The Statesman.
London, England, 1823-11-28 00:00:00

COURT OF KtN(l BENCH, N0v.27.

COOWN OEMS FEES.
hie. F.Jostits sbewed cause against a rule obtained'
Mr. Eves in person, calling on Messrs. Belt anti Soo,
who held the Middlesex and London seats respectively, in
'the Crown office, to refund to him certain fees of office
charged by them as clerks in Court for him in a prosecution
for a libel. The fees anionnted to about 4/. Mr. Eves had
la:en indicted for a libel, and was under terms to give
notice .of trial for the sitting after Hilary Term, IS2'2.
omitted to do so, and having employed Messrs.-Belt
and Sea to do the needful for him in Court, they from
time to tiu.e respited his recognizances to prevent an
',treat into the Exchequer. For this they charged the
a-nal and accustomed fees, a considerable portion of which
were for camp duties. The affidavits in answer to the
Tale now gave an explicit account of every shilling re-
ceived, and proved that the fees were such as might
lowfiitly be demanded by the authority of an Act of Per-
Cameos.
Mr. Evas was heard in person, and urged that the fees
..7in question could not be demanded unless sanctioned by
custom beyond PO memory. The custom set up
,here was, only of fourteen years standing, and after having
cited Bleeksionis Conimentaries, be contended that be
wren entitled to have his rule made absolute.
• The Conax were of opinion that the rule ought not to
be discharged. If the officers of the Court were not en.
titled to fees, the Court would be without officers at all,
because no man could be expected to give his time and
attention to the suitors gratuitously. In this case Mr.
Eves emtended that the officers were entitled to nothing
:whatever. This was an unreasonable proposition, and
c nein!), could not be sanctioned.—Kule discharged with.
out costs,

TIE HERTFORDSHIRE MAGISTRATES.
On a former day a Mandamus issoed to the Justices of
the Peace for the county of Hertford, commanding them to
admit to the county gaol Mr. Jay and Mr. Penton, for the
parpose of receiving instructions far the defence of John
Th oriel% st the approaching Assizes, for the alleged murder
of the late Mr. Weare.
Mr. PLATT now delivered in the Magisttates' return to
(be mandamus, and prayed that it might be read and tiled.
-The neoal prac;icc, perhaps, did not require that the return
should be openly read in Court, but as a good dealof mis-
representation had gone abroad respecting the conduct
of the Justices in this transaction, they were anxious
thst the return should be openly read for their viudica-

The Curer Jurrtcs inquired, whether the Justices bad
obeyed the writ?—Mr. PLATT replied in the affirmative,but
prayed 'hat the return. might be read.
• the Cuter .IC3TICE-16 it usual to read the return is inch
r. PLATT said it certainly was not.
The COUP JuSTICI—Theu the course of justice does not
require that it should be real—Mr. Pt.ATTJepested, that
as the Ju,tices' conduct had been impeached. it was desira-
ble that the return should be read:The CHIEF JUSTICI—
is quite unnecessary. We have neither said nor done
anything to impeach their conduct. The return was then
.filed with the officers on the Crown side.

INSOLVKNT DEB FORS' COURT, THURSDAY, Nov. 27.

IN THE MATTER OT ntritAne WILSON. AN INSOLVENT.
Mr. COOKS on a former day having obtained a rule
• c ailing npon the I nvolvent's tlctainining creditors to show
cause why he-should not be at liberty to file his petition to
be discharged,
Mr. Pottocit row showed rause, and founded his op-
vosition to the rule on the affidavit of Mr. Curtis, of
Elme, Brompton, in whirl' it was stated that the
the deponent, Mr. Kendrick, an.l others,
by representing himself to be worth upwards of 20,0001.
to dispose of their interest to bim in a patent (obtained
-origkally by Mr. Kendrick. for an apParatus for extracting
tanning manner from bark) for which hi agreed to pay
. 4;0001. the firstyear; SPIN. the second year; and 11,0001.
every year afterwards. In some time after this agreement'
the insolvent called on Mr. Curtis. saving he had pnr-
chssed the extensive premises of Sir Kohert.tirahatu op-
' vosite the Mansion thntie, where Mr. Maherly, .the Mem-
ber of Parliament, with whom be was connecter!, intended
"to have a counting house for the purpose of the tanning
{latent; and be requested Curtis to lend him 3001. or
44.197, to make a deposit with. Mr. Canis told him he had
- pot so much money to spare,‘but gave him a bill of ex-
change for KM. which the idsols'ent promised to Meet at
Its Matadi,' This promise he did not k,ep, although It•
Teceivel the amount of :be bill, an! Mr. Curtis was obliged

