Star.
London, England, 1827-11-29 00:00:00

•-;

.. .
she name bf rabbit land ret-hanfing amused
' pursuing game, bred a dog which he calks.
This dog, at was distinctly sworn by a gamekeeper,
a perm likely to know something about it,
qua of it, fetcher. He gave this dog to his son
3-
hut he having received a hint from his landlord .
was not the description of doa which he liked any of
his tenants to have, parted with it to another person.
This person, it was sworn, had stated the dog to be
well-trained, and to have an excellent talent for killing
game, and likewise poultry. The dog passed from his
possession into that of other persons. At length, early
one morning, two men, accompanied by a dog, pre.
sented themselves at a public-house in Nuneaton, and
.told the landlord they had been out all night without
much success—that they were starving, and would sell
their dog a bargain; he was a capital lurcher, and had
kept two or three families during the last winter. The
landlord gave them some food and five shillings, and
became the propriet n of Whine, for be was the dog.
Setae time after, the plaintiff, Mason, called on this por.
beats. and stated that he had heard his dog was famous
for killing game, and he was desirous to purchase him,
because he had lately been convicted in a penalty for
killing game, and he was determined to have the pe-
nalty out in game. After some discussion, the publi.
- can exchanged the dog for a Newfoundland whelp
which the plaintiff had. Mason having possessed hima
self of the dog, was seen by a man, named Ball, beadle
. about a field for game, in the beginning of August.
. On tbe Bth of the same month, the dog was seen by a
`servant of a farmer, named Joyce, pursuing a hare in
one of his master's fields; and in the same field he dis-
covered six of his master's tuilcies newly killed. A
farmer, named King, had observed the plaintiff passing
by this field at the time the dog was in it. Two days
after the daughter of this King saw the same dog very
busy with one of her father's turkies in a ditch, an sight
of which Mason was standing. Six tor kies were lying
dead near. King remonstrated with the plaintiff, who
promised to pay both him and Joyce for their turkies.
Subsequently, however, he refused to perform his pro.
miss, and moreover was insolent; whereupon King and
JOyce laid an information against him for keeping a
dog for the purpose of killing game, and likes% he sum-
moned him for killing their turkies. The Magistrate
to whom they applied was Mr. Roberts, the defendant,
who lived two miles from them, and did not appear to
have any tousle:ion with either. The warrant was
issued on the 3d of July, and on that night the plaintiff
went to a person and asked him to swear that the dog
was not a lurcher, to which the man replied, " I will
•do no such thing ; you know he is a lurcher." At that
time the plaintiff did not kno,w who bred the dog : that
tact was distinctly proved. When the parties came
_before the defendant, and Joyce and King had told
their stories, the defendant, who was not quite satisfied
as to what he ought to do, told the plaintiff he thought
he ought to pay for the turkies. The plaintiff then in-
sisted on the turkies being produced, although they
were killed three weeks before. Th.• defendant then
said, that he bound the plaintiff over to appear at the
.Sessions, and asked him whether he had bail. He re-
plied in the negative, and the defendant tald him than
he might cake to the 2d of September to procure bad.
The infoimation for keeping a dog to destroy game
next came on to be heard. The.plaisitiff had stated that
he asked for time to procure proof that the dog was not
a lumber. The defendant swore that he never asked
for time, and so likewise s sore Joyce, King, and Ball,
who were present. Ball having given evidence in sup-
port of the information, the defendant asked the plain-
tiff what he had to say? He replied. " Nothing," upon
which he was convicted. The plaintiff said he could
not pay the penalty, and the defendant issued a warrant
of distress, which was executed by a vinstable. It
formed part Of the plaintiff's complaint, that a horse
which the constable seized under the warrant was sold
at too low a price. 'That, however, was a thing with
which the Magistrate had nothing to do, and therefore
he (the Attorney General) would wash his hands of it.
The plaintiff complained that tbe defendant demanded
and received from him Bs. for clerk's fees, for entering
into the recognisances, although no clerk was present.
The defendant swore that he received the fees for his
clerk, and that he was in the habit of so doing ; that the
fees which he received were less than he was entitled to
demand by Act of Parliament. That there was nothing
azoibitant in the demand made upon the plaintiff,
might be inferred from the fact that King and Joyce,
the sufferers by the plaintiff's conduct, themselves paid
res. in fees. Subsequenily to his decision, the defend-
ant entertained some doubts as to the jurisdiction in
the case. This ought not to excite much surprise,
since it was known that e ithin these three years two
Acts of Parliament had been, passed which consi-
derably modified the trespass. There was to be a
meeting of the Justices of the division at Culeshill, on
the Bth of September, and he determined to consult
them on the point. They considered it doubtful whe-
ther the Sessions had jurisdiction or not. On the
26th of September there was another meeting of Jus-
tices, presided over by Sir G. Chetwynd, at which the
defendant again stated the case. There was a division
of opinion among the Magistrates, some thinking that
the sessions had jurisdiction, and others the contrary.—
Br G. Chetwynd took time to consider the point, and
on a subsequent day be informed the defendant that the
sessions had no jurisdiction, and advised him to give
up the recognizance:. This was done, and here the mat-
ter ought to have ended ; and would, for the interfe
rence of a Gentleman, named Woodcock, an attorney,
who, from some cause or other, interested himself for the
plaintiff, and caused a motion to be' made at the sessions
for fining the defendant for not returning the recogni-
zances. After full discussion,the Magistrates decided,fhat
the defendant had done right in not bringing up the re.
cognizances. Having failed at the sessions, Mr. Wood-
cock had brought the plaintiff's case before their Lord-
ships, with whom he was convinced it would meet with no
better success than ieltacedone with the Magistrates._
He (the Attorney-General) atgeitted that the defendant
had no jurisdiction to wed thoplaintiff to the Sessions.
In so doing, however, though he acted is error, it was
evident that he was influenced by no cetrupt motives.
Under these circum-tancea, the Court world dismiss the
role, which he was satisfied had not been applied for
with a view to servethe purposes of justice.
Mr. Gouesu n a trusted be should be able to spew that
the defendant's affidavits, however artificially drawn,
did not answer -the maid points complained of by the
plaintiff. lathe defendant's affidavits there was no al-
b-lion etialliever to the conversation between the cleso
eacalaat the *Dutiable appointed to execute the disc
tr sa ; y* this was one of the points open which
he Chi . relied frA, getting the rule made absolute
Id
ilgoe w nt was given to a constable to execute, who
*as afraid fro do so because he believed the plaintiff's
dog not us be a lurcher. This man swore, that on the
3d of December he told the defendant that he dared not
execute the warrant t upon which the defendant said—
" Why the devil don't you put the warrant into execu-
tion ? 1 will stand between you and harm" The con-
stable still cleaned to execute the warrant, 'wpm which

