Star.
London, England, 1807-11-27 00:00:00

'nig KING V WILLIAM WILLIAMS.

The defendant was brought up to restive thejudx-
ment of the Court, he having been ctnvieed at the
IA York Mize., before Mr. Jullice CHAMBLE, of
aflanit upon Edward Abbey, on the 24. h of Sep-
tember, 1806. Mr. Jolliet Ls !haste read the report
of the trial, which Owed, that both the parties were
a:lending Dinealier Races, when the profecutor
fftred the defendant to bet upon a hotfe called
; it was accepted, and the refult was in favour
nt the proleentor. The following day they met in
t e lireet, when Mr. Abbey demanded the payment
o' tuenty ruinea,, as the (urn won by him. The
d reodant refuted to pay, alledging, that the bet con-
!r teed was only fix to four, and that four guineas
was all that could be demanded. This funs the
pturecuto: refuted to accept ; and when the parties
met upon the race ground, the demand was repeated
by Mr. Abbey on the principal Stand, in ate pretence
of the Prince of Wales. The defendant, in itated at
this fu 'poled impofitian, told the prefeeittor he was
a liar and a feoundrel ; and thefe cpprobrious expref-
lions were repeated by the latter. The defendant
immediately railed his fill, and fit tick the profecutor
fn violent a blow under the ear, as to deprive him of
his fenfes,and force the blood to guth out of his mouth.
The affidavit of the defendant extenuated his
offence, by liating, that the affaull was committed
during a moment of irritation, railed by the fulpi-
eion that the profecntor was endeavouring to impofe
upon him, by infilting that the Let was lo to ata
guineas, when in fait it was only 6 to 4 guineas.
Mr. SCAILET, for the defendant, urged, that Mr.
Williams, in his affidavit, did not nab to call any
imputation upon the charaeler of the protect:tor : his
only delire was to let himfclf right in the eyes of
the world ; that it might not be foppofed, that he
had refuted to pay any bets he had made. He ruf-
peeled, that Mr. Abbey was taking advantage of the
public lunation of the race course, and was endea-
vowing to obtain the money from him, by Willing
that the bet was much higher than the defendant
had ever engaged in during the whole comic of his
life. The truth was, that Mr. Williams had no in-
tention of vili:ing the ground, but palling through
a-mealier on a northern tour, he was, from motives
of curinfity, induced to attend.

Mr. PARKE, for the profecntion, trniked, that
canduel like that of the Defendant's w-)uld not go
unpunifhed with the greated fever ity. It might not
be the with of the Defendant to vilify the charaller
of Mr. Abbey, but whether loch was his defire or
not, it is certain that the charaelcr nt the Profe-
cutor had been molt grofsly attacked. The expla-
nation of the tranfaetion was this : at the time when
the bet was made, the Profecutor had in his hand
fume 51. notes, and balding them up to the Defen-
dant, offered him 6 to 4, or pt. to 201. This cit.-
cumflance was mulaken by the Defendant, who con.
ccived, that what the Profecutor meant was only 61.
to 41. 'The Wank was molt viAent and unprovekei,
and the Defendant might thank the mercy of thc
Profecutor, that he had not proceeded in another
form, by which his gods and chattels might have
been forfeited, and his pcsfon imprifoncd for two
years. _ . _

The Court fentenced the Defendant to pay a fine
of z5l. which wai. immediately ditCharged.

LAW INTII 11GENCF.

IN cnicritarprpori PRIM THE PRECED!NG PACE.

COII2T OF I XCHEQLIER CHAMBER, NOV. 2f.
The Judge, lit in the Exchequer ChAniber to hear
argnmeors on cafes referved for their opinion.

THE KING V. ANTONIE DEPFRADo.

