Star.
London, England, 1809-11-23 00:00:00

S
•,1 .

L.4n IA 1 ELI,IC:EII CE.
-

COURT or CHANCERY, NOV.O.C.

This day the Lour) CIIaNCFI,T,OIt gave judgment in
tle ease of the Governors of Bruton SChool v. Co-
zens, v.hich, it will he recollected, was an applica-
tion on the part of the Governors for the removal of
I.ir. Cozens, the present Master. His Lordship said
that he had examined the affidavits on both sides
With the Meanest attention, and was by no means sa-
tisfied that tho falling off in the school was imputa-
ble to misconduct on the part of the Masten and
thereforo, however much he might lament that this
school, like many others of a similar kind, was not
productive of all those benefits for which it was en-
dowed, yet he could not feel justified in consenting to
the application of the Governors, and removing the
Masters
The Court was occupied during the rest of the day
in hearing an appeal from a decision of the Master of
the Rolls, on the construction of the will of a Mr.
Wilkins. After bearing Counsel on both sides at great
length, his Lordship confirmed the Master's decree.

COURT OF RING'S BENCIIt, NOVEMBER 92.
TIIE KING SHELDON.
Mr. TOPPING said, that this was the case whiclehe
had obtained a writ of Habeas Corpus, directed to
Captain Sheldon, commanding him to bring into ,
Court the body of Elizabeth Moorehouse, an infant,
who was under his care, for the purpose of her being
delivered to her bailer. The parties were now in at,
tendance; if the Court should call them in they would
..appear.
Mr. GAnnow—" I do not think it will be neces-
sary to trouble the Court with the appearance of the
parties, or with hearing any thing further of this bu-
siness. I understood from Mr. Topping, out of
Court this morning, that it would hot be necessary,
because ,the young woman is delivered into the care
bf her father."
Mr. Toereco—" The parties are brought up here,
and she is delivered to her father ; i do not know
whether it be necessary that the act of delivering over
to her father should be done in Court. I have no
wish for it, if it be not necessary."
Mr. GARROW—" Out of delicacy to the feelings
of the parties, I wished to pass by the ceremony of
the delivery over of the party in Court. They have
the security of the custody being with the father."
Mr. Justice LE BLANC—" You have a right to
lave the writ obeyed in open Court, Mr. Topping."
Mr. GARROW—;" I understood from Mr. Topping
this morning, nut of Court, he had no wi.h to bring
this young woman into Court, but that she might be
delivered over to her father out of Court."
Lord ELLi.NROROUGH--" As the writ is returnable
here, we ought to have the performance of an obedi-
ence to it in Court. It is a writ which protects the'
liberty of the subject, and due and formal, as well as
substantial, obedience to it ought to be executed.—
We, as guardians of the freedom of the subject, must
see that the writ is properly obeyed. Call the parties
into Court."
Upon which Captain Sheldon came into Court with
the young woman, followed by her father.
The writ of Habeas Corpus was then produced and
the return read as follows :
1, !lie within r.amed J. Sheldon, in obi dience to the writ of
T.a!).,as Corpus to me directed, do certify that the within•named
