Star.
London, England, 1830-04-07 00:00:00

tb

N°• 13,142. WEDNESDAY EVENING, APRIL

FROM THE LONDON GAZETTE, April 6.
C ROWN OF ICE, Aram 6.
M ember returned to serve in this present Parliament.
City of Cork.—Daniel Callaghan, $141.. in the room of Gerard
Callaghan, Est. whose election has been determined to be void.
DECLARATION OF INSOLVENCY.
Gems Selma; Somers Town Terrace. master mariner.
BANKRUPTCIES SUPERSEDED.
Fowass, Damn Euston-square, builder.
Jamas, Lasaaus Gloucester-place, King's-road, Cbelsea,broker.
BA NKR UPTS.
COLA, WILLIAM, and Voairr, Karon: Rome. Suffolk-lane, Can-
non-street, hop-merchanu, to surrender April 20, at twelve,
April 30, and May la. at eleven, at the Court of Commissioners.
Attorney, Mr. Stephenson, 4, Paternoster-row.
Jones, Groaas, Tenterden-street, Hanover-glare, livery-stable
keeper, April 16, 20, and May 114 at tau, at the Court of Com-
missioners. Attorney, Mr. J. Baster, 3, Sire-lane.
THOMMNIM, CMAILLIS, Earl-street, /3bckfriars, bookbinder, April
IC at ten, April 22, at twelve, and May IS, at ten, at the Court
of Commissioners. Attorney, Mr. Wettlg, Duke-street, Port-

land-place.
Rosins. Jamas High-road, Knightsbridge, victealler, April ST.
May 4, at nine, and May is, at ten, at he Court of Commis-
sinners. Attorney, Mr. Clayton, 18, John-street, Bedford-row.
Ihumawoos, Flamm, Coventry, grocer, April 14, IS, and May
is, at eleven, at the King's Head Inn, Coventry. Attorney,
Mr. J. Byrne, Exchequer Office of Pleas, Lincoln's Inn, and in,
Cook's-court, Serle-street, and Messrs. Carter and Dewes,
Coventry.
lkaxer.wr, Txosus, Bath, haberdasher, April 26, 27, and May 18,
at twelve. at the Castle and Ball Inn, Bath. Attorneys, Mr.
Simpson, 5, Furnival's lon, and Mr. Brokenbrow, Bath.
Cr.aax, Joan, Blyth, Northumberland, miller, April 16. at eleven,
13, at one, and May 18, at eleven, at the Half Moon Inn, New-
castle-upon-Tyne. Attorneys, Mr. G. Dunn, No. S, Raymond-
buildings, Gray's Inn ; and Mr. W. Wilson, Newcastle upon-
Tyne.
&meson, HANNAH, Warmfieldcum Heath, Yorkshire, boarding-
house keeper; April 16, 17, and May 18, at the Sessions House,
Wakefield. Attorneys, Mr. J. Scott, 16, Lincoln's Inn-fields;
and Mr. Thomas Taylor, Wakefield.
Salmon, Joust, Banbury, Oxfordshire, miler, April 16, 17, at
eleven, and May 18, at two, at the Red Lion Inn, Banbury.
Attorney, Mr. Benjamin ApUn, Banbury.
Fox, Jonas, Margate, merchant, May 1, at seven, 3, and 18, at
twelve, at the Royal Hotel, Margate. Attorneys, Mr. T. Cobb,
Margate; and Messrs. Cook and Hunter, No. 1, New Inn.
Pence, WILT-um, Sunningwell, Berkshire, lime-burner. April 16,
at six, 17, at ten, and May 18, at eleven, at the Lamb Inn,
Abingdon. Attorneys. Mr. C. Ford, 35, Great Queen-street,
Lincoln's Inn-fields; and Mr. 'Thomas Frankum, Abingdon.
DIVIDENDS.
April 16, S. Gmrarrx, Birmingham, merchant, at eleven, at the
Court of Commissioners, London—April 27, W. Giles, Harp-lane,
Thames-street, victualler, at eleven, at the Court of Commis.
Boners—April 27, F. Z. Hirschfeld, Rotherhithe' merchant, at
eleven, at the Court of Commissioners—April 27. W. Llewellyn,
Fenchurcb-street. merchant, at eleven, at the Court of Commis-
sioners--AprU 27. W. Brock and B. Le Meunier. Warnford-court,
Thrognunton-street, merchants, at eleven, at the Court of Coat-
missioners-.April 29. J. Wroe, sea. J. Wine, jun. and T. Wroe,
Bradford, Yorkshire, worsted spinners, at eleven, at the Sun lon,
Bradford—April 20. J. Beattie, Portsea. Southampton. victualler,
at twelve, at the Quebec Tavern, Portsmouth... April 29. T. Peirce
and D. William. Mertlayrtidvil, Glamorganshire, bankers, at
twelve, at the William..
Inn, Menhyrtidviln-April 25. G. Elliott,
Foleshill, Coventry, ribbon manufacturer, at one,at the King's
Head Inn, Coventry—April 2s. W. Newbold,. mousy, ribbon
manufacturer, at eleven, at the King's Head, Inn, Coventry—April
29. G. Eyre, Coventry, ribbon manufacturer, at one, at the King's
Head Inn, Coventry—April 29. B. Troughton, Coventry, banker,
at three, at the King's Head Inn, Coventry.
CERTIFICATES—Aran 27.
J. Bowmar, Goltho, Lincolnshire, farmer—W. Graham, Bristol,
linen draper—J. Welsh, Manchester, publican—T. Stone, Wed-
nesbnry, Staffordshire, innkeeper—L. Lee, Chorley, Lancashire,
cotton manufacturer—J. Phillips, Bristol, builder—R. Smith,
Preston, Lancashire, muslin manufacturer—J. W. Soppet, Greek-
street, Soho, linen draper—T. Whiteleu, Cross-street, Ashton-
upon-Mersey, Cheshire, rectifier—T. Shapley, Bath, grocer—J. F.
Bennallack, Truro, Cornwall, scrivener—D. F. Tayler, Mansfield-
street, Borough-road, engineer.
PARTNERSHIPS DISSOLVED.
R. Faulkner and T. hi. Lester, Newcastle-under-Lyme, silk
throwsters—D. Gowdie and Co. Glasgow, silk manufacturers—S.
Smith and C. Smith. Derby, brush manufacturers—O. Jump and
Co. Liverpool—J. Russel and G. R. New, Ramsbury, Wiltshire,
attorneys—R. D. Hanson. and R. Stewart, jun. Philpot-lane,
attorneys—W. Dalby and T. Dalby, Old Ford, Stratford Bow,
felimongers—J. Parnell and F. P. B. Picktborn, Better-street, Sr.
James's, surgeons—J. Hebden and W. Hebden, Halifax, York-
shire woollen cloth manufacturers—W. L. Parsons and J. Bud-
gett;Paulton, Somersetsbire, retail brewers—J. Yates and J. Wall,
Manchester, iron merchants—F. F. Gibbs and S. Kyd, Stepney
Green Terrace, ship brokers—R. Morrison and J. Morrison, St.
Paul's Church-yard, tailors—T. Smith and J. Smith, Ashborne
Derbyshire, tobacco manufacturers—Stevensun, Maitland, and Co.
Rotterdam, commission agenu.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
BIANM(WUSE.

