Star.
London, England, 1802-11-08 00:00:00

CRIMINAL INFORMATION.

Mr. ERSKINE moved for leave to file a criminal
information againft John Goff, Efq. a Gentleman
of fortune in Staffordfhire, and a Magiftrate. He
was concerned, after what had formerly paired in
this Court tefpeding the perfon againft whom he
moved, that he fhould have rendered himfelf ob-
noxious to fuch an application. He was the fame
gentleman who had been profecuted for condud-
tog himfelf improperly towards the Rev. Mr.
Lane, by affixing libels againft him on the public
highway : however, that had nothing to do with
the prefent tranfadion. He grounded his motion
on the affidavits of feveral perfons, and among the
tell on the affidavit of Mr. William Ofborne, a
very refpedable and opulent farmer in Stafford-
fhire, who Elated, that on the 16th of September
1411, being in his field at harvell, a lad of the
name of fames, who was employed to take care
of his team, left it and went after a hare. To
punifh him for this offence, he took up a whip and
hir him a flight blow over his (mock frock—no
very revere difcipline. The lad went and lodged
a complaint before Mr. Goff, who iffued his war
rant to bring Mr. Olborne before him. It hap-
pened that the father of Mr.olborne had formerly
had a difference with Mr. Goff, upon the fubjed
of a fuppofed wilful trefpafs 'committed by the
former upon his land. When Mr. Olborne was
brought before him, he faid—" 0, you are a
pretty chap, I had your father here for his mac-
haviour, but I made him pay all expences."—
Without any examination of the lad, he made out
a commitment. Mr. Olborne raid he was ready
to give bail, but had not his fureties with him.—
Goff' would not hear him, but committed him to
pr.ifon. A Gentleman who was prefent advifed
Mr. Goff to be more attentive to his proceedings,
and rather recommended the bufinefs to be fettled.
The boy, in fad, was fatisfied with the prefent of
a pair of Ihoes. Mr. Goff (aid, if the boy is fa-
tisfied, he may go, but the conftable muff take
care of you. Mr. Olborne was kept in cutiody all
night, and the next morning he waited on Mr.
Goff, with his fureties. Gofffaid the boy was not
prefent, and he could do nothing in the affair
without him. Accordingly Mr. Ofborne was re-
manded. The next day he attended again with
his fureties, accompanied by the boy. Mr. Goff
was at dinner, and would not fee him, but defired
him to return at four. He did fo, and brought
a Mr. Spurrier with him. When Mr. Goff raw
Spurrier, he exclaimed, " 0 d—n you, you have
brought your lawyer with you, have you ! but I
will have no lawyer here ; I will be a match for
you—l'll play the devil with you—l will not take
Spurrier's bail." He added, that he underftood
Wright the conftable had let him out, but he
would have him in the King's Bench if he did not
take care of him. The refult was, Mr. Ofborne
was fent to the Houfe of Corredion ; and thus this
Gentleman Farmer, for having !lightly (truck his
fervant boy, had been made the object of the fport,
malice, and injuftice of the Magiltrate againft
whom the prefent motion was direded.—Rule to
flew caufe granted.

THE KING 'D. HENRY RICE, ESQ:,
Mr. Jaavrs moved for a rule to (hew caufe why
a criminal information thould not be granted
against the defendant upon the following fats,
fworn to by the affidavit of the profecutor, Capt.
Thomas Freemantle.

In the month of December 1800, the profecutor,
Capt. Freemantle, commanded his Majefty's ihip
the Ganges (then in the Channel fleet), of which
fhip the defendant was Ertl Lieutenant.
The profecutor, from a fenfe of duty for the
good of the fervice, conceived himfelf bound to
write a letter to Earl St. Vincent, rtquefting, for
reafons therein Rated, that the defendant fhould
be removed from the faid fhip ; he was according-
ly removed, and the profecutor had no further in-
tercourfe with him from the time of his faid re-
moval till abut the middle of July laft, when he
received by the poll a letter from the defendant to
the following effed

