The Sun.
London, England, 1842-01-18 00:00:00

EVENING SUN

Fat
.up by Henry Bradley was, that at the meeting
of the 7th of March, it was agreed that he should de-
fend Henry Perkins upon his trial, and that the expenses
incurred should be paid out of the stock in question. He
setup a claim to those costs, and also to the costs incur-
red in removing the distringas. That being the state of
the case between Bradley and the plaintiff, inasmuch as
the defendant's costs, when added to the paid mortgages,
exceeded the amount of the stock, it had become neces-
sary to determine the 'question of priority between the
parties. A third party, however, had set up a claim to
the entire stock, and if that claim should be established,
it would be quite unnecessary to enter into the question
between the two other parties. The Crown said that who*
these several securities were executed, H. Perkins
1, was awaiting his trial on a charge of felony. On the Ist
'of March, 1838, shortly after these several transactions,
Henry Perkins was convicted of felony, and all his goods
s),' and chattels being thus forfeited to the Crown, the Crown
Insisted that that forfeiture overreached these several
C: transactions. Now it was a settled point of law that the
g°00:18 and .chattels of a felon were forfeited only from
the time of conviction. The authorities upon that point
were Coke upon Littleton, 391 A ; Hawkins's Pleas of
.;' the Crown, 2d book, c.:49; and Blackstone's Comments-
ries, pp. 387 and 388. He quite concurred in the argu-
, pleat for the. Crown, that the alienation had been frau-
dalent, and for, the purpose merely of avoiding the for-
feiture, that alienation could not stand against the right
of the Crown ; but if the alienation had been for value
„:, • and bona fide, to say that in that case it should not pre-
‘ pail against the right of the Crown, would be to deny the
main proposition, that the forfeiture took place only from
the time of conviction; it was, in other words, a declara•
ton that the right of property remained in the felon up
t',. to that time. His Honour then referred to several cases
, to establish the point, that the forfeiture could only ope-
'„ rate from the conviction. He felt therefore bound by
the authorities, to hold that a felon, indicted but not con-
(.--',victed, had power to pay his debts. As to the question
• of whether this was an alienation for value, it appeared
• that in May 1836, the sum of 4271. was advanced by the
plaintiff to his brother, for the purpose ofeuabling him
to -embark in trade, for which an I. 0. U. was
given at the time. With respect, therefore, to that sum,
the felon did nothing more than pay a debt which was
due from him to his brother. The first sum of 50L ap-
peared to have been expended in the costs of the trial ;
- that too, was clearly a bona fide payment. With respect
further inquiry, on the part of the Crown, if the case
went before the. Master, upon the present state of the
evidence, and the Master decided that these were
not" bona fide transactions, and exceptions were taken
" should feel bound to overrule those exceptions.- Then,
ik with respect to the second mortgage of 501., it had been
(,anged that when Bradley received the money from
• Llenry Perkins he should pay the plaintiff's claim out of
41. ;he money so received.. The deed of the 14th of
.• lareh could give him no, priority. The defendant
a; l'altned a lien upon all money which came into his
.441ut., amending
to pay himself the expenses incurred in
getending Henry Perkins.. The law of the case was,
L,', that if a solicitor recovered motley in 'a suit to the ex-
, teknt of the costs included in reCovering that money, he
• l'ad a lien upon it, but he had no lien at all upon the
etoney in respect of any general claim. He was of
(Tinton, therefore, that the claims must be taken in this
order. First, 50L payable to = Bradley.; secondly,
4171, payable to the plaintiff; thirdly, the costs with
respect to the distringas ; and, fourthly, the claim of
Kerry Bradley. The Bank of England had been made
;Party to the suit, but as he could•see no reason why
that had been done, he must refuse to grant costs. The
Plaintiff must recover costs from the corporation of Cam-
ridge. The defendant might, if he pleased, take a re-
. re„.nee with respect to the second transaction.
sif 'lne case was then ordered to stand over for a few days.
::,.NEW APPOINTMENTS OF QUEEN'S COUNSEL.