Yesterday an exhibition of great profligacy was made in the jus-
tice-room before the LORD 31AY011.

John and Anne Perry summoned the overseers of the parish of
St. Margaret Pattens fur having refused to give them a weekly al-
lowance adequate to the wants of themselves and their five children.
The mother complained that her children were actually starving,
and the father declared that he could earn nothing in comparison
with their necessity. The parish officers said, that such a pair
never lived in that or any other parish, as this father and mother.
Every halfpenny they received was immediately converted into
gin,
idand neither of them, even for a nenment, thought of giving
to their children. There was another man iu " Co. with
Perry, as regarded the wife, so that it was impossible to say who
was the father of the children. The parish of course felt great com-
passion for the children, who were literally worn to the bone, but
they bad ceased to give the means of relief, as those means were at
once turned into quartcrns of the beloved liquor. The husband
said, the cap fitted his wife exactly ; but as tor himself, i.e could
never afford to drink. He used to give her money to buy victuals
for the family, but it soon slipped down her throat, and the children
often cried for bread.

The LORD Potairon.—But who is the man that divides her per-
son with you ? Is he the father of half the children, or how is it ?
The husband said he really could not say. His wife had takcn a
fancy to the man, and all he could do was of no avail in separating
them.

- -
The wife laughed at hearing the chine of infidelity. It was all
she said, a piece of groundless jealousy, produced in her husband's
mind by the quantity of gin he drank. This gave her great uneasi-
ness, and the pain she suffered was called by evil-minded people
drunkness. (A laugh.) She was a hard-working woman, but her
husband was fond of indulgence, and as lazy as the d--1 himself.
She therefore was obliged to look to the parish.
The LORD MAYOL-But who is this other man who claims a
sharellof you ? You seem to be fond of indulging yourself.
(Laughter )
The husband.—l assure you, my Lord, that I gave him a severe
beating the other day, for being on the bed with her. But when 1
came home in the evening, I not only saw this man, but another
with her. Now that was going too far (appealing to the whole
mon'.