Sir, * No. s, Robert-ftreet,Adelphijuly 5.
" I have now to call you to an account for your ungentle-
ntan.like, unmanly, bare, and difhonourable conduct, with
refped to me. You have impofed upon the gallant Admiral
who commanded the Channel fleet by au infamous fall. hood,
with refped to me, which was the caufe of my removaL Alk
of me then, or alt my friends, what balfam will heal the
wounds which you have inflided: they will tell you that it is
your duty to meet me in the fibld, and give tuc at leait that fa-
tisfadlon. As for myfelf, I amid rather perifh in the field,
or bleed on a fcaffold, than fubmit to be trampled on bz a
petty tyrant. " HENRY
" P. S. I will thank you for your anfwer as loon as poifilde,
as I will not let this bufinefs ftop here."
This letter the profecutor thought it his duty to
lay before the Lords of the Admiralty, which,
when the defendant heard, he addreffed another
letter to him, containing, among other very pro-
voking expreffions, the following Your claim-
ing the protection of the Lords of the Admiralty
puts me in mind of the mean cringing conduct of
' a fchool-boy, who flies to his mailer for protec-
tion from the chaßifement he had deferved." The
profecutor's affidavit further Rated, that his con-
duct towards the defendant was not at all the ef-
fect of malice, but proceeded entirely from his
fenfe of duty. Rule granted.

WRIT OF MANDAMUS.-Mr. Serjeant Coextt.t.
moved for a Writ of Mandamus to be direned to
Thomas Cleather, Efq. late Mayor of Plymouth,
and the Aldermen and capital Burgefres, Common
Councilmen, and Freemen of the Borongh, com-
manding them to nrlcerAl to the election of
Mayor. The arrel .vit on which he grow' dei his
motion Rated, that the Borough of Piymota h was
an ancient corporate body, the component parts
of which were a Mayor, thirteen Aldermen,
twenty four Common Councilmen, and twenty-
four Burgeffes. It had been the uniform euflom
for the Mayor to convene a meeting on the 17th
of September, for the ele.dtion of a focceffor to af-
fume the office on Michaelmas day. The mode
of eledion was this :—The Mayor and Aldermen
retired and chofe two perfons, who were called
4;rors; the Common Councilmen alfo appointed
two Afferors out of their own body. There four
dfirors named thirty-fix perfons, compofcd of
Common Councilmen and Freemen ; and the thir-
ty-fix fo appointed,eleded a fit perfon from among
the Aldermen to be Mayor, taking care not to
chafe one who had ferved the office within eight
years. A Meeting was called on the 17th of Sep-
tember lafl, and the thirty fix Nominees were duly
appointed ; but they could not agree as to whom
they fhould elect Mayor—there were 18 againft
18. The next day the Mayor, under the Ilatute
1 Geo. HI. convened another Meeting, when
the thirty-fix again difagreed as to the object of
their choice, and the confequence was, the Bo-
rough was deprived of its Mayor, and, without
the Intervention of this Court, was likely to con-
tinue fo. He therefore prayed the writ againft the
Mayor, Aldermen, Commonalty, and Freemen.
The Court defired the Learned Serjeant to take
the Writ.

THE KING V. GIBBON.

The defendant funds charged with a Libel on
Mr. Shuttleworth, fignifying that he murdered a
man on board his Chip; he was brought into Court,
and ordered to be brought up on Saturday next to
receive judgment.

RYAN V. RECNIER.

