Star.
London, England, 1809-11-16 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF CHANCERY, N0V.15.

TliF GOVERNORS OF BM:TON SCHOOL V. COZENS.
Jr. RICHARDS stated this to be an application from
the Governors of the Free Grammar School of Bru-
ton, in Somersetshire, for the removal of the Rev.
Islr. Cozens, the present master. The present appli-
cation was made to his Lordship, as the Visitor of all
public charities of this sort, and the grounds of the
motion were contained in several affidavits, which he
should now submit to the Court.• The affidavits eon-
wined various allegations, asserting that the school
which had been liberally endued, for the purposes of
gl :In) rnatical education, in the town of Bruton and its
r,,„4hbourhood, had fallen away almost to nothing,'
t:youels the neglect of the present master, who, in-
stead of attending to the business of the school, had
become farmer, and was in the habit of going about
to fairs and markets in the vicinity, for the purpose of ,
selling Isis cattle, instead of forwarding the boys in
-armatical learning. That he had given the boys
to,, many holidays, and had been seen playing at
jives with them in school hours, or sometimes en-
caged in the rural sports of angling, shooting, &c.—
That he had converted part of the play-ground into a
farm yard, &c. in consequence of which, the school
had tallen away to nothing, and his office had be-
come quite a sinecure, to the complete neglect of the
erizinal object of the institution, and the detriment of
.;-,.interests of education in the town and its vicinity.
Oa all these grounds, the Governors Submitted that
Ya. Cozens should be removed, and another master
t'areed in his room. They had also drawn up, with
tl,evprobation of the Bishop of Bath and Wells, the
Lieco,in, a set of Rules fur the future regulation of
t!:e school, by which they proposed allowing to the
raileer £lOO a year, and four annual exhibitions of
fusty pounds each, for boys sent to the University
from the foundation.
'Arr. HOLLIST appeared for the Defendant. His
jest, he said, had been appointed master of the
school some years ago, and succeeded a Mr. Mitchell, 1
in whose time the school had very much fallen off, so
to be much in the same state as it was at present.
Whatever might be the causes of this it was not ne-
recsary to inquire-; but he had also to add, that there
were not above four or five boys in the place, whose
,a:ents were likely to send them to obtain a gram-
rillLiCal education. He had also to submit, that the
various charges of neglect against his client, were
seeed to have taken place in the period of seven years; 1
••:;' would it not have been much fairer, had the Go-
veracas waked to his client any instance of supposed
rcrlat at the time, instead of coming upon him with
as accumulation of them all at once, and attempting,
deprive him of the principal means of his subsis-
tdr.CC ? Mr. Cozens admitted that he had rented 30
3C7.-?S of grass land for about two years ; but this was
v.-:.en he expected to get boarders, and it was proper
to provide milk, &c. for the family. As to the
&see of dealing in cattle, it was quite ridiculous to
that selling a cow or a hog, and its pigs, at a';
neghbouring market, made him a cattle-dealer. The
stieol having fallen off before he came to it, it wasi
laudable in him that he had betaken himself
t. ilaraing in a small way ; and at any rate he was
ahtays ready to give instructions to such as had a
os come upon the foundation. If he even played
a. :Ives, or indulged in rural sports with his boys, it
• rn holidays, or after the school hours, and this
c'tli never he attributed to him as a fault. His
s:as placed in a most unfortunate situation ;
fes- t'e-dings in an action of ejectment against him,
be: ic,lst by the Governors, had already cost him £lOO,
a arm he was ill able to afford ; and should he be
ter ..veal from the school, he would be reduced to a
Se: ti no of 'treat hardship.
The Lono CuaNcEtaant said, that he should feel it
1. 2,'1t3" to peruse most carefully the affidavits on
both. ;ides. He must say, however, that he could not
e,l-:?.::11 the master, unless the present state of the i
• ?'as ()wise.; to his misconduct. He had known 1
s-e.- where the masters were most excel-i
1:7• t• rite Pissed, and where such desertion could only
• -ribed to the taste of the people. It was owing
t. 7 ,ny causes, that these endowed schools were rot
L Jul as they ought to be ; but he would not cra-
iato these causes at present.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, NOVEMBER 13.
IFP Grand Jury of the County of Middlesex were this day
As usual.