4":

didaptb.woulls
r. Rabbit was the

had a right to
the warrant into

said he would request their
Lordships attention to that part of the case which re-
garded the taking of the fees by the defendant. As
"soon as the case was decided, the defendant de-
' manded Bs. for fees. The plaintiff said he thouglu
4s. was enough. The defendant replied, " Es. is the
money, and nothing less will I take." It was sworn
that there was no clerk nor any person acting as clerk
present, and likewise that the defendant did not say one
word about his clerk. Another charge against the de-
fendant was, that the conviction did not state fully the
evidence given by rite with sses. The defendant had
merely filled op the forms set forth is the Act of Parlia-
ment—a practice which had always received the repto-
bation cf the Court whenever brought ued,r their notice.
The present being one of appeal, it was doubly necessary
that the evidence of the witnesses should be correctly
stated in the conviction. After expressing his regret
that the defendant had in his affidavits thrown out some
unfounded insinuations against a Gentleman 1111 r.
Woodcock) who was quite as respectable as himself,
the Learned Gentleman concluded by saying that its his
opinion there were sufficient grounds for making abso-
lute the rule.

Lord TENTIRDEW said that an application fora eri•
minal information against a Magistrate could only be
sustained on the wound that he had used his power
corruptly. In the present case, it appeared that the
Magistrate had acted erroneously from inadvertence
and not fiom malice, and under such circumstineestbe
Court would never grant a criminal information. Thai
was the conkant and uniform practice of the Court--
Looking at the affidavits on both sides, he must declare,
that in his opinion the Gentleman against whom the
application was made stood free from any imputation
of corrupt motive. He could not fotbear sating that
the case appeared to be brought before the Crust, not
for the sake of the patty supposed to be injured, but to
serve the purpose of some other person. What that
might be, he could not pretend to say. According to
the usual practice in such cases, Wilmot discharge the
rule with cost'.
The other Judges having conserved ie this opinion,
the rule was discharged accordingly.

