Star.
London, England, 1820-11-22 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT oz. KING'S BENCH, NOVEMBER 21.
HENRY HUNT.
Mr. CHITTY stated to the Court that he had an
affidavit on the part of Mr. Henry Hunt, complain-
ing of the treatment he had. experienced in the gaol
of Ilchester, contrary to the intention of the Court,
when sentence had been pronounced upon him,
though there had been no impropriety on his part.
All that Mr. Hunt desired was, to be placed in the
same situation as the other prisoners. Mr. Hunt
had not only experienced much pecuniary loss from
the regulations that had'been adopted, but his health
had also been materially injured, and might be be-
fore he could have his ;remedy by action. He (the
'Counsel) thought the best mode would be to move
the Court for a writ of Habeas Corpus to bring up
Mr. Hunt.
The COURT said, it would be best, in the first in-
stance, to have the affidavit read.
Mr. CHITTY then read the affidavit ; which stated
that the deponent was confined from four o'clock in
the afternoon till nine in the morning, and had been
put in a damp bed, with only straw to lie upon. At
first an order had been made that he might see his
friends at all times, but now they were excluded
:alter four in the afternoon, and female visitors had
been excluded altogether. In consequence of that
order, two females of his own family, and a Ward of
his, who had lately succeeded to an estate of £BOO
in Ireland bad been prevented from seeing him,
though neither he (the defendant), nor any of his fa-
mily, had ever infringed the rules and regulations of
the gaol. The deponent had written upon the sub-
ject to the Sheriff of the County, who declined to in-
terfere ; but neither the Sheriff nor the Under-She-
riff had anything to do with the restraints imposed
upon the deponent. The deponent verily believed
these restraints had originated with F. Drake, Esq.
one of the Magisttates tor the County, and the order
had been made at the last Taunton Quarter Sessions.
The deponent, in the day time„was locked up in a
dungeon, by which his health was much affected,
and he had suffered much pecuniary loss by not
being permitted to see his family.
The Cut re JUSTICE said, that perhaps the Learned
Counsel might frame a rule on the Sheriff and Un-
der-Sheriff, or might take a little more time to con
cider the subject. The Court was anxious that the
subject should be put into such a train as might af-
ford a remedy.
Mr. CHITTY suggested, that the Sheriff and the
Gaoler were under the controul of the Court.
Mr. Justice BAYLEY asked, can the Court interfere
with the interior management of the prison ?
Mr. Justice BEST thought, that in the first instance,
application should be made to the Local Magistrates.
After some further observations, relative to the
proper mode for the interference of the Court,
Mr. CHITTY took a rule to be served upon the She-
riff and Gaoler, to shew cause why Mr. Hunt should.
not be placed on the same footing with other pri-
soners confined fi rmiseemeanot r

DATSON V. DONOVAN.

The COURT gave judgment in this case, after
having tken time for consideration. It was an ac-
tion against a common carrier. for the loss of £1,070
in Bank notes, sent by the plaintiff in a parcel by
the defendant's coach from Berwick to Newcastle.

At the trial, on the Northern Circuit, the defendant
had a verdict on the ground of notice of restricted
liability, the plaintiff not having insured the pro-
perty. In a former Term, the plaintiff moved for al
new trial, and the case having stood over, judgment,
was now given.
The COURT (11r, Justice BEST dissentient) ruled,
that under the peculiar circumstances of the case,
the defendants was not liable at common law, there
having been a concealment on the part of the plain-
tiff as to the amount of the property lost.—Rule
discharged.