M• Jut. Geost, in a very eloquent charge, adverting to
r,sent disturbances at Covent Garden Theatre, observed, I
on. having no depositions before him, nor any particular infor-
?)..vici, he could only speak to the law on this bead goterally.-
-10 —Ault or riot, tending to the destruction of the property of
ar irAvidual, was undoubtedly a misdemeanour, and that of the
nature. I: was also a breach of that good order by
" • the bonds of society were held together, and for the sake
ch mankind associated, and entered themselves into ties
*-t al intercourse. That, from the description of those per-
' ...Aid to b? concerned, no doubt the perpetrators were actua-
t. `"''u• worst of views; but as he was unacquainted with any
thccireemstances, except from report, be left it to their con-
-4: vr'.;V. and trusted they would act, in any cases that came be-
' i with their usual judgment and discretion.
NOVEMBER IS.
1:1;: 4iN(; O. FRANCIS FREDERICK POHLMAN, JOHN KEY..
LOCK, AND SARAH HARVEY.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL prayed the Court for
ptinerit on these defendants, found guilty at the
Lon.inn Sittings after last Term, of conspiring to
.e 2,300 for the sale of an appointment, to be
• • !)y the Lords Commissioners of the Treasury, of
• i.,ce of Coasting-waiter in the Customs.
F.LLENBOROUGH, before whom the indictment
01, read his notes on the trial ; and long affi-
v!..s,,p. mitigation of punishment by each of the de.
'•••••ts• r:ere afterwards read by the proper officers
Ciart ; the principal points of which were al*-
: i.wards urged by the several Counsel for the several
(Lerid:iilh, as follows:
F,;.INASE and Mr Atiot.rnus, for the defen
dant I').]llman, addressed the Court, not nr mitigation
~C;;.: .ace, but of the punishment to be inflicted
cn (i:Tcadant. They admitted that thanks were
lite t) the Attorney-General for his interference in
proscnt case, and were rejoiced to find, that in
cc of that interference, advertisements for
I'e =al of public offices were now at an end. It was
• ly :..ttitral, they contended, for their client, who
.ts a frieigner, to fall into error, when every news-
T..tper contained an advertisement for the disposal of
and their client was only the means of intro.
:.7cirg patties to cacti other; nor did he intend
shiaest deceit, advertising in his own name, and
• iemng to his own place of residence. The persons

tr

answered the advertisethent, the defendant Pohl.:
man referred to the Custom-house Office ; and as to
what his evidence had stated about dispensing with
the Custom-house oath, this the defendant swore him-
self to have understood to refer to the oath about the
age of the party. It had also been stated in the evi-
dence, that the Duke of Portland had received mo-
tnr on account of the sale of places ; all the defen.
dant Pohlman had intimated was, that per'sons about
the Duke had received such money. The defendant
further stated, that not a single public place had ever
been sold at his office, and that he had received no
emolument from the present negociation. The de-
fendant Pohlman was a stranger to this country and
to its laws ; and the learned Counsel imputed half his
guilt to his ignorance of our language and our laws,
and urged his imprisonment from July, on the sur-
render of his bail, in mitigation of his punishment.
Mr. DAMPIER, for the defendant Keviock, urged
that no transact;on had actually taken place, and that
his client and his partner were th? dupes, and not the
duping. Mr. Hesse, the negotiator for the place,
had got his money back, and it was Keylock who
added the clause in the negociation, that no money
should be received from Mr. Hesse, unless he ob-
tained his situation. Notwithstanding all the clamour
which had been raised about these things, his client
had lost between £6O and £7O by this concern ; and
it could not but go out into the world, that when
these negotiations did take place, they were losing
concerns.

