Star.
London, England, 1828-01-28 00:00:00

thin this was not done in the present case. The
warrant of commitment merely stated, " that the said
Robert Gourliy had been discovered under circum-
stances wh:ch denoted a derangement of mind, and an
intention to commit a crime. vie. an assault for which
be might be indicted;' and it then proceeded thus:--
«-and the said Robert Gourley being brought before
in% and it 4ppearing to me that I ought to i-sue a war-
rant for
-his commitment, as a dangereous person, sus-
Oected to be ipso e, I therefore require you (the Governor
of the House of Correction) to keep him in your custody
until be shall be bailed. according to the statute, or dis-
charged in doe course of la Now he(Mr.C.) submitted,
that the warrant did nor, according to the provisions of
theActof Parliament, plainly set forth the cause of the
commitment. If the-accused were brought up before
ttittirtiirdahips to be bailed, they would be in entire
iknorarnce of the circumstances under which he had
Oen committed. and would not know what bail to
require. This was a most extraordinary power given to
rnagiattiites, and it was therefore of the greatest conse-
quence that it should be guarded ag'ainst abuse. The
Legislature had indeed guarded it, tfy providing that
the' cause ache commitment should be expressed in the
warrant. The present warrant, however, merely stated
that the party was supposed to be about to commit an
assault and breech of the peace, and that he was sus-
pected to bean insane and dangerous person. There
wait no statement of the circumstances from which this
inference was drawn, although the whole of the cir-
drtbstarnes ought to have been set forth in the warrant,
ifs leder that their Lordships might be able to determine
*tether the committing magistrate had come to a right
conclusion.

Mr. Justice BABLRY—The warrant, I think, follows
nearly the words of the Act of Parliament.
-MP. CAMPBELL—Certainly, my Lord, as nearly as it
Obit but still I submit that that is not sufficient. The
Act kequites that something more should be done than
merely following the words of it. it requires that the
cause of the commitment shall be clearly expressed in
the warrant; that the substance of the alleged offence
shall be stated, together with the time and place when
and where committed; and it should be made to ap•
pear that evidence of the facts was given before the Ma-
Ziscrate. This, in substance, is a conviction, and the
warrant ought to have the qualities of a coaviction;
• ' but -here them is nothing to shew that any evi
decree was given before the Magistrate. It does not even
appear that the Magistrate was, present. or that any.
evidence was laid before him. Agaipi it.ought to hate
appeared that Mr. Goutlay was put upon his defence,
and that he bad•hael an opportunity of disproving the
charge brought against-him; but nothing of this kind
heated to havetaken place. Could ithave been intended
by the Legislature. that onder this Act of Parliament
a Magisttate trould have the power of committing
a penile to prison under a suspicion of his being insane,
by-merely, " it appears so and so," without particu-
larising the circumstances which led to the conclusion
of his being a deranged and dangerous person? It was
clear that the Act of Parliament intended that the whole
of the circumstances should be clearly and explicitly
stated on the fete of the warrant ;• and they not being
so stated in this case, he (Mr. Canipbell) contended
that the warrant of commitment was insufficient, and
that the party was entitled to the remedy he sought.
The Judges conferred together for several minutes.
Mr. CAMPBELL suggested, that if the Court thought
proper to grant the habeas corpus, the question of the
illegality of the commitment might be further consi-
dered when the prisoner was brought up.
Lord TiNTERDEN.— The difficulty is to knew who is
to appear an the other side to oppose the writ.
Mr. CAMPBELL said, probably someone on the pan
of the De.. a _would be intrusted. or notice might be
siren to thecovernitting Magistrate.
Mr.Ju,tice Ikst.rt.-:.Perhaps the better way will be.;
tolate a rule to show cane.
Lord TBNTBRDEN.—Yes,.I think so, especially if
. there be any tea . n to suppose that this'person labours
under the infirmity alluded to.
Mr. CAMPBELL said- he believed him to be quite sane.
Lord Taureansdn—Oh, 'I give no opinion. I only
wish to'adopt the most convemens course; and I think
• this mode of proceeding need 04 protract his confine.
meat *single day. • •
birg/CAlerlet.L said he should be perfectly satisfied
with a tole to show cause.
• • 10.41•Taaraaozw—Who would you call on to shew
r. Halle, the committing magistrate?
aCarseraem—Yes, my Lord.
-Lord Tarrasossaa-Then takes rule, calling on Mr.
.Halls to thow cause why a writ of Isabsas corpus should
oat issue-to bring up the body of your client.
Role Aristi.grasted.
' " .• -•atattiell *SD. ANOTINEII v. VELLOWSS.
- The'CONSION SitstonANT moved for a rule to show
tsar why she- verdict obtained by the plaintiffs should
'not tire set aside and a sonsuit entered. The action
Vs/. vied at the lad sittings at Guildhall before Lord
-Temente% It was brought by the plaintiffs, as assig-
' ears ..sf a person named Collier, a bai.krupt, to re-
'iceser•.the sum of 1541. received by the defendant,
sifter-the time when Collier had committed an act of
• bankruptcy. The Learned Counsel stated, that an aco
eethetodation bill had been given by Collier the bank..
-vitt/ tathe house of Wetton, Payne, and Co. and from
them:kind come into the hands of Tatlock and Fel-.
'loves .(liellowes as the surviving partner of the firm
being Mr:present defendant). The bill became due in.
'Way, 1821, and in the following month (a dissolution
. of the partnership being then about to take place), Tat-
keit pressed Collier for payment of the bill, in conse-
quence of which Collier executed a warrant of attorney,
'securing the principal and interest by ins:aliments.—
• A dissolution of thepartrership betweenTatlock and de-
fondant took place shortly after ; and in Oct.lB2l,Collier
eoatrivitted an act of bankruptcy. Subsequently, three
pfrfasents, amounting together to 1031. were made. and
on aistetttion was taken out upon the warrant of Attar-
• set-rand* which goods of Collier to the amount of 441.
'Ma-been' seised. ft was proved on the trial, that on
one otgasien only the defendant was apprized of the tie=
I.gotiatton between Tatlock and Collier, and that w
rite whole of the evidence to fix him 'as a surviving
"piftner.i. The Learned Coonser submitted, that it was
dusallient: and that the representatile of Tatlock was
atone liable to refund the payments made to the latter
- • 'lsettl:Ttevaltottue—'falte a rule to show cause.
etsfenrlrt VIP aluctroustaaa.—mgy a. ourusawas
in thistolie.Whick was Motu the sit tingsal tes Michaei•
• wit yvtati befdralatted Tetstersien,,tlie plaintiff sought
edlefitieit files angina. of geniis deposit money. 'bleb
hallstilf pad ea thelslaleaclant. sou awakens', swim 41111
•Ihiblifing eistlittsstraniess The defeedant.hosboseop Or
. diglabeirie .6irrnthir'4‘ MI otwiate- hasorglair4lis
4111 f. 11111"rdei ihst'theistaimilgikleastor the .
sera!iiitiial.l -The ;epee' wassey.
velthes
, lliiieh lilt 11206.1oe,4visich am .4ht-plaarl,
t+l VW& 't,allltilt taw!** ,slefirstdany• who' imaied- e*
Leaded it over to Mr. Edwards, who was present at