The cafe referved was this :—The defendant was
a Spaniard, taken prifoner of war on board a Dutch
fhip captured in the Eft Indies. At Pulo Penang,
commonly called the Prince of Wales's Ifland ; he
volunteered from on board the Blenheim to navigate
the Eaft Indic Company's {hip the Alnwick Cattle.
Being rated as one of her crew, and receiving pay
accordingly, he arrived in the river of Carlton in
China, where in an affray he killed an Englifh failor
of the name of Burn. lie was tried for mantlangh-1
ter at the Lift Salons at the Old Bailey, and found
Guilty ; lubjeCt, however, to the opinion of the
Ju.lges, whether he, being a Spaniard, could be hied
for the laid offence in this country ?
Mr. BURROW ES argued, that he was in no lenfe of
'he word a fubjeet of this country, and owed Do al-
legiance
to our Sovereign, and therefore could not ;
be tried in our Courts. He was a Spaniard and an
alien enemy, and it was not in his power, by any adi
of his own, in volunteering to go on board a mer-
chantman, to divell hirnfilf of the allegiance which i
he owed to his own Sovereign, the King of Spain, or
to make himfelf, by any conliration of law, a Britifh
fubjeCt. The A& of the 33d of Henry VIII. for
trying murders committed in foreign countries, re•
laced only to offences committed by Britifh inhjees;.
and the Al of the prefent King, which extended the
principle to cafes of manflaughter, went no farther.
If this offence had been committed either in this!
country or even at Prince of Wales's Ifland, in loch
cafe the p• ifoner, though a Spaniard, would be re-
fponfibie to our laws, becaufe every man owes a tem-
porary or local allegiance to that power in whole
domini ms he !elides. This offence, however, was
committed in China, where the local allegiance was
due only to the Emperor of China. If he had vo-
lunteered on board a King's (hip, the cafe might'
have been different, or at all events he would be,
cognizable by a Court Martial. If the offence hadl
been committed on the high fear, he would not take
upon him to fay whether the Admiralty Court would
have jurifdiftion or not ; but having been committed
in China by a Spaniard, he mutt contend that it
could not be legally tried before our Courts. This
point appeared to him of the moll ferious importance,
Sind deferving the greatelt attention, inafmuch as the
lives of many Britifh fnbjeas in foreign countries
might depend upon it. The principle of temporary
and local allegiance to the Rate in whole territories
a man refides, was a principle eafily under ftood and
univerfally affented to ; but foreign nations would
be very much at a lots to know upon what principle
an alien enemy could be tried by our laws, for offen-
ces committed in another country.
Mr. ABBOT, on the contrary, argued, that as he
had enjoyed the proteCtion of the Britifh laws while
he was on board the merchant chip, he mutt need
farily owe an allegiance to that power whole protec-
tion he fo enjoyed.
Lord ELLENBORnUGH afked Mr. Abbot whether
he thought the Britifh laws would have enforced the
contra°, if the owners of the merchant chip had not
paid him the flipulated wages
Mr. ABBOT allowed, that during the war they
would not, as he could not fue while he was an alien
enemy, and his property might be confifcated by the
Crown. He mull, however, contend, that his life
would have been proteCted by the Englilh laws, and
that if, inilead of his killing Burn, Burn had killed
him, he would undoubtedly have been liable to be
tried here, although the offence was committed in
China. (Some of the Judges expelled diffent.)—
The A& of Henry the Eighth introduced no new
principle in our law, as before the palling of it, mur-
ders committed in foreign countries were triable be-
fore the Conflable and Earl Mar(hal. It appeared
to him, that the prifoner, in changing his fituation
from a prifoner of war to a mariner on board a mer-
chant (hip, had done an a 8 greatly to his own be-
nefit, and that as he did obtain the proteftion of our
laws, he ought to be refponfible as a Britifh fubjedt
for the breach of them. The Learned Counfel con.
chided by citing three cafes in canonic of the drolrine
for which he contended. The first was of a French
prifoner of war, v ho, in 1799, was found guilty and
punifhed tor rnanflaugter committed on board the
Triton Earl Indiaman ; the fecond was, that of jean
Prevoft, a Frenchman, who was executed for the
murder of Captain iVilcocks, of the Lady Shore
packet, on the coati of Africa ; and the third was of
a Cirinefe, of the name of Acow, who was tried tall
year and executed for the murder cf a Lafcar, on
board one of our Indiamen.
Mr. 13u R Itr,Was, in reply, obferved, that thole cafes
had never been fcrioufly argued, as the prilmers had
no Counfel ; the point was, however, new-made,
and would, he trulted, be deemed worthy of the
null ferious confederation. As to the jurifdittion
which the Admiralty exercifed on the high leas, he
conceived that it did not depend on our common
law, but on the right which the country had fo long
puffeffed of a fort of lovereignty on the feas.
Lord ELLENAnKOUGH and Sir JAMES MANSFIELD
obferved, that this country never claimed any fove-
reignty except in the Narrow Seas.
[As far as we could colic& from the obfervations
thrown out by the different Judges, it appeared to
us that the inclination of their minds was, that this
Spann prifoner could not be tried here for an offence
commiord in China. The Connie! were, however,
informed, that if the Judges fhould think that it was
neceffary to argue the point further, their defire
would be fignified to the ATTORNEY GENERAL and
Mr. BURROW Es.]

THE KING .V. BULLOCK.

Mr. HOLAOYD requelled to be allowed forme fur-
ther ti.ne to prepare liimfelf to argue this cafe, as
he had got his brief but a day or two before.
Lord ELLENBOROUGH faid, he ihculd certainly be
allowed fufficient time to prepare himfelf ; but the
Judges wou:d he glad to know, in the mean time,
what obje.tiuns he principally relied, on.
Mr. HOLttuYY laid, his firtt objetlion was, that the
conarifliun was invalidated by a prior aet of bank•
ruptcy ; and his fecond. was that the commitlion was
fisted to be under the Great Seal of Great Britain,
and nut under the Great Seal of the United Kingdom
et Great Britain and Ireland.

Lord ELLIPAIMIOUGH informed the Learned
Connie!, that, as to the fire objeCtion, it did not al,.
pear to him that it could he fupported, as no evi-
dence had been given at the trial of there having
exilled any petitioning creditor's debt upon which a
commilTion could have been iirued at the time of that
prior aft of bankruptcy. The itriking the docket
appeared to be a mere fraud.
Mr. GURNEY, in reply r. the fecond objeCtion, read
a number of Statutes paired finee the Union, which
mentioned the Great Seal of Great Britain and the
Great Seal of Ireland feparately. He alfo read the
chapter of the AEI of Union which had been relied
n. and from which it would appear, that the Great
Seal of the United Kingdom was intended to be
ufeLl for imperial purpofes, fuch as calling an Impe-
rial Parliament, fettling the Title of his Majelly, &c.
The argument was ordered to nand over till the
firli Monday after Term.