Court Of King's Bench, We...
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE sat3t .N WIiPrius freom half paSt Pine til nearly eleven o'clock, and tried a number of undefended eauses. DOE, DEX. THOMAS, V. ACLAN. tne .IutD UHiEIEF JUSTICE, at tne sitting of the Court, read the judgment in this case, which was aygued on a formner day, and in uhich the question was, whetler the child of parents who were born in an American state while it was a British colony, but who herself was born after the independence of that state had been recognized, could inherit property in England. All the judges were clearly of opinion that she could notinherit, as her father, bv adhering to the republic when it was acknowledged as a sovereign and independent state. ceased to be a subject of his Alajesty's Crown. They expressed their satisfaction in the knowledge that this opinion was consonant to ajudgment of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania on a similar claim of a British subject to inherit property in that country. They therefore gave judgment for the defendant. THE KXNG, ON THE PROSECUTION OF G. CHETWYNDE, ESQ V. CARLTON AND OTHERS. hr. Sergant WILDE proceeded in his address. He reminded the Court that the position on wkich he rested the case was this-that there appeared on the affidavits reasonable ground to suspect that Ir. Chetwynde came to the trial of Charles Flint with fedings hostile and vindictive to him and to his family. Wag it to be said that the affidavit of Mr. Abraham Flint was imrnaterial to this conclusion ? If he could show that Mr.Chetwyndemade an express declaration of his cenmity to the Flints and of his resolution to punish asy of them who mighit come beforebimwith peculiar severity, wouldthat beim- material? And was he not at lberty to deduce the same inference, not from somelooseexpression which might be misconstrued, or readily invented,but from along series ofacts,all indunenced by thesame spirit, and tending tothesame ssue? The leamedsergeant then wentoverthe leading statements in that affldavit-the difterences'on the commission of bankruptcy-the partiality to Emery and his cause-the alleged rescue of Emery from the constables, ?which, however, was only sworn to from information and belief)-the two postponements of the trial of Abrahamn Flint, when the prosecutor was not ready to proceed-thesentence on that gentleman, and the proceedings re- specting the memorial tor its rernission_-as tending to explain the conduct of Alr. ChetwyRde on the trial of the brother. He then gave a condensed -iew of the evidence on that trial, and contended that the chairman did not point out to the attention of the jury the circumstances favourable to the defendant; and that he afterwards nisstated thelaw. Theindictment contained four counts, each embracing a charge for a riot; and yet Mr. Chetwynde, instead of stating expltcitly al1 the circumstances which were necessary to constitute tlat of 'ence,gavevery nearly the definition laid down by himself in his edition of Burn's Justice, as applicable to unlawful assemblies, as deseciptive of the misdemeanour with which the de- fendants were charred. This was very important; because. under a conviction for being present at all unlawful assembly, no sentence of hard labour could be passed. Was there not then, at least, ground to suspect that MIr. Chetwynde purposely misstated the law, in order to obtain a verdict on which he might pass a sentence which woald consign his enemy to a punishment dreadful in itself, and involving conscious degradation forlife? That sentence was most outrageous and inhuman; no man had dared to justify its severity; but it was contended that Nr. Clietwynde was not responsible, because lie acted with others. Was no man to be responsible, then, for an atrocious sentence ? UWas re- sponsibility to be divided, and so destroyed? Mr. Chetwynde was responsible above ethers; he was a man of legal education, and a legal author; he knew whoand what the young man before hint had been, and he also knew the full weight of the sentence, because he was one of the visiting magistrates of the gaol. When the cruelties attendan t on the execution of the sentence-cruelties which made every humanemind shudder-werereferred to, his advocates defend- ed him on the ground, that the rules of the prison were inexorable, and that the treatment whictli he received was necessary to the due execution of the judgment. Be it so: grant to M1r. Chetwyrele that the rules were inexorable, and what benefit would he derive ? It would then folow, that when he de:ermined on the punishment which this young men should suffer,he knew thathe condemned him to wear thegaol.d.-ess_tomount the tread-mil-tohbe exposed to themockery of theprisonschool_to worktilDnature was exhausted, on inadequate food, and to be more severely treated as nature sunk under the ex- ertion. Good God ! what a sentence was this for a British magis- trate advisedly to pass! In effect it was this-" You, Charles Flint, have been iii a crowd, to which vou were professionaly called- you asked theconstable to show his authorityin an irregular manner- you did not exert yourself to restrain the mob,(though it was proved that be did)-there are mitigating circumstances in your case-you are a man of education, and a member of an honourable profession; and therefore I sentence you to work at the tread-mill in a eaol-dress, to eat meal and water, and be deprived of the food your friends would supply for your comfort; to cleanse the infectious rags from tbe