Star.
London, England, 1823-11-13 00:00:00

LADEN V. JUSTICL

This was an application made on behalf of the de-
fendant to be discharged out of custody, on filing com-
mon bail, on the ground that she was a married woman,
of which the plaintiff was informed at the time of her
arrest. The plaintiff now sheaved cause against the Rule,
and contended that the defendant was not entitled to the
relief prayed, as she was living separate from her hus-
band, who resided out of the jurisdiction of this Court.
The cases of De Gaillon v. L'Aigle ; Rutherford v. the
Duchess de Pienne ; and the case of the Duchess of Ma-
zarin, were cited, in all of which a similar application
had been refused on the same ground.
Mr. Serjeant PELL appeared to support the rule, and
said that the Court would be inclined co grant-the re-
lief prayed by the defendant, especially as the attorney
would be ready to undertake for her appearance at any
time that she should be required.
Mr. Justice PARK delivered the judgment of the
Court, and observed, that in this case no sufficient cause
had been shown to induce the Court to discharge this
defendant in the manner prayed. In all the cases cited
by the plaintiff, and in another which was reported in
henry Blackstone, the Courts had declared, and acted
on the principle, that a woman who was living separate
from her husband, although she had no separa:e main-
tenance, was subject to arrest for debt, and could
not be discharged on filing common bail, but must be
put to pleading and proving her coverture. Mr. Jus-
tice Heath, in one of those cases, had declared that
the simple affidavit of the person seeking to be dis-
charged was not sufficient, but she ought to prove it in
the regular way. As to the offer of an undertaking by
the defendant's attorney in the present case, his Lord.
ship observed, that though that gentleman might well.
undertake for her appearance, he would not undertake
to pay the costs, if the verdict should ultimately be
against the defendant, who was now residing out of the
jurisdiction of this Court.

TR! VAGRANT ACT.
Mr. Hutaturson moved against the conviction of
Benett, the Magistrate of Worship-street, on be-
lhalf Of a person named George Furnace, who had been
'sentenced, and was now undergoing the punishment of
the tread•mill, on a charge of indecent exposure, that
the defendant might be forthwith discharged, or brought
.rap into this Court by Habeas Corpus, in order to put in
bail, intending to appeal to the Sessions. The circum-
stances under which he moved were—Mr. Benett con-
victed Furnace, under the Act 3d Geo. IV. which-gave
as appeal to the Quarter Sessions; by virtue of which
the defendant, intimating his intention to avail himself
thereof, tiered to give bail, which Mr. Benett refused
to accept, and immediately sentenced him to the punish-
ment of the treadmill for one month. Now the hard-
ettip in this case was, the appeal could not be heard un-
til The textQtaartct Sessions : whilst, during the interim,

the month would expire, and the defendant have un-
dergone this degrading punishment, against which the
Act gave the right of appeal, Certainly without cone
templating that the punishment would first take place.
The Learned Gent lemansaid, he believed the papers con-
nected with this conviction had been sent to Mr. Justice
Bayley, who was thereby put in possession of the case.
Mr. Justice BAYLEY—I remember the case of George
Furnace. He must have his writ of Habeas Corpus. It
is his own fault that he has not had it before; had he ap-
plied to me when the papers were brought to my Cham-
bers, I would have granted it, but he delayed it till Term
time, when one Judge in Chambers could not grant it.

LYSTER V. BROWN.
This was an action for removing goods from a farm
to avoid distress. Thomas Brown the elder, finding that
he could not continue to pay the rent of his farm in the
altered state of agriculture, had entered into arrange-
ments to transfer the farm to his sons, and to make ap-
plication for a lease in their favour at a reduced rent.
Application was actually made to that effect, and Mr.
Lyster's bailiff held out hopes of its being agreed to, but
a lease was not given to the sons. There were arrears'
upon the farm for which the sons were to become liable,,
but the lease not having been granted to the sons, the'
father undoubtedly continued to be liable.. The father.'
left the farm and resided at a distance. At the time of
the transaction in question, he was OR a visit with a
married daughter. Two of the sons, at Lady-day last,
removed the goods from the farm to a farm belonging
to one of the sons. This was the act of the sons, yet the
action was brought against the father as ,the principal.
A witness said, that Thomas, the eldest son, told the
father on the evening before the goods were removed,
of the intention to remove them ; and the father fear-
ing that he would be liable for the arrears sent to a Mr.l
Stringer, who was a creditor for 1001. desiring him to
help himself. Mr. Stringer did get some heifers con-
signed to him, which he afterwards gave up to the
plaintiff's bailiff. The Learned Judge had directed the
Jury to find whether the father or she .sons had con-
trived the removal of the goods ; and, if the sons, whe-
ther the father approved. The Jury found that the sons
had contrived and the father approved. The motion
now was for a rule why the verdict should not be en-
tered fer the defendant, or a new trial granted, on the
ground that the action was against the father as princi-
pal, while he was proved only to have been accessary.
The Act of Parliament made the express distinctiqn of
principals and accessaries in this case.
Mr. Justice Iheurr—But all are equally liable.
C.tts► Juirrsce—lf the tenant is not liable in this ease, the Aet
of Parliament is completely defeated.
Mr. Pssaisots still submitted, that as the Act was penal, Thomas
Brown, the father, ought not to suffer as a principal, when he
was only accessary.
Cm? Jus73ol—lt is remedial as well as penal.