Star.
London, England, 1829-01-30 00:00:00

cut the tree with intent'lO.sfeal but that was not the
fault of Mr. Jenner, but-. of his. clerk, and..the Court
would not interfere in this way against. a Magistrate,
unless,he acted corruptly. It was said by them. that
Mr. Jenner had shaken his fist at Mr. Dash, and said.
"
If ever you come before me again, I will scourge you
well r. but this was denied oa the affidavits of seven
persons who were present, as well as by that of Mr. J.
Mr. Jenner stated, in answer to the charge,
that when bash was brought before him, he denied 'that
the tree &Obi eel before the Magistrate
.was the tree
which he had cut. That was his first defence; but it
was clearly proved that it'was the same tree; and this
h oring been clearly made out, Mr. Jeni.er convicted
him, but informed him he might appeal. Dash then
went out to consult his friends, and after wards returned,
and said. he would go to prison. Colonel Berkeley and
others also made affidavits,. in which the charge of the
threatening to scourge was denied, and Col. Berkeley
said that the freeholders had no right to take trees of
this kind. Mt. Jenner denied that he was fond of shoot-
ing. and that lie was accustomed to shoot with Colonel
Beskeley.
Mr. BROUGHAM and Mr. CAMPBELL followed on the
same side.
. Sir J. SCARLITT, in suisport of the rule, stated that
there were two statutes on this subject—one the Lar-
ceny Act. and the other the
-Act for maliciously cutting
and injuring; but where the party accused set up a
tight to cut and carry away, the Magistrate had noju-
risdiction under either of these Acts. It ought to be
observed also, that the Magistrate was perfectly ap-
prized of the decree, and ot the action which had been
brought, in which the right of the freeholders to take
that kind of
-wood had bet-ntitablislied... The informa-
tion wet under the Larceny Aet.land from the.convic-
• aion, the MagistrateapPeareaToltive acted on both.
Ltird TIINTIRUEN—He made a jumble of. the..two,
Acts.
Mr. Sergeant Russet falineed 'Sir "'James Siat lett in
suppeotot the rule.
Lord TIIRTZIDEN—Tbete Well two statutes applica-
ble to this subject—the LateenY Act and the MaliciOus
Cottior and.. Injuring Ach 87 the former, the steak
lug, or cutting with interiefo.steal, trees or underwood
to the value of one' shilling, was made liable oft con-
e cton before a Magistrate. to >< fine not exceeding
.51.
'l't at Act contemplated the thing done, and the attempt
to do it without the offence being completed. The
other Act was made to meet a different case—and that
w s the *Wails and maliciously cutting and injuring
bees to the value of one shilling—that was. as he un-,
derstood ir, the doing the mischief for mischief sake,
and din • ffence was also made liable to a 6ne not ex-
ceedieig 51. on conviction before a Magistrate. lu this
convict 'on the Magian ,re evidently confounded the two.
But almost every one knew that he who claimed to cut
and take ass as as a matter f right, could not be legally
convicted under either of the Acts. and it might have
been espekted that a Magistrate should have, known
this. But it appeared that some Magismtes misunder-
stood this, sod Mr. Jeaner might have acted under a
nit take. But their it was bin fair to observe, that Mr.
J ones might h eve been tisisled by Dish's defending
himself oit the ground that the tree produced before
th Nlegistrate w.vi norchat which he had cut—for Mr.
Jennee might th.n have.supposed that the tree was the
same—he might convict under the Act There was
ene thing iJiat told much- iii.forour of Mr. Jenner s it
appeared lbwwhearlie* patty was convicted, he was
tordtlial be issigl t applorl • but be would not do that—
he wOold gp .to • prison did look as if Dash
arid his frsenis *ere glad iliat'they had got the Magis-
trate in a scrape, and ,lead been willing to suffer, some
iricanvenience th:ennehtesifin 'thefts to be revenged of the
alagiotaie. Upon the sibisle.*.the..C.surt war or opinion
that the title ought to betlfschaiged with cvsts, to be
paid by the dear:lid:art Btit certainly a Magistrate that
could siert di anguish betwien these two Statutes, and
in what cases he had jurisdiction und. r neither of them.
ought to be cautious a ow. be acted alone.—Rule dis-
charged. with costs to be paid by the Magistrate.
Tito KIMI V. BLLIS.
Sit JAMES SCA BLITT appeared to show . came why
the role- which bad been granted for filing a criminal
iniordration against the defendant should not be made
aloolute. In order to account for what he trusted the
Cant would think the ezensable conduct of the defen-
dant. the Learned Counsel felt himself called ori to gl•
back to some circuuntances which occurred in 18'26.
It appeared that the father of the defendant had ap-
pliedto the Gentleman on whose behalf the present in-
formation was :might to be hied, to request that they,
would swear him in as a Magistrate ot the county
of Corr wall; this application eras formally niwie at a
Petty Sessions, where the prosecutor; with other Magis-
trates, who are Clergymen, were assembled. They
refused to administer the necessary oaths to Mr. Elio
or to assign any reason for their refusal; Mr. Ellis,
was, hooever, more successful at a Quarter Svssinns„
where he was duly admitteJ; and although he had
s -nt notice to the Glide:nen wito had previously re-
fused him, of his intention of applying at the Quarter
S.-ssinirs. no :e of those Gentlemen attended to state
publicly their chiral. n. to the respectability of Mr.
Ellis. Thu present def- !Omit, Me. C. Olio who had
been eduosited at Trinity College, Catnlstidoe, was then
at Malt.. where he received itifornatioll from Itis father.
of the extract dioary manner in which he bad been
treated. Ti e young gentleman Al rived in the spring of
1828. up to which time tte Magistrates had not conde-
scended to state their changes against his father. In this
'lama uncertainty the imagination was, of cm urse, at
work. and rumour did n. t fail to insinuate that some
obscure crime: hid' been ecooMitted by his lather.
Young Mr. Ellis was deeply affected by ibis rumour—
he could not, he felt. return to his home until v.e tor-
tery was cleated uo, andlte accordingly dispatched Irons
London a Mr. Goddard, with a letter directed to the L.ty
Magist. ates who had concurred in refusing to admit his
father. This letter was taken to all theMagiatrates,urnoug
others ton 'Mr. nuttier, who alone consented to read it.
The letter required that they should explain the charges
against his father, and in the event of their refusing to do.
so. inf rated them that Mr. Goddard was author teed to,
require frill and ample satisfaction for each of OVA)
Magistrates; and in the event of their not meeting his
wishes in that respect they were to be branded as cowards
mad as unfit for the society of gentlemen. Sir Jame.
Scarlett diJ not pretend to iustify this proceeding of his
client, bat 1:e begged the Lorin to consider the state of
mind in which that young gentleman must have been,
and also his entente youth, being only 21 yeats of age;
and he trusted that these circumstances, if they did not
juttifrhis conduct, would at all events cause it to be
passed over with some allowance. The Magistrates
still refused to assign their reasons, and up to this
moment. when the affid evils had been filed by them
in support of the present information, the defend tat
was'in utter ignorance cf the nature of the charge
that was hanging over his father. The Learned
Callow' seat into a detail of the citeuibatances upon
which the Magistrates rested their objections. It ap-
peared that Mi. Ellis, the, lather, set up a will in the