The Learned Counsel concluded, that notwith-
standing all the flippancy about oaths which the evi-
dence detailed, that obligation was never mentioned
before his client without his expressing his sense of
the seriousness and s3lemnity of the obligation.
Mr. GURNEY, on the part of the defendant Sarah
Harvey, urged that she was the mere dupe of Jere-
miah Reding, whose name had been introduced into
a negociation in which Lord Castlereagh vas impli-
cated, and who introduced himself to his client while
he was in prison for debt, as a person connected with
gentlemen of high rank in the State. If Reding
could impose upon them, then the Learned Couns..)
contended that it was not very improbable that he
should impose upon his client. He shewed her let-
ters, which she believed to be genuine, and she nego-
dated his business for him ; at first believing him to
be a rn.tn in distress, but was afterwards persuaded
to accept of a remuner •tion f r heir great trouble,
and actually accepted of a promissory note for £5O,
which was never and of which she had never
received a farthing to tins :l :v. She had never been
concerned in any pr. or transaction of the like nature,
and did not know preisot to be illegal ; reading
advertisements to its cffect in the newspapers every
day. She had but a siend.:r income, and two small
children to suppr•rc; and these circumstances the
Learned Counsel pressed in mitigation of her punish-
ment.

The Arrow. GMBRAL, in support of the prose-
cution;said a good deal had been urged on the ground
of the frequency of place advertisements ; the fact
was, that such advertisements were by no means
common ; and though they might appear to be not
illegal on the face of them, when you came to the en-
quiry they could not appear otherwise. There was
not a single person who did not believe, after inqurry
at the defendant's office, that a very scandalous sale
of offices was going on ; and the extent of the mis-
chief which this impression produced was, that all
public offices were objects of traffic. By this means
the Government was -brought into disrepute, and thus
the mischief was effected. The Attorney General
rejoiced in the assertion, that since the present trial
this traffic had ceased ; but it would not cease if a
preventative punishment was not awarded in the pre-
sent instance. The defendant, Pohlman, the Attor-
ney General contended, was not entitled to indul-
gence after his present evasive affidavit; as to his not
knowing of the illegality of his proceeding, be urged
that illegality and the proceedings of the House of
Commons as an excuse for his not completing his un-
dertaking ; and as to his regard for an oath, the oath
in the present instance was stated by him to have been
only a little trifling oath that the party had not pur-
chased the place ; a circumstance which at once
showed the defendant's knowledge of the illegality of
his proceeding, and his connivance at perjury. The
defendant Pohlman, too, conversed at Mrs. Harvey's
with a third person, who talked about another place,
as a qualification for which the oath had beers stiff,
but swallowed. Wl-.en persons who were brought
up to receive puni!. meat oefore his Lordship de-
fended their coadnct in,teal of apologizing for it,
they were open to the :,everest censure. The conduct
of the defendant Keyiock had not been so bad, bat it
Was far froin in.; Nam ;he knew what was
going on, lad share!', the proiits. The Learned At-
torney General cfail,l not ccmnrehend how their of-
fice could be beset from morning to night, as they
stated it to have been, and yet no other instance of
the sale of an office to have occur. cif, as they stated
it. But supposing all these defendants swore to be
true, the mischief to the public was done in answer.
in g enquiries, by professing co have the means of
selling public offices of trust, and the public mind
had in fact been so impressed. As to the compara-
tive innocence of these defendants he had to learn till
to-day, that those who kept houses to decoy prosti-
tutes were less blameable than the prostitutes them-
selves. As to the defendant, Sarah Harvey, whose i
guilt, according to the defenders of Pohlman and
Keylock, infinitely exceeded theirs, that was for the!
consideration of the Court. But she threw the odium
from herself to Reding ; the prosecution of the Court
could be directed only against the actors in the af-
fair; and if it were not so, it would be in the power
of any person to place himself behind, to the evasion
of public Justice. The Learned Attorney General
wished that Pohlman and Keylock had stated who
applied to them to open an office for the sale of pub-
lic places, and what those places were ; but he was
disposed to think their whole pretended authority
and power untrue.
Lord ELLENBOROUGH adverted to an important do.
current annexed to the affidavit of the defendant Har-
vey, in which £9OO were said to be received by Sikes,
Snaith and Co.
Mr. GURNEY—" Which sum she handed to Red-
-I.ord Etaxseoaoudit—" She is not implicated in
this ; the bearing lies in three other directions. Let
the several defendants be committed to the custody
of the Marshalsea of this Court, and brought up for
judgment on Saturday sennight.