The LORD MAYOR—No wonder that the poor children were al-
most lost when they had such protectors.
The officers said, that each told the truth in accusing the other;
but although the wile was the common property of two men, her
husband encouraged her prostitution. " She came," said they, "a
druiltafn day or two ago, and said the five children were starving. We awe
her 2s. to buy bread fox them at once, and told her to call at
five o'clock in the evening. At six she came reeling and
when we went to look at the children, we foend them all lying on a
mat to keep each other warm, and the eldest child told us they
had not eaten a morsel the whole day."
The LORD MAYOR said he did not know what to do with such
an unnatural pair, but it was evident that the poor Innocent children,
1 if left with them, would perish.

8:10. PRICE 7D.

APPEALS.

ALL•RDICC AND ANOTiall i. ROSERTSON....-JUDGMEKT.
An appeal from a decision of the Court of Session in Scotland :
The respondent, a shoemaker, was summoned before the appel-
lants and others as a court of justices' on a charge of poaching, and
having been convicted of shooting a hare, be supplicated the mercy
of the court, on the grounds that he was the only support of two
aged parents ; upon which one of the justices said, that he was a,
notorious poacher. Mr. Allardice, the appellant, said, "I do not
think the defendant deserves any mercy, ail am intimued. that he-
sides being a poacher, he is a thief; that he has been known to steal
bee-hives and leather, and that Mr. Boswell (the other appel.,
hint) knows this to be true; upon which Mr. Boswell said, " I
cannot say as to the hee.hives, but I was infomted by a respectable
fanner, now dead, that be stole a quantity of leather." Respondent
wwpcondemned in the penalty of 20L, the highest yerelty the stow
tees were empowered to inflict by the statute.
Respondent subsequently brought an action against the appellants
for this injurious attack on his reputation, and got damages to the
amount of 2001. against the two jointly. A Hew trial was obtained,
on the grounds of the damages having been given conjointly, al-
though the justices had been charged with several acts of defama-
tion, and the jury gave 1601. damages against each. Front this ver-
dict the justices appealed to the Court of Session, where the verdict
was confirmed. From this last decision, an appeal was brought to
the House of Janda.