MR. SIA.RTIN'S ACT—DULL aAITINO.
Mr. CVItWOOD applied to the Court for a writ of
ham corpotto bru;g up a person .named John Hill,
who it at at present confined in Stafford gaol, to which
he had b-een committed tinder Mr. Martin's Act, for
alleged cruelty to animals, in baiting a bull ...irk dogs.
As the Magistrates of Staff wthshire seemed deterroiued
to put down the practice of bull-baiting, according to
their construction of this Act, the present motion- was of
considetable inipOrtance. Their Lordships were await
that this Act did not allow of cases under it being r
moved by certiorari into their Lordships Court, neither
was thereany appeal to the Sessions from any convicti.
under*, so that it could not come before their Lord.
ships in any other shape than the present. He (Mr.
Curwood) objected to the warrant of commitment Oa
two grrund• : the first was, that the practice of bull-
baiting was not contrary to the law of the land; ands.
secondly, that a bull was not included in Mr. Martin's
Act for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. •
Lord TittvreaDam.—Why not take out a suilatnOtis
to have the mater heard before a Judge at Chamber'?
Mr. Justice BATLeir here teferted. to the warrant of
commitment, which ran thus—that "Joho Hill, of
West Bromwich, in Staffordshire, was convicted of
cruelty to animals.—to wit, a certain bull, by baiting
it with dogs, contrary to the statute."
Lord Tsurannam—You had better take a summons.
If you take a writ, and your client should be ordered to
be discharged, he will have to be at the-expense of
coming up and going back. Take a rule mid to be
heard before a Judge at Chambers within a we k ; and
let it be served on the committing magistrate and the
prosecutor.—Rule granted.
This being the last day of Teem, the Coact sat to a
very late hour.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Novocain ES.
DOE, DEM. WILSON, V. DAVIES.

Mr. Sergeant MErtawarnea had, on a former (lay;
obtained a rule, calling on the plaintiff to spew cause
why the proceedings in the cause should not be stayed.,
until he should have paid the colts of former actions,
in which he had been nonsoited, in 1819 and 1821, to
the number of 21. He ptad !since then taken the be-
nefit of the Insolvent Debtors' Act, and had omitted to
pay the costs of the list nonsult, and ought therefore
to be prevented from proceeding fetcher with the actions
in this Court, and the six others in the Court of King's
Bench, all of which went on the same title as the 21
former actions.

Mr. Sergeant &DANCE to-day showed cause against
the rule, on the ground that the present case had never
gone before a Jury. The plaintiff had discovered since
IEI9, that a witness on a former trial had acknowledged
matter that subjected him to the suspicion of having
published the will in questi•m, knowing it to be forged;
and the plaintiff wished to bring that witness into the
box on another trial in order to extract from him facts
sufficient to substantiate his suspicions. It was also
worthy.of notice that the tenant in possession had always
contrived to prove the will without calling chat witness
into the box.

The COURT remarked, that at one of the trials it had
been acknowledged by the plaintiff's Counsel (Mr. Srr.
geant Wilde), that the plaintiff allowed the will to have
been sufficiently proved.
Mr. Sfrgeant SPANK II submitted, that since that time
the King's Bench had, on consideration, granted a new
trial, on condition that the plaintiff should pay the costs
of the first action. This he could not do, as his pro-
perty was in the bands of Assignees, who refused to
apply it to the psyrnent of costs.
' The CURS decided that the plaintiff had no right to
proceed further until he should have complied with the
Rule of the King's Bench, requiring the payment ut
costs.—Rule made absolute.

COURT. OF EXCHEQUER, No!: W. •
Mr. Cobbett appeared in Court iit an early hour and
after waiting for a short time, rose and addressed the
Court. He stated that he had bete served with a pro.
cess by the C.antaissioners of Stamps, but, as he was
ignorant of the nature of the proceedings that had been
instituted against him, and as the writ directed him to
make his appearance in open Court.betore the Barons,
on a certain day, he came, in compliance or,
der, and also with a view to ascertaia the nature of the
ftoceedings against him.
- The Lord Cuter BARON said, he believed the prat..
;ice was' no; to inform defendants of the nature of the
complaint against them. until they bad ieceissed a copy
of the informations, which could not be done una de.
fendants had made their appearance ; Mr. Cobbett must
go before the proper officer. and enter,his appearance,
caber by his Attotney or in persepu .
Mr. Cobbett said. be felt confident of rebutting any
charge dui mightbe made against him ; but complain.

___ __ _ ill. defeadidaudil' itisv
bignseif i Ml. Rabbit eliktc 1011,- g
led Whin'. fen .4 autli attarillt% . .
mekeeper, Lord TINTUDIN—The m
wai bred insist that the constable shot
on in-law; execution.
)rd that it Mr, Goutatten then said