to take it op. The proceeds of it were not applied to.
the payment of the deposit for which it was obtained. At
the time the insolient agreed for the purchase of the patent
and obtained the bill of exchange, he was a prisoner in the
King's Benclalprison, &sae uncertificated bankropt,of which
the deponeet then knew nothing. In Easter Term last, he
lodged a detainer against him for the 1001., to which the
insolvent took defence, and after potting him to the
pewee of 30/., he gave a consent for a verdict. In come-
woes of the insolvent's non-performance of the conditions
of the agreement, the deponent end the other parties
thereto tiled a bill in Chancery, and obtaieed an injunc-
tion prohibiting the insolvent from in any way disposing
of the patent io question. Under these circumstances, Mr.
POLLOCK contended that the rule ought to be discharged.
Mr. COOKE replied at some length, stating that the in-
solvent's estate had been considerably improved since
his imprisonment, and that his patent was of sufficient
value to pay all his debts ; but to enable him to du so, be
required the assistance of this Court.
The COURT said, that so long as the injunction remained
in force, the insolvsat was restrained from makinb the ne•
. cessary assignment of all his property; and consequently
they must discharge the role.—Rule discharged.

THE PRISONERS IN HERTFORD GAOL.
Hauvroan, Nov. °7.—'!Magistrates have anxiously
weighed the evidence which has hitherto been collected,
have just resolved, after mature deliberation to arraign
Hunt as a PRINCIPAL in the late murder.Tbis determination
was communicated to Mr. George Nicholson, the agent fur
the prosecutions at Hertford, and he was further instrucred
to convey the same to the prisoner himself. Up to the
latest moment Hunt indulged in the hope that he would be
received as an approver. and it Is needless to state that the
intelligence came upon him like a shock. lie was deprived
of• all utterance, and appeared overwhelmed with terror.
Toe decision of the Magistrates was also made known to
Mr. Harmer the solicitor to Hunt. Much has been said in
support of the claims of this prisoner to the indulgence he
aimed at by what is called his confessions, and it has been
urged in favour of his pretensions, that if he bad not inter-
posed, the body might not have been discovered. But it
should be recollected that even supposing the confessions
to have been sufficiently complete to warrant the expects.
tions of a pardon, yet there must be also the important
condition fulfilled that the party shall not appear to have
been a principal. Had was committed as an accessary
before the fact; but the Magistrates, as it would appear,
being of opioion that the evidence establishes him as a
principal, have at once dismis'ed the idea of making use of
bin' as au evidence. It is remarkablethat when this informa-
tion was communicated to Thurtell, that prisoner relaxed a
little from his usual unbending mood, and appeared to feel
some uneasiness for the fate of Hunt.
It has been already stated that Mr. Williams4the solicitor
for Probert, made an offer to the agent of the prosecution,
which if accepted would place that prisoner in thesituatioa
of a witness. Mr. Nicholson with the prokiety which
marks his professional career, refused to make any stipu-
lation whatever, hut contented to receive any statement the
prisoner should think proper to make for the purpose of
submitting it to the proper authorities.
Mr. Williams accordingly waited on that Gentleman
last night. and conducted liim to the prison, where he had
an intasiew with Probert; but it does not appear that the
statement on this occasion varied in any material point
from that which is already before the public. Mr. Nichol-
son
refrained from putting any inquiry or even making any
ob tints that might appear to be uttered with a view of
extracting an explanation from the prisoner. He simply
heard the declaration, and finished tlie.in terriew by assuring
Probert that he should forthwith transmit it to the proper
quarter.
Mr. Penton has been all day in communication with his
client Thurtell, irho, but for the inteimission of anxiety
for Hunt that I have alluded to, still maintains his accuse
tooled firmness. I understand that the following gentle-
; men have been retained for the prosecution.—blesses.
Gurney, Holland, and Broderick.

