Star.
London, England, 1818-11-28 00:00:00

EX TA RTE VOGEL.

On Thursday this person was brought up, under a
Habeas Corpus from Newgate, for the purpose of
being discharged, having been committed to that
prison by virtue of a warrant of Commissioners of
Bankrupt, acting under a commission issued against
a foreign merchant, residing in this country, named
Ehrenstrom, for not having satisfactorily answered
certain questions put to him by the said Commis-
sioners, as a witness, touching the concerns of the
said Bankrupt, of whom he was a creditor. The
Habeas Corpus was moved on the ground that the
commitment was illegal, inasmuch as the questions
appearing upon the face of the Commissioners war-
rant did not Import any inquiry relative to the bank-
rupt's property, estate, or effects ; but were irrele-
vant and impertinent to the subject matter to which
the authority of the Commissioners must be legally'
confined—namely, the bankrupt's estate and effects.
It appeared that the questions set forth in the Com-
missioners warrant had no direct reference to the
estate and effects of the bankrupt, but principally
bore upon the witness's knowledge touching inter-
views, which he was supposed to have had with the
bankrupt's wife, and also as to when and where he had
seen the bankrupt upon particular occasions From
the answers set forth in the warrant, it appeared
that the witness had given replies importing a total
defect of recollection as to the points put to him, it
appearing at the same time, from the affidavits in
support of the motion, that lie was a foreigner, and
had only been three months resident in England at
the time of his commitment.

The present motion was therefore made for the
discharge of Mr. Vogel, on the ground that the ques-
tions so put to him had no direct reference to the
bankrupt's estate and effects; and it was contended,
on the authority of the case of es party James 8 Yes.
jun. 337. that although some of the questions set
forth in the warrant of the Commissioners were le-
gally put, still if the rest were not authorised by law
the commitment was bad, and therefore that the
party was entitled to his discharge. In furtherance
of this argument the 5 Geo. 2. c. 30. s. 18. was
referred to, it being contended that that clause had
reference only to matters of form.
On Thursday, Mr. SCARLETT and Mr. GURNEY
were heard in support of the prisoner's discharge ;
and this morning Mr. MONTAGUE and Mr. F. Pm-
LOCK were heard on the same side ; and each of these
,Learned Gentlemen, with their usual ability and
learning, enforced the arguments above-mentioned,
on behalf of their.client.

Mr. TOPPING and Mr, Cunwoon (the latter of
whom was stopped before he had finished his argu-
ment) were heard in support of the legality of the
commitment. They contended, that even supposing
some of the questions put to the witness might not
' have direct reference to the subject matter of in-
quiry before the Commissioners,, yet as all the ques-
tions substantially bore upon the conduct of the
bankrupt, in respect to his property, and as tbOsr
questions were not satisfactorily answered by the pri.
soner, the Commissioners were justified in his corn.
mittal, until he should satisfactorily answer such
questions.
The COURT were unanimously of opinion, that
although the questions and answers, taken separately,
might be objectionable, yet, when the examination
was taken altogether, it appeared that the witness
had conducted himself in such a manner as to justify,
his commitment, inasmuch as the answers he had
given were apparently evasive, and not satisfactory
to the inquiries put to him. Two of their Lordships,,
however, were of opinion, that supposing any of the
questions to have been satisfactorily answered, thel
Court was authorised, under the 18 a 5 Geo. 11. c. 30.
to alter matters of form, and remand the party to
his former commitment, until the relevant questionsl
were satisfactorily answered.—Prisoner remanded.

_ .
TIM XING V. PRXDERPO WOODS AND N/CROLL WOO]

On a former day Mr. Scaaterr moved for and
obtained a rule to show cause why a criminal infer-,
nation should not be filed against Lieutenant Fre-I
dericWoods, an officer in the army, and Mr. Nicholl,
Woods, Town Clerk of the &rough of Cardiff, for,
using offensive language towards a gentleman nam-,
ed Peter Taylor Walker, constable of the Castle or
Cardiff, tending to incite him to f►ght a -duel with,
the said defendants. The affidavits on which this:
motion was founded, stated generally, -that op the

25th of June Mr. Walker was proceeding to attend a
County Meeting in the.neighbourhood of Cardiff,
relative to the nomination of Candidates for the
County Election ; and having occasion to stop in
that town, he was alighting from his carriage, when
accosted by the two defendants in very offensive lan-
guage, they respectively calling him " a scamp—a
blackguard,' and other opprobrious names. It was
sworn that one of the defendants was asked by a bye
stander, whether he meant to challenge Mr. Walker,
by the language which-wauttsed? To which Lieu-
tenant Woods replied in the affirmative, saying, that
he so meant it.

Under these circumstances the Court granted the
Rule to chew cause.

Mr. GOULDEOURNE now showed cause against the
rule, and produced affidavits on the part of the
Messrs. Woods, tending to skew that Mr. Walker had
been appointed to the office of Constable of the Castle
of Cardiff (a mere Ministerial Officer, whose duty it
was to administer the usual oaths to corporate Offi-
cers in the Borough), under the influence of Lord
Bute ; that Mr. Walker was not a freeholder of the
county, nor a Magistrate ; that he was not a resident
at Cardiff, and only visited that part of the country
for electioneering purposes; and that he had keen in
the habit, for a long time, of using the most offensive
language, and observing the most irritating conduct
towards the defendants, but more particularly to-
wards their deceased father, on all occasions. &fore
the Learned Counsel had quite finished his address
to the Court,
The CHIEF JUSTICE interposed, and said that the
.Learned Counsel must be quite sensible that this
application was an appeal to the discretion of the
Court. The language which they admitted to have
used towards a Gentleman (for such he must be con-
sidered from the situation he held) was grossly offen-
sive and provoking, and sufficient to warrant this
application ; it therefore appeared to his Lordship
that this rule ought to be made absolute.
The other Judges concurred, and the Rule was
made absolute.