Middlesex Sessions, Frida...
This was an appeal from the conviction of the appdflaut, before a magistrate, of not supporting a child of his wife's. t was clear from the evidence, and indeed sworn to by the wife hersel4, that the chian question was the offpriog of anothermanh; but there being isuficent proof, in point f law, of non-acces on the part of the husband, the Cousrt, obsrving at the samc time that it was a very har casez wra ob'aged to con ftrm the conviction, The sentence was ays.adlabour Er the Elouse of Correction. V. TYtE CONVICTION OF . rt. lINtSJHULL, ES4 This was an appeal from a conv-ction in the penalty of 51. for taking Above the%lgal toll for a one-horse cart. The conviction was had upon the Information Mr. Cobbet, jun. The CRAIRMLAN observed that no person appeared as luformer upon the face of the conviction. IlMr. Cobbett rose to give some explanation. Mr. ADOLrirus and lAir. IjAw (who were, with Air. Bolland, for the appellant) objected te MIr. Cobbert being heard; as his name did not appear upon the conviction, he had no more right to interfere than any other person in Court. or. Cbbett said that he was the informer. The CiiAirtitzr said there was no informer mentioned in the conviction. Mr.Cobbett observedhewould find the namoofa5 r.Painter there. The CIHAIRMAKr said that he did see the name of Painter, who was a witness in the case. The witness Painter was then put Into the box. Mlr. BOLLAIeD said be had some objections in point of law to urge against the conviction. Thefirst vras, that the name of no in- former was inserted. The CHAI RMAN observed, that the printed formn pointed out by the statute had been fille(i up. Afr. BOLLAND submitted, that to fill up the blanks in a printed forn would not be sufficient, if anv thing else rendered necessary by the Etatigte was omittea. However finding the Court against him on this point, he waved it, and proceeded to take two other objections. One was, that Ilir. Cobbett had been out of time in laving the in. formation. The 3d Geo. IV., section 143, enacted th'st where the penalty was over 201. it must be recovered by action, to be com- mnenced within three months of the time when the offence was corn- mstred; but where it was under 201., it must be recovered on infortna- tion. Here the act evidentlv intended, although It did not repeat the limitatioR of threc'months after the information, to apply it to that as well asto the action. Mr. Cobbert, therefore, not having lodged his information within three months of ite time when the alleged offence was committed, the conviction could not stand. The last and most insportat objection he had to urge w.s, that Mr. Cohbett had proceeded on a wrong statute, viz. the 3d of Geo. IV., instad of the 4th of Geo. IV. The learned Counsel then argued that the clause on which the information proceeded referred only to cases where the person committing the offence was a receiver ajppointedbg the commis.ionerg or tsustees of the tolls; and not he servant of the fasmerofthe tolls, all in the prwnt instance. MWr. ADOLssrss and lUr. LAW followed in rupport of these ob. When they had concluded their argaments, MIr. ADOLPHtUS said he would waver any objection to Sr. Cobbett's being harc. - although, strictly stAking, he had no right to interfere, since his natne did not appear upon the conviction. Mr. Cobbedt, after apelogzing for not having employed counsel, proceeded to argue against te objections. The CHAUEtMA, told him he would relieve him from the first objection_mnam ely, an to the information not having been laid within three months of the time when the offence had been committed. The legislature had certainly limited the period within which an action must be brought; but then, goirg on to speak of informations, they did not repeat the limitation after them, and tberefore could not be taken as intendinr to apply it to them. Mr. Cobbett eYen dirested his argument to the other objection. Last ear, he said, vith a view to favour broad-wheeled waggons, an alditional toll was laid on narrow wheels, with an exemp. tion in favour af some of a particular description-namely, mnarket calts. These, however, owing to a misconstruction of the act. still continued to be charged; and to remedv thiis, an act was passed exempting all one-horse cartR from the' additional toll. This act was pas.ed on the 19th of July ; notwithstanding which, they persisted in taking the additional toll for these carts, under pretence that the aet did not come into operation until the expiration of the year. He (Mr. Cobbett), therefore, informed against this mai on the 14th ot October. He first informed against them under the 63d clause, (giving a penalty of 40s. against col- lectors generally for taking more than the legal toll), with a view to making themnrefund the extra sums which they had received; but that not having the effect, he proceeded under the 55th clause, for the heavy penity of 5l. He then read some extracts from tle differ- ent clauses, to show that he had proceeded under the proper one. lThe CHArnmAW said that he had used the wvords " did-demand and take" instead of " did take" only; which clearlv proved that he bad proceededon the wrong clause, the word " demand" being usc nteoe,and not in the other. I r. Cobbett said that it was very possible that the clerk who had drawn up the information, being in the habit of drawing up others tn that shape, might have accidentally used the words "'did demand The CRAIRMAN observed that it might be so but that the in- formation must strictly follow the letter of the Act. Mr. Cobbett said, i. that case he would no longer contend against the opinion of the Court.-Appea.l allowaed. Several personls wYere convicted of uttering counterfeit silver coin, and sentenced to either six months or a year's imprisonment in the House of Correction._ MIIDDLESEX SESSIONS. FLinAY, OcT. 29. llILLWOOD V. TH1; COhVICV1rfTnV nsrn 17 u