Tut sac 0. CLAIMS.
Mr. RAM moved for a rule to shew cause why an
IRformation in the nature of a quo warrant° should
not be directed, calling on the Mayor and Corpora-
tion of Liverpool to shew cause by what authority the
Defendant, Mr. Clarke, acted as Mayor of Liver-
pool ? The choice of Mayor lay in the whole body,
but it had been customary, that the election might be
completed within the day, to carry it on by tallies.
The two Candidates at the last election were a Mr.
Drinksvater, and the present Defendant. It was pro
posed by the friends of the former, in order that no
advantage might be taken, that the parties should toss
up for the first tally, but Mr. Clarke's friends cpposeJ
this, stating, however, at the same time, that each
should have his turn. They then proceeded to take
the tallies, beginning with Mr. Clarke. When at the
third tally they came to Mr. Drinkwater's side, his
tally not being completed, they returned to Mr.
Clarke's, which was also incomplete. They were then
requested to return to Mr. Drinkwater's, which was
now full, but this they refused, and entering five
more votes to Mr. Clarke, mule proclamation of the
election in his favour, at the hour of twelve o'clock,
although the election did not commence till ten o'clock.
—Rule granted.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, NOV. IS.
CLIFFORD V. BaAsnox.

Mr. Sergeant SHEPPARD, for the Defendant in this
cause, which was an action for assault and false im-
prisonment on the part of the Plaintiff, who is a Bar-
rister at Law, against the Defendant, who is the
Box-keeper of Covent Garden Theatre, moved for a
Rule to spew cause why the action should not be set
aside, upon a variety of grounds which he had to
plead in justification of the Defendant's conduct.
First, that the Theatre was duly licensed and au-
thorised to represent comedies and tragedies, and the
Managers to demand such prices as they should dr m
most expedient, for the admission of an audience to
different parts of their house. Secondly, that the
Plaintiff, accompanied by three other persons, on the
night stated, did illegally commit a trespass in the
said theatre, for the purpose of obliging the Managers
to reduce their prices ; for that, during the exhibition
of the farce, the said persons did create a disturbance
and riot, to the interruption of the performance, and
the great annoyance of the peaceable persons there
assembled to enjoy the amusements of the evening ;
and that the Defendant, being a principal servant of
the house, did, what he conceived to be his duty, give
the Plaintiff in charge to a constable, in order to re-
store and preserve the peace of the house, and pre-
vent the farther progreis of riot. Thirdly, that the
Plaintiff did, on the same evening, instigate many
other persons by his example to make disturbance and
riot, and to interrupt the performance on the stage.
These were the principal grounds of the learned '
Serjeant's motion. He regretted the necessity of ,
urging so many different pleas on this occasion ; bat
they were rendered necessary by the different objects
of the riot and distur").:lnce in question.
Sir J. MANsriEr,D.44 Take a rule to shew cause.
I have beci i told that it has been given in opinion by
some great Lawyers, that people may enter a Theatre,
pull it to pieces, knock the actors on their heads, and
make as great a riot and noise as they please—and
that all this is lawful. Have the Managers brought
actions against any persons ?"
Serjeant SIIEPPARD.--A4 I believe not, my Lord."
Sir J. MANSFIELD." Because if an action was
brought against persons who could pay, the result
would be widely different from the circumstance of
mere admitting to bail."