;I::!.ibeth Moorehouse, did of her own free-will come to reside
-vith me ; and I do further certify that no force, restraint, or co-
-scion, Lath been laid upon her by me, or by any beily, while
resided VN ith me, but that sbe bath continually been, and
noec .c, at liberty to go away to any person she may think proper:
LOrd ELLEN nottocc,ll—" Is her father here
Mr. G.‘neos.v—" Yes, my Lord, she comes here,
indeed, ie the possession of her father."
Lord Era.tesnonouun—" Let her be delivered up
t.) her ather."
This was done immediately. He took her by her
hand, trembled, and wept; and then the pities
withdrew.
As they were going out, Lord ELLENEOROUGH said,
" She is not to be molested in going home with her
father. The Court will wetch over and see to effec-
tual execution of this writ. If any one should offer
to interrupt the father and daughter in their way home,
the Court will visit that offence as it should be visited
—what age is she
Mr. Toerteo—" Fifteen, my Lord."
I'lle KING V. WHEELER AND OTHERS.
The A'rTORNEY GENERAL moved for the judgment
of the Court on John Wheeler, Edmund Bradshaw,
William Harley, William Darlington, Richard Ash-
ley, James Zachary, Henry Drain, Samuel Haigh-
ton, and Thomas Valiance, who had suffered judg-
olent to go against them by default, on an informa-
tion charging that they, with a great many others, to I
the number ef 200 in the whole, did, at Liverpool,
tn the 29th November I SOB, by force and arms, as.i
semble in a riotous manner at a place of rendezvous
for seamen in Liverpool, with intent to rescue an
pressed seaman of the name of John Crossley, and did
then and there threaten to kill the Lieutenant acting
ie the impress service, and to tear in pieces the house
et. rendezvous for seamen, if Crossley was not deli-
vered up to them ; in consequence of which, and to
prevent the effusion of blood, the Lieutenant deliver-
ed up Crossley.
The Defendants, it appeared, soon became sensi-
ble of their improper conduct, and presented a me-
moriel to the Lords of the Admiralty, confessing
their sorrow and contrition. They afterwards allow.
toindgment to go by default, and new filed atlida-i
vies throwing themselves on the clemency of the
Court, being all journeymen ropemakers or labourers,
v•iio had families depending on their daily labcear for
tugport.
ATTORNFX GENERAL stated, that he had been
r.l,li'4cd, ithin the. last twelve hours, to file a crimi-
r information against an immense number of rioters
a Liverpool, -AT had risen, net for the purpose of
teocmeg, a eagle seaman, but with the view, as it
seould seem, of deAroying every house opened in
that town for the receiving, of impressed men. If it
was proper, therefore, that the impress service should
to at all kept up, a crime of this nature could not can-
4stently with the public safety, at the present mo-
ment, be visited with a light punishment.
M. CLARKE, for the PIDIO:ieTS, addressed the
Court io mitigation, relying principally on the fact
of he Defhodants having immediately become seri-
sibleof their error, and expressed theircontrition for it,
which went for to chew that theirs was an offence of
Arpti-,c.
.A 1 to OA. riot in Liverpool, just alluded