POLICE.

Bow-STatri.—Yesterday, the attention of the Magis-
trates at this office was occupied for a considerable time in
the discussion of a question of some importance to °over°.
meat Contractors, and to Toll Collectors, arising out of the
following circumstances:—A Mr. Easterby undertook a
contract of considerable magnitude for the supply of coals
to Knightsbridge Barracks, and employed Messrs. John-
stone and Davis, coal merchants, of Vauxhall, as his agents
for performing the terms of his agreement. Messrs.
Johnstone and Davis accordingly sent their uaggons with
the coals as directed; on arriving at the Toll Gate, at Hyde
Park Corner, the waggons were stopped, end the usual
toll demanded. The waggoners retused to comply with
this demand, and urged, as a ground for their refusal, that
they were carrying stores for his Majesty's service, and
that these, by an Act passed in the 3d year of the reign of
his present Majesty, nereoexempt from 'loll. The Toll
Keeper refused to let them pass, without paying his de-
mand, and for this eiaLtion he was now summoned to this
Mr. Wools, a solicitor, appeared to support the case of
the Contractor, and Mr. Lew attended as Counsel fur the
Toll Collectors.---. Mr. %Veen stated the grounds of his
complaint, and produced the Act of Parliament which
exempted stores, conveying from place. to place, for his
Majesty's service, from all tolls on Turnpike roads, or
elsewhere. Mr. Easterby, he submitted, bad contracted to
supply a certain quantity of coals for the use of his Majes-
ty's forces in the iiarracks of Knightsbridge, and as these
were clearly Public stores, they were not subject to the
customary tolls on being conveyed to the place of their
destination. •
Mr. Law, for the defendant, contended that these coals
could not be considered as any part of the public stores
until they were actually delivered, and approved of by the
officer appointed to receive them. They might on arriving
at the barracks, be rejected, either as being an inferior
quality, or as being of bad measure. It was clear, there-
fore, that in the mere transit from the wharf at Vauxhall
to Knightsbridge they were still in the possession, and
under the sole controul of•the party sending them; and,
therefore, in no respect either the property of the Crown,
or forming any part of his Majesty's stores. This being
the case, there was no ground for the exemption claimed.—
After considerable discussion on both sides,
Sir Mensal) theme denied that the coals in question
at the time of their passing through the toll gate at Hyde
Park Corner, formed no part of his Majesty's stores, and
therefore were not exempt from the payweut of the custo•
mary toll.
The summonses were in consequence, dismissed with
costs.
Tne complainant gave notice of appeal against the de-
cision.
Mr. CORBETT AND THE TOLL COLLECTORS.
Felix Webb, a toll-collector, at the Hammersmith gate,
attended on a summons issued at the instance of Mr.
Cubbett, for having applied to him abusive lanenage as be
was passing through his gate on the llth of October last.
The facts were proved by James Palmer, a man in the
service of Mr. Cobbeit, who stated, as he was passing
throuili the gate with his horse and cart, on the day in
question, the defendant demanded 4}d. toll. Mr. Cubbett
was present, and said he was only entitled to 31., on which
the defendant asked who he was? Mr. C. ansnered that his
name was William Cohbett, and stated where he livt;da
The defendant then addressed him in provoking language,
saying ‘• that he dared not show his fare in a Court ut
Justice, and that no Magistrate would believe hint on his
word."—Sir It. BIRSIE imposed the full peualty ef
Fite
Pounds, and the defendant gave notice of appeal,

NtAVEBWAN