Star.
London, England, 1820-01-18 00:00:00

VICE-CUANCET.I.OII'S COURT, JANUARY 17.

THr. ATTORNEY-GENERAL. V. THE MAYOR AND COR-
PORATION OF HUNTLNGDoN.

This was an information, filed originally in the
year 1811, on the relation of Messrs. Arnutt, Bayley,
and two others, inhabitants of Huntingdon, against
the defendants, as Trustees for the Charity of Saint
John's Hospital, in that town. Since the information
was, filed, the Court has made several orders in the
cause, and the matter now came on to be heard on a
petition from the relaters, praying that it might be
referred to the Master to approve of a scheme for
the future regulation of the Charity, and that the
defendants might be made responsible, in their cor-
porate capacity). for the loss which the Hospital had,
sustained by their granting leases of the property
belonging to it, on terms highly disadvantageous to
the Champ. There was also a petition on the part
of the defendants, praying that the former report of
the Master, respecting the annual value of the pro-
perty, might not be confirmed.
Mr. HaaLo, in support of the information, ob-
served, that besides the gross breach of trust of
which the defendants had been guilty, in sacrificing,
for the last 30 years, the interests of the Charity to
those of individuals of their own Body, there was
another irregularity that called for the interference
of the Court. Under the Inquisition founded in the
reign of Queen Elizabeth, the Mayor and Aldermen
were appointed Visitors of St. John's Hospital ; but
they had, in addition to their visitorial authority,
taken to themselves the right of appointing enc of
their own Body to the office of Master of the Hos-
pital ; and Sir John Arundel, the present Mayor,
now held that situation. How well he dischai god
the duty of Master, as far as the interests of the Cha•
rity were concerned, appeared from the proceedings
then before the Court.

Mr. BELL, for the defendants, said, the Master, in
estimating the value of the leases, had been lesi into
a mistake by the Surveyors employed fur that pur-
pose. He lamented the clamour which had been
raised about this Charity, and which proceeded from
the evidence which Mr. 'Wells, the Solicitor in the
cause, had given before Parliament, when the inquiry
into the state of Public Charities was instituted.

The VicE-CHANCELLOR was convinced that a great
deal of improper zeal and of popular clamour had
been excited by the inquiry before Parliament.
Mr. WETHERELL, on the same side as Mr. Bell,
alluded to a publication on the subject, signed
Verus,," but which he thought would have been
more properly subscribed " Falsus." He was pro-
ceeding to make some observations on the clamour
which such publications had raised against the Ma-
nagers of this and other Charities, when
Mr. HEALD interposed, and expressed a hope that
his Honour would not encourage such remarks. In
reply to what had fallen from Mr. Bell, he said that
the rents obtained by the Receiver, could not, for a
moment, be regarded as a criterion of the real value
of the property. The Receiver could not let the
estates for more than one year, and therefore it was
not likely that any tenant, while such an information
as the present was pending, would pay an adequate
rent for land or premises, from which he might be
turned off at the end of a year.
The VICE-CHANCELLOR said, it was impassible for
him to order the Corporation, as a body, to account
to the Charity for the loss it had sustained by their
granting leases, at reduced tents, to their own Bur-
gesses, because that would be appropriating, to a
particular purpose, the funds of the Corporation,
which were certainly destined for other public pur-
poses. He regretted extremely, that when the In-
formation was drawn up, the persons who had pro-
fited by these leases, had not been made parties to
the suit ; because, in that case, the Court could have
reached them in their individual characters as tenants,
and could have made them refund to the Charity,
the profits which they had improperly derived from
its estates. The manner in which the trust had been
executed, with regard to these leases, was a most
shameful and scandalous sacrifice of the interests
of the Charity. His Honour made the following
decree :—" That Sir John Arundel be removed from
the office of Master of St. John's Hospital, and that
the offices of Master of the Hospital and Member
of the Corporation, be held incompatible; that it be
referred to the Master to inquire with whom the
appointment of master resides, and what are the
proper qualifications for that office ; also with wham
the appointment of schoolmaster resides, and what
are the necessary qualifications; that the Master ap-
prove of a scheme for the future management of the'
revenue of the Hospital ; that an account of the
rents and profits be taken from the filing of this in-
formation; and that the Corporation be made to ac-
count for these rents and profits since that time ? the
costs of the information to be paid by the Corpo-
ration. This order to be without prejudice to the
relaters, if they shall think proper to file a .bill
against the persons who derived benefit from the
property of the Charity."