to by the Attorney General, his information limited
it entirely to American and other foreign seamen.
Mr. Justice Le BLANC pronounced the judgment
of the Court on the defendants :.•-•4‘ You nine per-
sons, who now stand upon the floor, are to receive
the judgment of this Court, after having suffered
judgment to pass by default, upon an indictment,
charging with the offence of a riot and very outra-
geous conduct, for the purpose of claiming, very il-
legally, very improperly, John Crossley, a person
duly impressed by Lieutenant Davis, into his Ma-
jesty's naval service, for the purpose of forcibly tak-
ing him out of the service into which he was legally
taken: on which occasion you, with a great number
of other persons, stated to be two hundred and more
made a great riot in the town of Liverpool, for the
purpose before specified. That in consequence of
such your proceedings, the Officers of the Navy, who
had that person so impressed under their care, in order
to prevent bloodshed, which might otherwise have en-
sued, gave up the person; that is, you, by your vio-
lence, compelled them to deliver up that person so in
their custody; that is the offence of which you stand
convicted by your own confession, as appears by your
suffering judgment to pass by default. That Crossley
was in legal custody, there can be no doubt, on all the
affidavits in the case; as little doubt is there that you,
by s our violence,deprived his Majesty and the country
of the services of that individual, whom you rescued
lout of such legal custody. I have stated him to be
' a person in legal custody, because no doubt can rest
oit the mind of any man, that those who are brought
up originally, or who have for a considerable time
accustomed themselves to a seafaring life, are persons
to whose services the State looks in the hour of neces-
sky. This person had been at sea, had given up his
pursuits on shore, and betaken to a seafaring life, had
been duly impressed into his Majesty's sea-service, and,
therefore, no doubt can be entertained that he was
' legally in the custody of the Officers of the Navy, by
whom he was impressed, and no doubt can be enter-
tained that the Crown had a right to his services.
Nor is there any reason to complain of this practice
of impressing, for the law provided a remedy to every
person aggrieved in, these cases, which remedy this
Court is every day in the habit of applying to those
who are entitled to it ; that is, to those who are im-
pressed into the sea service, but who are entitled to
exemption from that service. Whenever any case of
j that kind appears, the Court instantly relieves the
party through the means of the prerogative writ of
the Habeas Corpus ; but here was a person not en-
titled to exemption—a person who had been duly
impressed, and you, conscious that you could not
by legal means extricate him from that situation, of
which he was perhaps desirous, not that he wanted
to quit the sea service, but that he should only
quit the King's service, because it appears by the affi-
davit that, in violation of your promise, on the officer
delivering the man up to you, to bring him forward
the next day to be judged of, whether he was a pro-
per object of the impress service or not, you suffered
him to go to sea in a merchant vessel. It is there-
fore clear that this person had no aversion to the sea
service, but only to serving his King and Country at
sea. It appears also most clearly, that in the prose-
cution of this your purpose, great violence was used ;
that a great number of persons, 200 and upwards, of i
which you were nine, assembled on that occasion,
whe went to the house of rendezvous, demanded
that the person, thus legally impressed, should be
delivered up, and that you threatened that if he was
not, the officer who impressed him should be kill-
ed, and the house of the rendezvous demolished.—
It is ft that you should learn that it would have been
murder in you if any person had been killed by you ;1
hut if either of you, or your party, had been killed, i
on that occasion, it would not have been murder in 1
those who opposed you, because their pursuit was 1
lawful, and yours was unlawful ; for you attempted
to gain your 'll pose by.violence, which the law will
not allow. 'hie excuse offered for you in your affida-
vit is, that of shesviig what the former part of your
lives has been. That your characters hereto ore
have been good, and that punishment may not fall
heavily on you, it is stated by your affidavit, that
you sees:st by your labour, that you are married
men, and that you have families. All of you have j
arrived at a time of life in which you ought to j
know your duty ; and as to your families, their ,
condition ought to operate upon your minds as pledges
given to society by you for your good behaviour, in.
stead of furnishing an excuse for your not being pu-
nished for your misconduct, after you have forteited
your characters. We do not live in times when this
Court should pass over offences of this sort with a
slight punishment, when the spirit of insubordina-
tion is abroad. When every thing wrong is at-
tempted to be inforced by violence and riot, the Court
would desert its duty if it inflicted a sentence milder
than the occasion calls for on persons guilty of this
description of outrage. The situation of many of
you in the present case would induce us not to inflict
punishment On you with a heavy hand ; but the I
temper of the times is such as would make it cul- I
pable in the Court to pass over such an offence as this I
lightly : for the public must learn (if their own good I
sense has not already informed them of it) that a
Court of Criminal Jurisdiction must not treat such
subjects lightly, and that however turbulent persons,
like you, may succeed for a while, in their attempts
to compel what is wrong to be effected by violence— I
or even to compel what they may think to be right,
the arm ache law will be long enough to reach them;
and however punishment may be delayed, at last they
will be sure to be punished. In your case the Court
cannot extend to you the mercy which you seek ; nor
can the Court indulge at its pleasure in the quality of
that virt'e'. Mercy must flow from the Crown only.
Here we must distribute justice as applicable to the
offence for which punishment is inflicted, without con-
sideration of any personal feelings. The sentence of
the Court, therefore, upon you is, that this Court doth
order and adjudge—That you be severally imprisoned
in the Castle of Lancaster for one year, and be then
discharged.
THE KING V. WILLIAM STEKRICK.
This Defendant was also brought up to receive sen-
tence, having suffered judgment by default, for ob-
structing a Revenue Officer in the execution of his
office, by refusing to produce, or let him search for
some necessary document (a clearance) to entitle him
to make his voyage from Gloucester to Bristol—and
for sailing without such necessary document.
The Court sentenced him to pay a fine of Jel 0, which
Sing immediately complied with, he was discharged,'

Ir I 61 1 1
A

I