Star.
London, England, 1819-11-30 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

RT OF KING'S BENCH, NOVEMBER 29.
being the last day of Term the Court sat from
.t nine in the morning until t.• elve at night.
LINO V. JOHN ARTMUR SORBAN, &SQ.
it will be recollected, was a Rule to shew
by a Criminal Information should not be filed
the defendant, a Magistrate of the Warring.
ision, in Lancashire, for refusing to take de.
s in a charge of felony, alleged to have been
ted by a private of the Manchester Yeomanry
in wounding, with his sabre, a person
Richardson, in the evening of the 16th of Au-
Manchester.
C. WILLTAMS was now heard in shewing cause
the Rule, and
)ENMAN, Mr. CHITTY, and Mr. Hut., were
a support of it. •
LOURT said, that if this had been an applica-
•a Mandamus to compel the defendant to take
iositions, they would have granted it imn
; but as to the present motion they would
me to consider of it, before they gave any final

RAM INQUEST.--THE KING V. 'MIRAN% sso.
Serjeant CROSS rose to shew cause against the
for a Mandamus to compel the defendant, one
:Coroners for the County of Lancaster, to pro-
sith the Inquest on the body of John Lees, who
lleged to have lost his life by violence on the
of August last, at Manchester, and the Learned
sel having proceeded at some length upon the
s of the case,
e Coca called upon Mr. DOMAN and Mr.
At, who were on the other side, to shew, first,
her the Inquest in question was legal in its
nencement? and, second, supposing it was not,
her it had been made so by the subsequent pro-
ngs of Mr. Ferrand ? From the statement of
ase at the Bar, it appeared that the Inquest had
at first summoned and sworn by the defendant's
k or Deputy, upon view of the body of the
ased, and after sitting several days, the proceed-
were taken up by the defendant, who, upon an
ctiun being taken, had the body exhumed, and,
eming himself with looking at its face, resumed
inquest, without re-swearing the Jury. Now, by
the Inquest could not originally have been held
ttle Coroner's Deputy. Then, had the Cornner's
-equent conduct legalised the rroceedings? Cer-
mt. The law required the Inquest to be held
is visum corporis—the Coroner and Jury being
,sei:t at the same time. This had not taken place,
das the proceedings were illegal a 6 initio, what
bsequently occurred would not remove the objec-
n. It was the duty of the Coroner when he per-
nally interposed, to have seen the body in the pre'
ice of the Jury—to have the Jury re-sworn, and
the witnesses re-sworn and re-examined. this
td not been done, and therefore the Court could not
ant a Mandamus to proceed in an Inquest which
light be afterwards quashed upon being returned
tizh this Court.

Mr. DENMAN and Mr. TINDAL confessed that they
(Te tak -n by surprise by the course which the case
ad taken ; but they submitted that it was not neces-
°TY for the Coroner and the Jury to see the body at
same time.
The Court, however, reiterated the abovemen-
46ed opinion, and discharged the Rule, observing,
itat, no injustice would be done in the result, as tfi e
4'441 Jury of the County was open for further in-
-9°,rl; or a Commission of Magistrates :night be ap-
pointed to inquire of the death of the party.—Rule
dt.tliarged.

IRK KIN(; v. inATEMAN AND OTIIIIHL. .
~Ait, it will be recollected, was a motion for an attachment
:ii, nit these defendants, fur a contempt, in resisting the process
.I.:cit Court, arising out of a motion for a Criminal. Informa-
IwVouching the late proceedings at Coventry. •
ate hotACITOL (iINE/LAI. and Mr. RIAILEIL Dow chewed swam
Ad:setts, which purged the ilet,ndants of contempt; and
"'r Mr. Cdierr and )Ir. HILL had been heard on the other
411 the Rule was dinhar;e4.