. .
COURT OF RING'S BENCH, JANUARY 17.
THOMPSON v. LACY.
This was an action of trover, brought by the plain-
tiff, to recover the value of a trunk, containing a
quantity of wcat i ng apparel, &c. from the defendant.
The case was tricq before the CHIEF Justus, and
the. plaintiff was nonsuited.

Mr. MAR RYA T. now, on the part of the plaintiff,
applied to have the nonsuit set aside, and a new trial
granted. The defendant kept the Mnorgate Coffee-
house. Some time since, the plaintiff, accompanied
by a companion, named Scott, took up their resi-
dence at the defendant's house : they breakfasted,
dined, drank tea, and supped together; and, at their
own request, were accommodated with a double-
bedded room. After they had been thus domiciled
for upwards of eighty days, Scott left town, and the
plaintiff requested to have his bill. The defendant
accordingly made out a bill, including' the account
of both Gentlemen. The plaintiff objected to this,
offering to pay one half, as his share, and making a
tender of that sum. This V 35 refused by the de-

fendant, who insisted on full payment of his de-1,
mand, and detained the trunks of the plaintiff, on!
which he contended, that as an innkeeper, he had a
lion as a security for his bill. Pn the part of the
' plaintiff, it was now contended, that the defendant
was not an innkeeper, a coffee-house differing mate-
rially in its nature from an inn, to constitute which
theie must be stabling ; and therefore, though an
innkeeper would have a lien on the goods of his
guest, yet a coffee-house keeper had not.
,11r. GURNEY, on the part of 'the defendant, con-
tended, that there was no difference in law between
a Coffee-house-keeper and an Innkeeper. The former,
like the latter, was obliged to take out a beer-license,
a spirit.lic,...se, and a wine-license; and, like an inn-
keeper, he should contend, was liable to the guests in
his house, for the safe keeping of their property,
whilst under his roof.
The COURT were unanimously of opinion that a
difference of name did not alter the law of the case.
A Coffee-house-keeper was, as the Learned Counsel
had said, liable to his guest for the safety of his pro-
perty, and ought in justice to have a lien on that
property for 'his demand against the owner ; and
therefore the nonsuit was right. There could be no
dispute as to the liability of the plaintiff to the whole
bill.—The nonsuit in this case was therefore confirmed.
OLD BAILEY SESSIONS.
Yesterday, as soon as the Judges took their seats
in Court, the Grand Jury were re•sworn, for the
purpose of considering bills of indictment, under a
Special Commission, against Alexander rillenunst
and James Alexander Camel, two foreigners, who
stand charged with a violation of the Slave Trade
Laws, in the Mauritius..