Mr. Serjeant SPANILIE, (with whom was Mr. Brown), for the ap-
pellants, contended that the action was not tenable, as the words
complained of were uttered judicially, at a time when the character
of the respondent formed a pertinent and necessary subject of discus-
sion. There was no instant.: on record of a magistrate having been
held responsible in a civil action fur a mere opinion delivered from
the bench In a discretionary platter, without any proof of malice.
They cited the case of " Hoggart v. Hope," an action brought by a
barrister against a judge, for defamatory expressions used by him on
the bench, in which, tin an appeal to the louse of Lords, it was de-
cided that an action for damages would not lie against a judge for
allcdged defamation, committed by him in the discharge of his ju.
dicial functions ; but an application to Parliament or to His Ma.
imp to dismiss him, was the proper remedy. In the cue of
Daniell v. Ferrand," 6 Barnewall and Creswell, Lord Tenter.
den said—" An action would not lie against a Judge of record for
matter done by him in the exercise of his judicial functions, or
against an inferior Justice for an error of judgment, so long as he
kept within the bounds of his jurisdiction ; but," observed his
Lordship, " corruption is another thing, as also are neglect of
duty and misconduct in it ; for, in such cases, there is, and. I trust
there always will be, some due course of punishment by public
prosecution." It was evident from the words alkove stated,
that in Lord Tenterden's opinion, a civil action would not
lie against a justice for any thing done in his judicial capacity.
The case of " Soames v. Bernardiston," (Iloreard'e State Trials,
page 1096), decided before Lord North, and the authority
of Hawkins, ( l'kas qf the Crown, book 2, chap. 13,) were cited
to show, that though magistrates were punishable by a civil action
for misconduct in a ministerial capacity, they were protected from
civil responsibility for any thing they did judicially. It was the
duty of the judge who had tried this cause, either to nonsult the re-
spondent, or to tell the jury that their verdict should be for the jus-
tices, as the conduct complained of came within the principle of
protected communications, which had always been held unactiona.
ble, and respecting which it was the province of the judge, and not
of the jury, to decide.
For the respondent, Dr. LUSIIINGTON and Mr. DUNDAS con-
tended that the case of " Haggard v. Hope" was applicable to jus-
tices of a supreme court only, and did not militate against the
relevancy of this action, against an inferior justice. There were
various instances (2 &wasteful', 1162) of actions brought against
magic rates for malicious conduct in the discharge of their duties,
In this Instance two several juries hail found that the justices
had, through malicious motives, transgressed the bounds of theit
duty. A case (Adye on Courts-martial, p. 64,) where a lieute-
nant in the marines was tried by a court-martial in 1743, for diaobe.
dience to his captain's orders,and condemned to suffer an imprisonment
for 16 years. On his objecting to the order, he was brow-beat by the
Court with curses and imprecations, for which he brought an action in
the Common Plena. and obtained a verdict against the members of the
Court martial—Damages 1,0001. The authority of " Blackstone,"
and others were urged in support of the action ; among others
Baron Hume, says, "It is not the corruption of a judge that falls
ender the statutes, but his partiality also, for a refusal to do justice,
nay, he shall be answerable, though he be not actuated by enmity
towards any individual, if his proceedings amount to gross malver.
sation, and show an arbitrary, imperious, or greedy disposition as a
judge, such as lead him unduly to stretch the powers of his ogee,
or to employ them capriciously towards the gratification of his
humours, or the increase of his consequence or emoluments." In
conclusion, the language here made use of was wholly impertinent
to the mettle at issue, and injuries arising from the defamatory
language a a judge were analogous and similar in principle to those
caused by other mulversations.
Lord WYNFORD observed that this was a case of great import.
ance ; involving the independence of magistrates in the administra.
tion of justice, and the protection to which the lower classes were
entitled, from the effects of the malicious and atbitrary conduct of
magistrate'. The question was, whether a magistrate was respon-
sible in a civil action for words uttered by him while acting judi-
cialy, with a malicious intention, even though no injury had been
sustained in consequence. He thought the independence of magi?,
trues would be sufficiently consulted by protecting them in all cases
where discretion was exercised and malice not proved. The principle
which governed all the decisions which bore on this case was, that
to make a justice civilly responsible, it was essential to prove
that he had been actuated by malice. It had been ruled in the
highest criminal cues in this country. that gross judgments proceed-1
ing front ignorance were not punishable. In the case of " Haggard
v. Hope," Lord Clifford did not make any distinction between su.l
preme and infetior justices. Ile (Lord IV.) thought it essential to
the administration of justice, that judgcs of a court of record could
nut be made responsible before their equals for their conduct on the
bench. The House of Lords were the potter guardians of the due
administration of justice, and the fitttst place to arraign the mis.
conduct of a judge. But though he thought a judge should not be
held responsible in an action at law for his conduct on
the bench, a magistrate or inferior justice should be liable in a
civil action for corrupt and malicious conduct; and the authority
with which magistrates were clothed, instead of being a protection,
gas an aggravation of the oflimee. It was usual fur judges in the
Court of King's Bench, in passing judgment on any petton for a cri.
urinal offence, to take into consideration his previous character; and
he thought, on a similar principle, the justices in this case were per.
ft ctly anew:A in considering the previous character of the respond.
cnt, in parsing sentence on him. If the words complained of were
impertinent to the cause Mere the Court, it would be competent for
the jury to return a verdict against the justices. No man was jus-
tified to call another man a thief, of impeach his character wan.
tool),; but here the character of the respondent was a lit subject of
inquiry, ana pertinent to the matter at issue. He (Lord Wyn.
ford), was of opinion, that unless malice was alleged mid
proved, the action in this case was not maintainable. On
leokingat the form of the action, he found that malice wax
alleged, but there was not a scintilla of evidence from which ma-
lice could be interred. Had it been tried before him (Lord Wye-
ford) lie would not let tt have gone to the jury. The Lord Commis.
sioner Adams saw that there was no evidence of malice, and
in addressing the jury he used the strongest language to is.
duce them to acquit the justices of that charge. Notwithstande
ing which the jury thought proper to return a verdict against
the justices. No man admired the institution of juries more
than he (Lord Wynford) did,, but he thought that it would be
dangerous to permit them to raise themselves up into arbitra.
ton of causes without evidence. we lived under laws, and
our property was protected by laws; but we should have but a bad
security for both our lives and property if they were to be left cobs
arbitrary discretion of 12 men uncontrolled by any rule. Juries
would become an intolerable nuisance if not regulated by some law.
Who would act as a magistrate if he were not protected by the
Judges in the honest discharge of his duties? It juries returned
1,000 verdicts against magistrates, he (Lord Wynford) would set
mem aside, if given contrary to evidence. There was no class to
whom the country was more indebted than to magistrates, though
he was San to say that there was a esetain party in this country,
who would run them down. He t the verdict of the jury
was wrong, and, as a consequence, the dune of the Court of the.
'ion laming that verdict should be revers* lila LoWeitig deo
moved that the decree of the Court of fl VASS be revemei, bee teat
the interlocutor finding the relevancy of the sada *eat be a 4
firmed, and that the case should be sent bag WOW 4117 00.11~'
The decree was accordingly reversed.

..e-Atir
, .
ilk
ri.
..—..a.--
,-- - - N--1-
1101 h-t.)
i, ,x
1
lir= u 3.4.04. 1 op xoxitur-47.,
soslam rases