Mr. GIBBS moved fora rule to thew caufe why
the proceedings fhould not be Hayed, and an ex-
oneretur entered on the bail piece, in a caufe of
Ryan againft Regnier. The former part of bia
motion he feared could not, by the rules of the
Court, be granted; hut he mulled the I titer would
be acceded to. The defendant was a Frenchman,
and in the year 1788, had, at the irotance of a
Mr. Foulcoutier, entered into a joint bond to the
plaintiff for a furn of money lent to Foulcoutier.
The bond was executed in France. The deftn-
dant, fubfequent to that period, had been detained
in prifon for his attachment to the unfortunate
family of the Bourbons. He came over to this
country in 1795, and heard nothing further of the
bond till Taft year, when the plaintiff informed him
he was entitled to the payment of it, and fhould
arreft him for the amount. The defendant de-
fired to fee the bond, but that requelt was refufed.
He was at length induced to give the plaintiff a
Bill of Exchange on a perfon at St. Domingo :
the bill was not paid, and the plaintiff arrefled the
defendant upon it. By the Statute 41 of his pre.
fent Majefty, c. Ø. it was enacted that no perfon
born out of the country fhould be arrefled and
1121 d to bail for any debt contraeied in another
country; and it had been held in a caufe of—
" M'Carthy againft Boulanger," in Trinity Va-
cation, 18ot, before Judges Lawrence anal Le
Blanc, that the defendant was entitled to be dif-
charged, on the ground that the caufe of aElion
was a Bill of Exchange given for a debt original-
ly contrafted in France. The Learned Connfel
argued that the principle of the adi of Parliament
applied not only to debts contrasted abroad, but
to fecurities afterwards given fur them here. He
Paid he had an affidavit to (hew that the defen-
dant could not have been arrelted by the laws of
France upon the bond. _ •

The Court thought this laft objection of no
weight; the laws of France not admitting of an
arrell upon a contract upon which a party could
be held to bail, in this was no ground h r difcliarg-
ing him. Upon the principle and cc nfirlieiitm of
the At of Parliament, a Rule to fhtw caufe was
granted.

SHERIFF. COURT, WEDNESDAY, NOV. 3.
LACEY V. EMMERTON.

This was an inquifition in an action againfl the
defendant, for illegally diaraining the plaintiff's
goods.
Mr. L!ADER, Counfel for the plaintiff, Rated
that an at of more grofs opprellion had never
been committed than the one of which the plaintiff
complained. The plaintiff refided in a Nall houfe
at Battle-bridge, Pancras, and the defendant, Mifs
Emmerton, was his Landlady. There was a very
trifling fum due for rent, and the v. itbed:to di arain ;
but in order to gain admittance to the houle, the
applied to the Colleaor of the King's Tax for the
parifh, and requefted him to break into the houfe.
and feize for what was due to him. This he con-
tented to, and although the plaintiff ov‘ed no more
than 45. he forced an admittance, and made a
feizure of the plaintiff's property. The defendant
then entered the premifes and difirained all the
plaintiff's goods, notwithaanding the amount of
the rent actually due was tendered to her. She
made an inventory of all the goods the plaintiff
pi:defied, and at the expiration of seven day',
had them removed and fold by the Shelitt's
Broker. Among the articles diarained iivon
were fcveral which were valuable to the plaintiff
in the way of his trade as a confe&ioner, but
in themfelves of no intrinfic value. There were
alfo a variety of articles of ornamental furni-
ture, and a confiderable quantity of marble-
duff, worth ts. 6d. per pound to the plaintiff, but
mere rubbith for any other purpole than his buli-
mic All there, with the furniture of his 'inure,
were included in the ditirefs, and told at a very in.
ferior price. Six beech chairs were difpoled of for
7s. and every other article undervalued in propor.
tion. The whole fold for only 3L ts. though worth
to the Plaintiff ten times that frm. The Learned
Counfel reprobated in the flrongeft terms this
tranfatftion, and particularly cenfured the conduel
of the Collcdor of the King's Tax, oblerving,

I

I

i

I

I

"tlat it was she duty of the Commiffioners of Taxe- 1
,;;;mils men who made their office the *mnn
ment of opprcffion and ahufe; He trufted the '
jury would reimburfe the Plaintiff the full amount
of the goods of which he had been 1i unjuftly de-
rived.—Several witneffes were examined, but
Oeir teftimony only could particularize property
to the extent of rel. [co. 6d. though it was evident
much more had been taken.
The Defendant's Cottnfel inferred, that when
his client found the had proceeded irregularly' flit-
!lad offered a compenfation for the marble dull
other articles tiled by the Plaintiff in the
way of his trade. With regard to the furniture,
it had been difpofed of by a fair auction.
The Jury retired for a kw minutes, and returned
with a Verdi& for the Plaintiff—Damages 41.