Star.
London, England, 1814-02-11 00:00:00

CORN MARKE I, MARK-LANE, FEB. 11.

The few vessels trout Suffolk arrived to thisti..urotrt,'s market.
Wheat is dull sale, but what little has beta disposed of obtained
Meoday's prices; a considerable quantity rettatius wisold, for
which there is no demand. Barley coninues as on Monday., but
moves stately. In Peas, Beaus, and ether exudes, there is no
alteration:

LAM' INTBLLIGgIYCL

COURT OF RING'S BENCH, FEB. 10.
THE XING V. HENRY 'DUNDAS' PEHROTT4

Itithis case the defendant, a Lieutenarit inthe.Nalty,
had been Indicted at a rate'Assizes for Kenr, and tried
upon the provisions of the Acrof 80-Geo. 11. for ob-
taining-Certain stubs of money front R. Butler and his
wife, finder false,pretences. The false pretence as-
signedlethe indictment' was, that the defendant pre-
tended he possessed power and influence enough at
the Admiralty, in consequenee (if his own rank in the
navy, and in consequence Of his Uncle's influence,
who wais a Lord of the Admiralty. to protect their
.son.from the impress; but that it would be necessary
• bealyiald be furnished with a stun of money, amoun•
ling to £6, to pay certain fees to the clerks :it the Ad-
mir tier: TJpon this charge he was found Guilty ;
but a Writ bf. Error had been moved upon the form
ii;tbe indictment. The Common SELMA/at on a for-
mer day, argued in support of the Objection taken to
The form of the indictment, which was, that although
the pretences were set forth in the indictment, it was
notaverrelftilat those pretences were false, and there-
fore.that the indictment could not stand.
Mr.* /caws now, on the part of the Crown, argued,
that the indictment, and consequently the conviction,
pas good. , It was averred in ..the commencement _of
the indictnient, that the defendant had, under false
pretences, .obtained money of the prosecutors ;—anct
that it was not necessary .to negative each pretence
specifically, the verdict of the Jury being sufficient to
establish the charge of- false pretence.
Mr. Itsoivivs, in reply, repeated his former argu-
menu on behalf of the defendant, and contended that
where more than one pretence was set forth, there
Ought to be a negative-to each specific averment.
• The Court, atter-hearing the argument, observed
that every indietnient ought to contain and to convey
to the person accused a clear and distinct knowledge
of the charge made against him. Where a charge
was to be made *Anse a person of obtaining money
-under a false pretence, the false pretence should be
notified: Wherever a false pretence was attempted,
there would be something of truth mixed with it, to
,give credence and effect mere fully to the falsehood.
:Where there were several averments, as in the pre-
sent case, some of them might be true, though others
were false; and the justice of the case required that
`the false pretence should be specifically set forth,
otherwise how should a defendant know against what
he had to defend himself. If a man was to come
into Court upon a charge of having obtained money
under false pretences, without saying. how, when, or
where, and upon an indictment assigning different
acts, yet not saying which were the false pretences,
how would it be possible for a man dragged into
Coon in this state of darkness and ignorance, to
make a definte, lion ever innocent he might be ?,

- Such a, practice could never be reconciled with Sus-
tice ; the Legislature never could have intended to
tolerate it. Justice to the prisoner required that the
crime he was accused rf should be clearly set forth.
It had not been done so in the present case, and there-

