The Statesman.
London, England, 1822-06-24 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCB. ,

COURT OF KINO'S—BENCH—SATuavaI.

TIM 1104 111. TUOII. 510011. T.
This defendant, so Excise Officer, was convicted at
the lam Yorkshire Assizes, before Justice Savage, on
an information for a breach of his duty. in omitting
to ester i■ the hide-book of a tanner, withis his di,-
triet, the quantity is weight of leather actually masa-
factored by the latter.
On the motion of the Soatcyron-Oustsitat., be was
now brought up to receive the judgment of the Court.
An affidavit was put in on behalf of the defendant,'
stating that the criminal act alleged against hint
arose from inadvertence.

Mr. TiNIPAL addressed the Coen in mitigation, and
Mr. SOLICITOR-OgNiltAl. in aggravation of punish-
ment.
The defendant was sentenced to 12 months impri-
sonment in York Castle.

Tat ZINO O. CONDICE.
It will be in the recollection of our readers that the
defendant was found guilty at the Surrey Sessions, of
having sold the dead body of Edward Lee, who we. ex-
ecuted on the 10th of September, 1821. to the dissectors
ill the Anatomical Theatre.
The brief view of the facts, as our readers will remem-
ber, is this :—The defendant was undertaker to the jail,
and received hisjostructions. from the Sheriff, for the
interment of the body. The friends./ the deceased ap-
plied for • eight of the unhappy criminal after awn-
den ; and on stating they were poor people, the deleted-
ant told them tbeyeppld not see it, until the time of the hell
neral, which he said *mild take plectra We
The defendant, however, on the To la , hodttlttl
with rubbish, and buried it. a the 41.
came on the following day, az6diateinceil. lie
*position. which led to thMio the . lady. lo
elte Amadei room. The don was bedlam' by
thallaestrates of the county.
The defendant was this day brought up to receive the
joient of the Court Mr. Walford was heard is odd.
ir of Fleishman, stating the defendant was a poet
vow and had, melees to this affair, as excellese eke
.
1 kr. NO LAN, for the proseentios, said the
' ludootesaitted a crime at which human adore=
ed. He had been guilty of violating the law, and if
annecesiatilylnjuriny the feelings of the relation of
the unfortunate criminal, after having refused then the
sight of the dead body.
Mr. JIMITICZ BAILEY,. in pronouncing the sentence of
the Court, said. the defendant had bees guilty of an of-
of a high nature. He had betrayed the erne re-
•in him by the county; be bad aggravated tise
op of the friends of the deceased, and when they
an anxious desire to see the dead bet aez
refused, andwere asked if they hadtbaome
refused,
this, he bad for gain disposed of for the
pontos of disseteion. The Court had a duty to pedant,
sad they weak( take care, in order to prevail a reed.
ti . suck crimes did not pass, unnoticed., They
seeteued him to pay & fine of 201. to theiCing,
twoiwipciseuel six ea/seder months in BrinlNl
iiN
Correction, and be further imprisoned until
WO Ink be paid.
~ ,
. 11-PASTS 'UNMOOR. I. L.D.
, Dr. lillglsmors, after the Lord Chief Jtattee and
Mr. Justice Hest had left the Caen. sass sad bagged
leave to ore for a oneenthrusire readring the Arabbi-
shop of Canterbury to Issas hisflet to the Vlearee-
t
newel of e provisos of Canterbury, to snake out * re-
script amilmanding the Dean Oahe. Arabes :- to 'admit
tkopplieent to peachiest in the Court of Arches, he
**log tobleined hie diploma &Decide if Law!.
F' At apposilia, la answer es tlecualimes abbe Csff, Oil
that this application was the same which was sealid
by the Court of King's Bench in 1807; but the Doctor
stated, that be had new grounds to lay before the
Court, which might laden) them to pronounce a dif-
ferent decision.
Mr. Justice BATLIT said that the Court weld not
entertaia such an application in the .absenee if the
Lord Chief Justice and Mr. Judos Best, especially
As it affected a ease already solemnly decided. He
therefore advised Dr. Highoore. if he wished still to
move, to take an toprecteeity of doing so whoa the
Court was full. . .
Dr. Hichasore bowed and dead. • - .._ ..
„--,'
, 1
DOCTORS' COMMO-13aevants, Jitlf. n:
. .--....
Tie Arches Court, the Pecallate' Gut! and the
Prerogative Court, sate successively today; but no be-4
geese of publie interest was t ted in either.
The judgment of Sir John Nickell "in the goods
of his late Majesty King George 111. stands over for
the next Prerogative Court day.
—........ •
COURT OF ERCHEQUER—Steenott
The ATTORNRY-011NZIAL called the attention ofthe
Court to the abuses which too often take place is the
use of extents in aid. It had been discovered that the
process of extents in aid had been very improperly ap-
plied to purposes Which bad not been originally io-
tended, namely, by parties applying them to recover
debts for their own benefit, without any view to the
benefit of the Crown. This was a practice greatly to
be censured, and on which, in the public lituatioo in
which he was placed, he felt it his duty, as far as was
within his means, to repress. With this feeling be
begged to apply to the Court to make as order, " that
heoceforth no fiat for an extent in aid should be
granted, unless the party applying for the same, or
some person or persons oo his behalf, should till's,
affidavit that, unless such process was based, the debt
due to the Crown would be in danger of being lost to
the Crown." The effect of this order would be to
prevent persons who might be indebted to the Crown
from recovering debts due to themselves by a cruses
in aid, where the ins of the Crown itself were not
actually in danger, which was, in poise of fact, 1644
original intent of such fiats. On looking to the books,
he found be was justified in this application by for-
mer precedents. In the reign of William end Mary
the process of extents in aid was moved, he cense-
queue of an application by the then Attorney-Ge-
nen! ; and again, iu the reign of Charles the First,
an order was also made on the same subject, on con-
ference with the Law Officers of the Crown. Under
these circumstances, he presumed to make the present
motion.

The LORD Cuter Bartow immediately made the fol-
lowing order:—.• Upon the motion of the Attorney-
lieneral, it is ordered, from henceforth, that no fiat
for an extent in aid shall he granted, utilise the party
applying for the same, or some
.person or persons in
his behalf, shell make affidavit that, unless the pro-
-1 cess of extent for debt doe to him from his debtor,. be
forthwith issued, the debt due to the Crown by she
party applying shall be in danger of being lost to the