The Statesman.
London, England, 1823-05-08 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, MAT 7.
Till KING V. JOHN ITUROBSS.
This defendant, a man In a respectable situation of life,
was convicted at the sittings after Michaelmas Term. in
London, of indecently exposing his person in Mournelik.
When he was brought up for judgment in Hilary Term, affi-
davits were put in disclosing that he was subject to a deter-
' initiation of blood to the head, which SOrnetiMeS produced a
traporery suspension of his faculties; that immediately
before the melancholy occurrence in question, he had been
nnit journey of I hundred miles. and had been five
nights without rest; and that he had borne an unblemished
character. The case then stood over in order that the pro-
secutors might make inquiry into these circumstances, anti
consider whether they would pray for judgment.
Mr. COMMON SgaGEANT now prayed the_ judgment of the
Court, and put In an affidavit of the Lord Mayor's clerk,
who took the defendant's examination at the Mansion-house,
to show that the defence he then made proved that he was
not destitute of reason.
Mr. ADOLPHUS shortly alluded to those topics of com-
passion which the affidavits on the part of the defendant
suggested.
The Cover, adverting to the infirm state of the defend-
ant's health, and to those mitigating circumstances which
led them to hope that some degree of alienation of mind had
41Mvailed, sentenced him, to be imprisoned in the house of
!ruction In Giltspur.street for six weeks.
V ..
.
'I — COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.—May 7.
El-PARTS ROOM/a D.
. Sergeant PELL having obtained a rule to show cause
why the Warden of the Fleet prison should not refund tae
sure of 11. les.„ which he had illegally received from the ap-
plicant, who stated upon affidavit that he had been dis-
charged from twelve actions, and for each discharge the
Warden had taken a fee of 2s. Od.
Mr Sergeant VAUGHAN showed cause againft the role.
He said the fees which had been thus demanded were not
received by the Warden, but were part of the fees of office
due to the clerk of the papers in the prison, for entering the
discharges. The Warden made an affidavit, stating that the
complainant was discharged from thirteen actions, by an or-
der of the Court for the Relief of Insolvent ebtors, ill
eleven of which detainers had been lodged against him : and
from 'a warrant for en assault, "litlxlch had been left at the
gate. The affidavit also stated, that so far back as 1727. the
fee of 2s. (id. was devermtuetkitudile. Court to be due to the
clerk of the papers..
.:-.).-. .1 1:
The COURT interrupted thrtLearned Sergeant to say, that
the only question was as to 'the number of the discharges
from action.s on which detainers bad been lodged against the
applicant.
Mr. Sergeant VAVOMAN said, he was discharged from 19
civil actions, exclusive of the detainer for the assault. The
Warden had therefore taken less than the order of 1727 en-
titled him to.
Mr. Sergeant Pain, on the other side, said he did not
mean to urge pay thing agettist the warden personally, who
was undoubtedly n very -respectable officer. There might
have been some mistake on this subject. A table of fees
was hung up in that prison, and one item contained in that
table was 7s. .td. fur the discharge of a prisoner; and the
question now was whether an additional charge of 2s. ed.
was to be demanded for the same purpose. 'Tills fee was
not mentioned in the table, and the statute Geo. 11. peremp-
torily requiriv a table of all fees to be taken In the prison
to be hong up in a conspicuous part of it, no fee not inserted
in such tabtetould he legally claimed.
The CuuaT desired that the table of fees should be hand-
ed up.
Mr. Brown said he had not the table in Court. There
were two, one containing the fees to be taken by the ward-
en. and the other those to be taken by the clerk of the papers.
The Count. then said, they must see these tables before
they pronounced their decision.
Tine LORD CHIEF Jus•rtce said that whatever might
be the ultimate decieion of the Court in this case, lie felt
himself bound in justice to the warden to state, that lie
would not have 41,o:barged hi, duty if he bail not claimed
those fees, sanctioned as they were by an order of the
inslges of this Court, which order had been acted upon
for a period of Itft years. The warden was the trustee of
tlistse persons who should in the course and or.ler of time
an led him in his present situation, and it was his duty
Ist.
to ke care that none of the fees of that office should
be oitgh any neglect of his. It was also due to
the
• making the complaint to say,.that the question
ht. before the Court in a very proper manner,
no I *q being made against the warden personally.
"0
With re to this gentleman (the warder,) lie wished
..
bl+
too that when he (the Chief:Justice) concurred
iikhis piiintetent to his present office, he had not (to
liirknowledge) even seen him ; but he was induced to
du so by the universal voice of approbition raised in his
favour when he filled another situation: of great difficul-
ty, and particularly at a period of *tailor delicacy. It
bad been said that there never was a time
" When the steel'd gaoler was the friend of man :"
but Mr.-Brown IciltgotAtaiones and on all occasions,
however painful, •mself the friend of man. It
was by lilt chaiictertin-this respect that he (the Lord
ChiefJusticekwas induced to concur in his presrut ap-
pointment ; Rd he could nor resist the present oppor-
tunity of sayingliese few woks itnestlmcmy of his ad-
miration of his buina e. nd upright conduct.
The case then at?. .ii, 'the production of the ta-
ble of fees. 4-7.: 1
I
IN THE MAT 0 • ARAM AND BROOKS.
The case s ' . to the Prothonotary,
who was dir. . , ,o, `lrt.
• TL ' • , ewgate.
I .....—,.....i....., •

~1• ~