Ireland.
The Times, 1824-06-28T00:00:00

AXr. ty VUO?NELL called the attention of tha Court to the writ of habeas corpus, which was ebtained on the preceding day by bMr. Shiel, in the case of Mr. Ormsby, to which no return had bee,i made. Alr. CILA3MPTON said that the return to the writ hae been filed. Air. O'COsNaE.L requested they would send out for the writ. The rcturn to thc writ was then produced, and read by the officer ofthe Court. It stated that Jane Ormsby was not in the custody or power of William Ormsby at the time the writ wasservedon hin. Mr. O'CONNELL said that that was a false return, and that the 56th of the late King empowered the Coutt to inquire into the fact, as to the trath or falsehood of the return, immediately. The person against whotn the writ was obtained was an officer of the Court, the Alacshal of the Mlarshalsea. The 1st, 2d, and 3d seetions of the act to which he had before referred, gave jurisdic. tion to a single judge to investigate any fact as to the falsehood of the return; and by the 4th section, a full Court was authorized in a simi. lar way to ascertain the truth or falsehood of the return. The per. son on whom the writ was served was a gaoler b hs daughter was either in the house or in the gaol at the time when the writ was served on him, for his house was a part of the gaol. Alr. O:msby in his aflidavit admitted that when he went home he reproached his daughter with having been the cause of his being served with that writ. Thus theY had the fact, that some time after the writ was served on him, Jane Ormsvby was in the house of the gaoler. Ar. O'Connell concluded by moving the Court that the retarn should be quashed asfalse. M r. WALLACE stated that he WeA coutnsel for Air. Ormsby. The statute that iMlr. O'Connell reliewd on did not siaplv in a case like that. The writ was directed to " William Ormtby, Esq.;" it did not state him gaoler; it would be monstrous to suppose that as M1arshal he should not have the same privileges as other persons. The 7za- beas corputs was addressed to him as a father; for what 2-to brin ' up the body of his daughter. She was of age. and was not, an ought not to be, under his control; she was not in his custody as gaoler; sbe was in no kind of duress in hiis house with his know- ledge or privity. M tr. Ornisby swears positivrly that he did not sanction Air. Whyte's addresse4 to his daughter, that they were viewed with repugnance bv him and his wife, and that al1 corres. pondence between AMr. WVhyte and his daughter were forbidden; that on the 10th of that month, notwithstanding, he forced his way into the house of Air. Ormsby, on false pretences, and stated that Jane Ormsby was married to him; that subsequently Walter WVhyte, his brother, told him that Nicliolas William Whyte was not mar- ried to his daughter, and that he had used that only as a pretext. Here the CbrrEF JusTcCE asked Milr. WaUaee if the affidavit etated she was in his (Mlr. Ormsby's) houte, andl in his company, after he hed becn setvedl with the writ? Mlrr. WALLACE replied in the afflirmativc, anti resumed:-MAr. Ormsby was anxiou s to consuhi tIUY legal advisers, and went immedi. ately atter dinner and called on counsel, eH did not meet his coun- sri, and on his return he supposed that he would have fonnd his daughter Jasne and her mother at houie, where he had left them about half nn hour before. The senants said they were in bed, but sonic ladies informed hinm that they had let the house during his absence. On the next day he learned that they had sailed in tihe packet for England. lie states positively that that was without his .nowledge or consent, dircetly or indirectly; and that he would not have suffered her to leave the house, but would have prevented her, had he been aware of it. Here the COURT inquired if it was stated in Air. Ormsby's affil- davit that he would have obeycd the writ of habeas corpus, if in Ihis power. Mr. WALLACE.-Certainly, my Lord. Judge BURTON observed, that the affidavit was not according to the return, as the return stated that slie was not in his power or cus- tody at the time the writ was served on him. AMr. WALLACE.-A.y Lord, she was an adult, and of course not in his custody. > 3Mr. CtAmPTOW stated, that the writ was not served on Mlr. Ormaby until the Court had risen. Judge BU1XTON observed, that the difficulty the Court felt was in reconciling the. return with the affidavit. ,Mr. CPtsAMPTON addre6sed the Court ;on the same side with Mr. When he had concluded, the Judges retired for a shlort time; and on again rcsuming their seats on thc beach, The CCIrtF JUSTICE said, that the Court disallowed the re.turn. NEw JupdE.-.Mr. Justice llichardsona having resigned his office as Pulsne Judge of the Court of Common Pleas in conse. quence of bis indisposition, it is sad that Mlr. Gazelec will sacceed to the vacency. I'RELAND. COURT OF KING'<SBENCH. JUXE 23. THE XIlNO V. ORXSflY.