After the Grand Jury were re-sworn, Mr. Justice
HOLROYD informed them of the nature of the ofence
which they were called upon to consider in the in-
dictments that would be submitted to them. It was
made felony by a late Act of Parliament, and though
the offence was said to have been committed in a
distant part, of the world, y ec still The law brought
it within the jurisdiction of a Jury in this country.
' The Grunti Jury returned shortly after, with true
bills against the defendants.
The prisoners pleaded Not Guilty; and on being
informed that they were entitled to a Jury composed
half of foreigners, they replied, " Eh Bien, tout An-
glois." A Jury, therefore, of all English, was im-
panneled for their trial.
The SOLICTOR-GENERAL, in opening the case to
the Jury, enumerated the various Acts which had
passed in 1806, with the concurrence of all parties'
in Parliament, abolishing a trade which the friends
of hunianity had been endeavouring for twenty years
to put an end to. But the Acts of 1806 only im-
posed pecuniary penalties, and it was found that in
their operation they were nugatory, as the profits of
the trade far exceeded the amount of the penalty im-
posed by law. At length, through the efforts- of
Mr. Brougham, an Act was passed in 1811, making
the offence a felony, and subjecting the parties to
transportation upon conviction. With respect to the
prisoners now at the bar, they were natives of St.
Mauritius; and it would be recollected, that by a
late treaty, the Mauritius was ceded to Great Bri-
tain. That Island, therefore, formed a part of his
Majesty's dominions, and the two persons at the bar
were amenable to British law. He wished to explain
to the Jury, that a French Captain and the Mate,
who were implicated in this affair, could not be pro-
secuted, because there was not sufficient proof that
they had ever landed at the Mauritius; not having
landed, they could not be amenable to British laws.
There were two others who were also implicated,
and who had been sent to England for trial. Seve-
ral slaves had been sent with them, as witnesses
against them ; but it was found that these men were
so devoid of all moral or religious principle, that it
was thought proper to abandon the prosecution. The
facts of the case were then stated, and witnesses were
called, who proved them.
The case for the prosecution being closed, Carrol
was called upon for his defence, and declared that he
had no witnesses here to confound the testimony of the
false witnesses examined. He put in a long written
defence, which commenced by giving an account of
the manner in which he had been engaged previous
to the transaction in question. In September, 1817,
be had sailed from Ussurdeaux on a trading voyage,
and had dealt and trafficked in rice, tobacco, salt
provisions, &c. Jt cenfirnosd the account given, ac-
cording to the testimony of the first witness, by the
Captain of the Jeune Adone, when questioned as to
the destination of the vessel, and the cargo she had
carried. He confessed that he was at Tamara, at
Madagascar, but not for the purpose of dealing in
slaves ; at that time he was so ill, as CO be incapable
of doing anything, and he was carried by four men
to the ship when she set sail for the Isle of Bourbon.
The document called upon the Court to consider who
was his accuser; and almost sole accuser, on the
trial—his own servant, who had artfully forged
these falsehoods to criminate kis master: he was a
boy of the most infamous character, and whom his
father was obliged to imprison, while yet an infant,
for his crimes. After the examination at Fort Louis,
this lad bad expressed his contrition for having sworn
falsely, and had promised to speak the truth in Le -
don ; but he had basely perjured himself, and had
unjustly criminated his master.
The prisoner Villemont was next called upon for
his defence, and also handed in a written paper,
which was read., It stated, that he was born at the
Isle of Bourbon, of good family, and positively de-
nied any connexibn with any transaction of the na-
ture imputed to him. He had voluntarily surren-
dered himself when called upon, conscious of his in
necence: and might,'if he had chosen, have con-
cealed himself. At the examination at Fort Louis,
before the Grand Judge, he had produced witnesses
who distinctly proved his innocence ; but these wit-
nesses he had been unable, on account of the sreat
expense attending it, to bring to this, country. lie
called upon the Court to consider whether it were
probable that 200 slaves could be introduced into
the Mauritius, without its being known to the Autho.l
rities there, who were constantly upon the watch ?
Not one trace of these slaves could be found, although
diligent search had been made. He was now 12,0(X)
miles from his native country, and, although net a
pauper, bad been unable to bring his witnesses to this
country. tie begged, therefore, that these circuits-
'stances might be taken into consideration.
Mr. Justice BURROUGH, in recapitulating the evi•
deuce to the Jury, remarked upon the necessity of

passing the Act of 1811, making the.Offeti-e of traf-
ficking in Slaves a transportable offence, as otherwise
little or no punishment would be inflicted. !.• 0:-;!- •
• The Jury found both the prisoners Guilty.
• The following were capitally convicted :
Thomas h art, and Richard Bradley, for assaulting
Thomas Hall on the King's highway, and taking
from his person a watch, etc.
Charles Miles, for a burglary in the dwelling-•
house of James Alexander, and stealing a looking-
glass, a tea-caddy, &c.
James Robinson, for stealing a horse and five fowls,
the property of Anthony Aldred
In the course of the morning the Grand Jury pre-
sented. a paper to the Court, in which they spoke in
high terms of the state of Newgate, through the ar-
rangements of Mr. IlftowNE, the Keeper, so far as
the limits of the prison permitted. They also sptlke
in just terms of the excellent exertions of MIS. Fay,
and the other philanthropic Ladies, ter the reforma-
tion of female prisoners, and earnestly recommended
the adoption of similar measures for j uvenile prisoners.