• air. Loftus Wigram, Mr. Matthews, Mr. Koe, Mr.
ta:Teed and Mr. Lowndes, took their seats within the bar.
n. , DIONR. V. TANKERVILLE.
r. GIRDLESTONE opened this case at great length this
4strning. " The plaintiffs are Sir Charles Miles Lam-
-4i art Monk and Mary Elizabeth his wife ; the de-
aindants to the record are the Earl of Tankerville and
44,7ances Hills, and the object of the suit is to have it
ueelared that Frances Hills became the trustee of a sum
.401" 848/. I2s. 3d. Three per Cent. Annuities, and to obtain
rtYttent of that sum, together with the dividends which
,:ta„..,4„ve accrued since the death of the late Earl of Tanker-
,`"le in 1836. •
T—.l'." case is expected to last two or three days ; we
?nail give an outline of it in a more advanced stage of the
Preceedings.

QUEEN'S BENCH.—(THIS DAY.)
HOWARD V. GOSSETT AND OTHERS.
gi This was an action of trespass for breaking and enter-
•lug the plaintiff's house, and making therein a great
'llohe and disturbance. The defendants had pleaded,
first, that as to breaking and entering the plaintiff's
house they were not guilty; and, secondly, that as to the
alleged trespass, the Parliament of the Sovereign was
being holden at Westminster, and on,the 27th January
it was ordered and resolved by the House of. Commons
"Alit the plaintiff do attend the said House, of which he
441 notice, but had neglected and refused to do so ; that
tSi the 4th February
.it was ordered that the plaintiff be
sent for and brought in custody of the Sergeant-at-Arms,
and. that the Speaker do ipsue his warrant for that pur-
-1)'150 ' • and accordingly the then Speaker, Charles ShawNo,
-14:f
No, "re, issued his warrant to the Sergeant-at-Arms, by
mnito it was delivered to the defendants, as his deputies
but ,11,.s.si,,tants, who proceeded thereupon to execute it,
leg tn°"t using any unnecessary violence, and think-
dw,Vrohable the plaintiff' would shortly return to his
Vint ,1)11g-houso they remained there for some time. To
n„B,,f,the Hain& had demurred, that the second plea
arithioll-ncient in law, as it did not disclose any sufficient
fendQ 1%3' for the violence that had been used by the de-
reitt“,l'ts,) and also, that although the second plea ad-
th ‘,-e" the acts that had been done, it did not show that
144', were acting under any authority prodbeding from,
.te 'lt to, or recognized by law; nor did it show what
Bit t„,1,1144 been committed by the plaintiff, which rendered
‘2l/".'"atory
tveither , upon him to attend the House of Commons.or
ore, the plea state any particular contempts
id, -en of privilege committed by the plaintiff ; nor did it
'cOarw. that the warrant- contained any distinct_ ground or
ilonge against the defendant; nor that he was in the
thc'e St the time the defendants went there to execute
sh-dwarrant • and, lastly, that it was bad for uncertainty
in
Sn
rr. a 3.
„KELLY now appeared on behalf of the plaintiff, in
4Lirrirt of the demurrer, and submitted that the plea
I',,.rred to was wholly insufficient in law, and set forth
Th'ttieierit justification of the trespass complained of.
knee question was one of very considerable import-
rao,,,,e) and involved considerations of the greatest
lie-"e"t as regarded the liberty of the subject.
p Presumed it was the object of those who justified the
t Ite:; t.,(' Put forward two propositions for the decision of
llatits,-Lordships—first, whether the House of Commons
44,1„,`e Power of arresting and imprisoning the Queen's
lo4vets 'without their having been guilty of any offence
)5,4,41,1'411 to the law, but merely for a contempt of their
egoa ; and, secondly, whether, if the House had
end .Power they could justify their officers in breaking
theiptlitering a dwelling-house and remaining there at
6wu pleasure, even although the party against
'was - tuo warrant was issued was not in the house, and
44,1,4 alleged to have been there. But there were
one .f•Pri.oliminary questions first to be disposed of, and
them was that there was no actual charge of the
th Itlaving committed any contempt of the privileges.
