Star.
London, England, 1803-12-01 00:00:00

THS KING V. RILL ♦ND OTHERS.

The Defendant Rall, cad five others, were brought
op to receive the judgment of the Court, for a riot,
at Lenard, in the Counof Cornwall.
Mr. JEKYLL. who was Counfel for the Defendants,
told the Court he had now the affidavits of feveral
perfons in favour of Rail, an Attorney.—They were
produced and read ; after which
Mr. Jufeice GROSE obferved, the offence of whiiis
William Rail had been convitted, on the clearea evi-
dence, was very dangerous to the peace of fcciety, and
liable to prt.duce very bad cottfequences in popu.
loos town. From the circumflances at the trial it op.
pealed, that he was at the bead of a lawlefs mob, for
the purpofe of fixing a (tone for the favage.fport of
bull-baiting, wl.ich, in a great town, mutt produce
incitements to idlenefs and intemperance, and lead to
firkin breaches cf the peace. '1 h..: the loweß defies
of men fhould indulge themfelves in fuch AS
not extraordinary ; but that a man of the profeffion
of the Defendant, who mutt be fur pofed to be ae-
quai oted with the confequences of loch !Ports, and
of the importance of peace and good order, was
not fo eafily accounted for, and that he (hould engage
in fuch fcenes, and much lefs that he fhould be the
leader of fuch a tumultuous unearthly. When the
Chief Magiftrate molt properly interfered, initead of
Petting a good example to others, and yielding a
prompt obedience to the laws, the defendant ufed
ex-
prefli:ms that rather tended to encourage them,by pro.
wiring them indemnity and bail, if they would purfue
this breach of the peace. The defendant's knowledge
and experience ought to have fuggefted that he might
have led others to the commitfion of in a& of felony,
which would have made them liable to a capital and
ignominious punifbment t and be too, the advifer,
might have been involved in the fentence of the fame
punifhment. Whether the Court confidered the mat-
(ion of the infultor the place where it was committed,
it was a molt ferious offence, and might lead them
to doubt whether he ought to continue any longer a
member of a Court of Janice. As, however, that
might prevent him from earning his bread by that
profelfion to which he had been educated, and as this
was his firli offence, and it was hoped would be his
lafl, it would operate as a feverer punifliment than it
was the intent of the Court to infii&. The (entente,
of the Court was, that the defendant Ihould pay a fine
to the Kiug of .501. that he fhould be imprifoned in
the prifon of the King'sßench for one calendar month,
and at the expiration of that period, that lie fhnuld find
security for his good behaviour for one year, hinsfelf
in aool. and two futeties in tool. each. And with
refpelt to the other prifoners, as they appeared to have
been milled by the example of Rail, the Court were
difpofed to take thzir fecurity to appear on a certain
day, and in the mean time that they fhould be bound
to keep the peace.
Corestaaciat. Diersiows.—The Court alto gave
judgment in the cafes, Kilner o. Le Mefurier, Camba
o. Le Mefurier, and Beal v. Tbompfon. Thefe cafes
involved the following has a French fubjeft effeCt-
ed a policy of infurance againft holtile capture upon
the Britifh Exchange from an Englifli fubjedt, pre-
vious to the commencement of hoftilities between
England and Fiance, but before the (hip reached her
deamation, war was declared, and the oda captured
by a &kith cruirer. The queltion therefore at Abe
was, whether or not the right of the affured. notwitb•
Banding it was Infpended during the war. revived
again at the commencement of a peace. and whether
be was not then entitled, the contra& being originally
valid, to recover the lofs infured *gait& ?
The Court were of opinion, that fucb a Policy
mull be confidered invalid, s.! ,:ther the Court look.
ci to the common law of the land, or the policy of
the Rate to both of which fuch a couuma INA be
confidered repugnant. An infwance to indemnify
the enemy again( capture mint be confidered ille-
gal, as it went to contravene the intent and pupae
of all offenfive operations, which went to dittrefs
the force, and weaken the refources of the enemy.
whirl w;.u1.1 ncs cc be the tail if Arch lots could be

indemnified by a policy of Infurance, effeaccl by a
lubjea of the country warring with that of the affu-
red. Under thefe circumilances, the Court confi•
dered the Plaintiffs, in the aeious alluded to, had not
the right to fue, and confequently nonfuits Should
be entered. The Court alto fuggelled, as no Po-
licy could be maintained, whore object was detri-
mental to the interefts of a !tate, that in future
the wording lhould not be fo general as heretofore,
but that policies Should ezprefs an Infurance again!'
all holtile capture, provided the lots did not arife
during hoffilities, as the fobjea could not legally
make infurance to indemnify that loffes his coutay
might inflia againit a foreign enemy.