fore the judgment must be reversed.
Mt' Coziamorr SERJEANT said, the defendant was at
present a prisoner in Maidstone Gaol. Under this
'Verdict; he Wished to ask if it would be necessary for
Ifni now to apply for his liberation ?
` Lord ELLENIIGAG4;GH.—The Coat, in ordering og
"Figment Matte reversed, orders him to be liberate&
FEBRUARY 11. •
/11/LITARY LAW.•••••IIABEAR eiMPUS.
TrotTiNci said, he had to apply to their Lord-
ships on behalf of a Gentleman named Blake, a Lieu-
tenant in the Army, who was at present in, confine-.
inept •for a Wear sorpas to bring him before their
lordships. He made this application upon the pro-
visions of the 2sd article of war, which declared,
di that no Officer or soldier, being put in confinement
or under arrest, should 'continue so for a longer pe-
riod than eight days, or till a Court-martial could be
conveniently assembled." The afgdavit of Lieute-
nant Blake, upon which' he Made this application,
stated, 44 that he was at present a prisoner in the
Marine Barracks at Windsor, and had been so since
the 21st of-September last. Previous to that-time he
had been absent on furlough, in Ireland, arid his
time of furlough had not expired; but seeing thatle
was advertised in a Paper called the Hu: and Cry as
a deserter,' he immediately came home, and gave
himself up to his regiment, which was then lying at
Windsor. 'this was on the 21st of September last,
anti he had been ever since a prisoner,- and was con-
fined till the I lah of December following in a small,
apartment in the Marine Barracks, with' a centinel
constantly with him, -This close confinement, how-
ever, having materially injured his health, and that
circumstance having been represented to the Com-
manding Officer, he had, since that time, enjeyed,
greater liberty. After he had "continued in confine-
ment till the lit of November, hearing nothing of
being brought to tiial, he, on that day, caused a me-
morial to be presented to his Royal Highness the
Duke of York, stating his case, and praying, that a
Court Martial might be appointed, to enquire into
his conduct. He had, however, never received any
answer to that memorial. On the 16th of Novem-
ber, however, he was informed the warrant for hold-
ing the Court Martial had been signed ; and he also
understood, that some of the charges against him
related to certain parts of his conduct towards some
Officers of his regiment, the 55th,• whilst lying at
Windsor. On the 22d of November the 55th regi-
ment was ordered to Holland, where it still remain-
ed ; and the deponeot had reason to believe, his trial
could not be brought on during its absence, as many
of the Officers must be necessary, as well to the sup-
ra of the charges preferred against him, as to his
Suck Mr. TOPPING said were the contents
. • ,illidavits, so that it appeared, that altlaau4h
Article Of War positively said, that no Om:
cer Or soldier should be confined mere than eight
days, this Gentleman had been kept from the 25th
September to the.l6th of November, and no charge
of any kind had been brought against him, The wit-
tiesses necessary to his defence; as well as his accusa-
..-tion, Were now abroad, and. the only prospect he had
before hint, was that of being confined till their re-
turn, Which might not take plate till the end of the
war. •He..riow called for the interference of their
Lordshif4; on the ground that more than eight days
hasreiapsed; and that previous to the regiment.going
abroad a
.Ctitirt-Martial might hive been hold.
Mr; J'uitice BAILEY observed, the words of the .13d

_

,- ,

-

Atticle of War mere—.-11 'rhat tlO Officer nr Soldier
who was put under arrest, or in imprisonment, should
continue so more than eight days, or till a Court could
conveniently assemble." The word or, therefore,
-made the 'clause exactly what it would have been if
the eight days had not been mentioned.
' Mr. TOPPING—" Bnt we say, my Lord, a Court
Martial might have been conveniently held before
this time."
Mr. Justice DAMPIER -.44 We cannot say that."
Mr. Justice Le BLANC.—" Can you furnish us a ith
any instance in which a halm corpus hat been granted
to take a military subject out of military custody fur
a military offence ?"
Mr. TOPPINCI" Certainly not, my Lord, the case
of Grant and Good was before my Lord Kenyon,
but the party there was remanded to his original cus-
tody. The present is a most important case for Mr.
Blake, who, but for the interference of the Conn,
may continue in custody to the end of the war. It is
,stateciethat a warrant for hficling nCort Martial has
been sigifed.." • • .
Mr- Justice Le BLAtcc---44 There is a case in the.
books; in which a rule to shew cause was granted ;
but in granting this rule, Lord Mansfield said, Take
your rule to shew cause why a person* should not be
discharged ; but, if the parties have proceeded upon
martial law, we cannot interfere."

Mr. TOPPING -" Perhaps your Lordships will grant
a rule to shew cause now."

Mr. Justice Maroma--"" I have great doubts as to
the propriety of granting a rule. I don't see how the
Court can interfere or judge whether a Court Martial
could have been conveniently assembled. If, in a
return to a haleas corpus, they were merely to state,
that a Court could not be conveniently assembled, we
could not call on them to assign any reasons. Mili-
tary men take themselves nut of the protection of the
common law, by becoming partiei to Martial Law.
If a return of not convenient,' is made, that be
sufficient. The Court cannot interfere, without over-
turning the whole system of military law."
Tie ATTORNEY GENERAL observed, if Mr. Top-
ping wished to have a rule to shew cause, he would
,not interfere to prevent his obtaining it ; but, for the
information of his friend, he would state, that he was
in possession of circumstances which would prove in
an instant that a Court Martial could not have been
conveniently held. With respect to the present appli-
cation, it was made at so late a period of the Term,
that there would be no time to serve the rule on the
Commanding Officer at Windsor. Where the liberty
of the subject was in question, however, no impedi-
ments should be thrown in the way by him, and he
was ready. to consent that service on the Solicitor to
the Treasury should be considered as good service.
Mr. Justice DAMPIER said, it must be stated in the
rule that such service was by consent, that It might
not be drawn into a precedent.
The rule to shew cause was accordingly granted.