NI: 11011 Se of Commons. There was no allegation in
ty(h`ea that after notice had been served on the plaintiff
tli.e House a reasonable time had elapsed, previously
not e.taking of these further and more stringent steps—
/vithti,,t(! the plea allege that he had refused to attend
i4jtt°j' any reasonable or legal excuse. A. further
'kelt (VII was that the warrant, the foundation of the
the (° proceedings, proceedings, was not set forth on the plea, and
h 44-0 art had no means of judging whether the defendants
itloht"?', legal and sufficient authority for what they had
'-`.'llese were objections in point of form to the plea as
4ecoilar
-pgarded the first count,; but with regard to the
thehis. Plea, wherein it was stated that it was probable
4elitraintiff would return, by way of justifying a second
41 into the house, there was an allegation that they
tani.vetl or had every reason to suppose that he would re-
geher,l\low their Lordships were aware that it was a
44,1;4, Principle of law that the plea must be taken most
did..l)? against the party pleading, and in the present
.11(11);.,1uust be taken to be-bad for uncertainty, because it
,q4tlts-v‘ state whether. the warrant authorised the defene-
Se bee take the plaintiff; and bring him in custody h
qitol I:louse of Conimons. or that they were to bring
1) the House for a contempt of its privileges. He
•
ttii),,`ted that such a warrant, so vague and uncertain in
ktsrt,""rs, was a violation of Magna Charts. If a party
;tairtit7,l on. such a warrant were brought before their
4,4 e-41'Illis On a writ of habeas corpus they could not
N,tirl anything of the nature of the offence charged
tost lila, and unless they went the length of ascrib-
-444ti the House of Commons the arbitrary and un-
q4e
'char t,tiB tionalcj 'power of arresting and imprisoning the
subjects without any cause assigned, they must
teedinge the prisoner. In the case of a Magistrate ex-
tile gills jurisdiction, and wilfully imprisoning one of
Ittlii,7l.ll7lls subjects, a prosecution might be instituted
att`v Bnt any other of the authorities known to the
tliet,tr-nsgressed their authority the same remedy was
Nn„.:' the party aggrieved, but in the case of the House of
look 7.,"8, it was to their Lordships alone the public could
th,174 protection, and it was the more imperative upon
the,, catch their proceedings narrowly, inasmuch as
ere in almost all respects an irresponsible body. If
cotx,ihti
'Lup•aiit had been issued by that House upon a
be 11,,'Lluo for a contempt, then it could not
volts 'Peached in the present mode, because it
jqistuadinitted that • the House of ommons had
(1,111 in all cases of contempt. The Learned
bearinBo then referred to a number of authorities
d, ate ".Pon the privileges of the House of Commons,
tided llght to commit for • a contempt, and con-
toi4e that the present case did not properly
Nu in ;within them. Ile submitted that if the plea
Atationi'V the defendants was to be taken to be a justi-
Part,of the trespass, the consequence would be that a
rant,
an go as often as he pleased to execute a war-
tilba's:ind remain in the house on each occasion as long as he
ben :t7-Lord Tenterden's remark/about a man's house
trt„..ists castle would be a complete dead letter, for the
to ttZ, and breaking, and entry, might be carried
ket4,l,7tent of dhpossessing a man of his house alto-
Inknvi If such a doctrine was recognised there was no
cl `4lll. to what an •• • it •ht be
". lie injurious extent
ear would now come to the entry, which it was
t)t. felon unjustifiable and unlawful, except in cases
llot Y•lt was stated in the declaration, and was
antranathat the defendants, without attempting an
\va3 wr",
°'w by the door had forcibly broken open
11
and effected an entrance tl in that
tosibierye_
ill, had ilesidcasite ofdo Burdett v. Abbott, Mr. Justice
d otohra t
and a partyfnrne
an
nad
Pro,,,at open an outer
ti,ittlitLecl there was first a
katio waY, and a refusal. Thek.demand of entry in the
of either a demand ttedwattsihorever, no alle-
refusal,