
diction by committing the prisoner for a longer period than
the law allowed, and therefore he submitted that the rule
must be discharged. With regard to the meaning of the
term " charitable contributions," he should be prepared
to contend that the prisoner had actually lived upon
charitable contributions, within the meaning of the Act;
inasmuch as, although under the pretence of living upon
nothing he might not want alms to purchase food, vet
he might ask for them to purchase clothing, or to main-
tain his family. He contended that the conviction was
good, but that, if bad, the Court could not entertain the
question upon a rule for a habeas corpus, to
answer which it was sufficient to show that the com-
mitment was by a Court of competent jurisdiction, and
therefore he submitted that the rule must be discharged.
Mr. Justice WILLIAMS said he would hear Mr. James
in reply to-morrow, and the Court rose at three o'clock._

ADMIRALTY COURT, Jan. 19.
TEE CORDULA SOPHIA--COLLISION.
The Learned Judge was assisted in this case by two
of the elder brethren of the Trinity House, namely,
Capt. Charles Weller and Capt. George Probyn, the prin-
cipal point in the cause being one of nautical skill.
The Cordula Sophia (a Swedish ship) and the Unity
were both tacking up Blackwall reach in July last, the
one following the other. The fbreign vessel having
tacked, the other did not continue her reach ; hence the
collision. The damage sustained was very small, indeed
not worth a legal proceeding.
The Trinity Masters, after advocates had been heard
on both sides, and the Learned Judge having pointed
out the material facts, decided that the English vessel
was to blame; and that no blame was to be attributed
to the foreign ship, and that her owners must be dis-
missed with costs.
THE NEPTUNE—SALVAGE.
Dr. Lushington was aided in this case also by the Tri-
nity Masters above-named. The Neptune sailed from
Dantzic, for the port of London, in November, with a full
cargo of grain. On the 14th of that month, mistaking
the lights on the coast, she ran between the Kentish
Knock and the Long Sand. She was descried by the
Atalanta smack, which bore up and rendered assistance,.
but the Neptune ran on the Long Sand. Subsequently
six or seven other smacks came up, and the assistance of
their crews was accepted to lighten the ship, by taking
out corn in the boats and throwing other portions over-
board. The owner of the Neptune resisted the claims
for salvage, on the ground that the measures taken by
the principal salvors to wear the ship were those by which
she was driven on the sand.
Drs. Haggard and Harding appeared for the salvors,
and Dr. Addams and Dr. Robinson for the owners.
Dr. LUSHINGTON put the facts of the case before the
Trinity Masters, observing that it was an important sub-
ject, both as respects the property saved and the duration
of the services of the salvors. The Trinity Masters
would have to decide whether other measures than those
ought to have been adopted by the salvors to put the
vessel in safety, and if so, in what way.
The Trinity Masters were of opinion that the crew of
the Atalanta, in getting on board the Neptune, had acted
wrong. They should have gone to the southward, close
hauled on
.the larboard tack, the wind blowing a fine
breeze from the S.E. at the time. The Trinity Masters
'laving retired,
Dr. ADDAMS moved that the owners of the Neptune
be dismissed.

Dr. HAGGARD and Dr. HARDING were heard on behalf
of the other salvors, I" ho had come up after the vessel
was on the sand, and who had assisted in lightening the
Neptune. These salvors had nothing whatever to do
with the first fault committed by the Atalanta.
Dr. ADDAMS opposed the application, the owners
of the foreign vessel having sustained already damage to
the extent of about 1,000/.
The COURT said it had thought from the first that
there were difficulties in the case. It had been decided
by the Trinity Masters that the course pursued by the
Atalanta was wrong, and he, (Dr. Lushington) had felt
that if all the salvors had participated in the original
error, they could not claim. But this was not the case,
and as property of the value of 7,0001. or 8,0001. had been
salved, the Court would only be doing justice to the
other salvors to award them 2001. and their costs. The
Court could not allow the costs of the Atalanta, and the
claim of her crew for reward must be dismissed, as the
Trinity Masters had decided that but for the original
error all the loss and costs that had been sustained by
the foreign owners would have been saved.

SECONDARIES' COURT, Jan. 20.
THE QUEEN V. THEODORE HOOK.

Mr. C. ROWE said this was a writ of inquiry issued by
the Crown for the purpose of ascertaining what property
belonged to the late Mr. Theodore Hook, in the City of-
London, at the time of his death. An inquiry had been
instituted elsewhere, and therefore he should be able to
save the Jury a good deal of trouble.
This case, which has already been before the public,
related to the claims of the Crown on the property left
by deceased, who was indebted to the amount of about
13,000 L to the Crown.

Mr. Hopkinson, solicitor t the proprietors of the
John Bull, deposed that Mr. T. Nook died on the 24th
of August, 1841, at Fulham, in Middlesex, and at the
time of his death possessed one-fourth share of the John
Bull, as well as a right to one-fourth of the lease, No. 40,
Fleet-street. The value of the fourth-share of the
John Bull was about the sum of 2,2001., but
the deceased had overdrawn his account between 5001.
and 600/., therefore his share was worth between 1,500/.
and 1,6001. The deceased became proprietor in 1830.
During the last five years the paper had not varied five
numbers. Mr. Joel Edwards had a claim for 3,000/., be-
sides interest.

Mr. Secondary JAMES summed up, and the jury found
fer the Crown, subject to the debt due to the partners.

INSOLVENT DEBTORS' COURT, Jan. 20.
IN THE MATTER OT ALTRIDE.

The insolvent had been previously before the Court
and was opposed by a parson named Nathan, who
stated that he had been instructed by John Galenston,
the holder of certain bills of exchange drawn by the in-
solvent on a person named Dixion.
Sir George Young attended in Court this day, and
having deposed to the validity of the affidavit, the insol-
vent was ordered to be discharged forthwith.