hospital; and to associate with wretches, the very sight of whom is pollution.'8 WVas it justice which urged Mr. Chetwynde to send a young man of MIr. Flint's years to work with wretches whose society was worse than death, when he had ample means of inflicting penal- ties which would prove abundantly severe, without ruinin and degrading him for life ? But the rules were not inexorable, and it was the dut, of Ar. Chetwynde, as the visiting magitrate, ac- quainted with all the circumstances of the casc, to take care that they did not-press-witl-intolerablelhardship on the man who had been convicted Ibefore him. The leamed Sergeant then referred to the late act for the regulation of prisons, and con- tended that the rules as to dress, diet, work, and medicine, either did not apply, or were subject to be modified at the discretion of the visiting ma *strates. He then adverted to the articles charged as li- bellous, and observed thattlie editor had not taken onhimself to as- sert, as from his own authority, that AMr. Chetwynde instigated the prosecution of Charles Flint, but had alluded to the memorial as the ground of suspecting that he had done so. If the press was to do real service, it must be protected in cases of un- intentional error; nor did it belong to Mlr. Chetwynde, of all other] men, harshly to visit its mistakes for he was himself an 4uthor, and perhaps himself had not always correctly reported what fell from fhe high authorities whose decisions he professed to set forth. tThis allUsion to Ar. Justice Best's complaint of the re- ort in Alr. Chetwynde's edition of Burn, of the cwse of " llot v. *Vilkes," induced a smile on the Bench.1 The learned Sergeant then directed the attendon of the Court to those points which were established without the affidavits of the Flints, and to those points which were notoriously true, and contended that these were suffi- cient to induce them-to discharge the rule. He did not ask them to convict Alr. Chetwynde-not even to mal-e any imputation on his character; butmerely to say, that sufficient reasons appeared on the affidavits for them, according to their practice, to leave him to his ordinary remedies. Mr. RUSSELL rose to support the rule, which he felt was of the highest importance, not only to the prosecutor, but to the adminis- tration of criminal justice. From a 'long acquaintance with 'Isr. Chetwynde, he was convinced that lie was the last person living to complain of any faLir and legitimate discussion of his conduct as a magistrate. But when the Court adverted to the publications in question,the languageof which wasingeniously kept from view, they would see that their nature was such that MOlr. Chetwynde was com- pelled, injustice to bimself and to other gentlemen, who, like him, honourably gave their time and talents to the discharge of public luties, to prosecute. Norwouldhehave nmet the case fairly, hadhe preferred an indictment instead of appealing to the high protection of their I,ordships, and thus courting inquiry. The learned counsel then read the prominent passages in the articles,nnd asked if they were not far beyond the utmost verge of legitimate discussion?i It was remarkgable that one of them contained an assertion, that the case of Mr. Charles Flint was about to be brought before Parlia- ment by a distingisrhed member of the House of Commons-a consideration which proved at once that sucb comments were need- less, and that they were unjust, as tending to prejudice the case of a man whose conduct was about to be subjected to solemn inquiry. The statements that Mr.Chetwyndohad instigated the prosesution- that Air. Peel had directed an inquiry into Iiis conduct-that Lord Sidmouth had liberated Abrahamn Flint; from a persuasion of the injustice of his sentence; and that Mr. Chetwynde had acted op- pressively in the execution of the Vagrant Act, were nowadmitted to be false; and all the other imputations, if fairly weighed, would be found equally groundless. : The COURT here as thb isour of three 'clork liad.aivea; sal a they must stop for the present; and added with an expression of sorrow at the unavoidable delay, that the Aurther argument must be postpc,aed till next term. THE KING V. CLUTTERBUCK Mfr. BROUGHAmX2 at a late hour, maentionea this case, wbirlh is a rule calling on certain magistrates Of llertfordshire to -show cause 'why a criminal information should not be exhibited against them for misconduct in their offie. Mlr. ScARrETT, for the defendants, said he was, extremely anxiousto showE cxaserbut he fearead it was too late to-day. H trusted his learnedfriend would see that his rule must be dischaged Air. BnOUGHAM..-At present Iibave seen nothing of the kind. ThetosRD CRIEF JusTIC' said, that as he was about to retire, the case must sfahd over. TEHE KING V. STOEES. This rule for! a criminal information against the .Briti.sh Traveller, for part of the matter inserted in the British Press, respecting the conduct of Mr. Chetwynde, was enlarged till next term. -- THE KING V. GEARING. The defendant was brought up, on the motion of Alr. ANDREwS, to receive judgment onan indictment for digging up adead-body, to which hehad pleaded guilty. He put it in an affdavit, that he.was a poor man, with no means of livelihood but his laboar. The COURT sentenced hin4 to be imprisoned in the fouse of Cor- rection at Clerkenwell for three calendar'months THE KiNG V. HUNT. Mr. John Hunt was in attendance, pursuant to notiee. to receive iudgment; but, in consequence of the argument in Mr. Chetwynde'6s case, the expected motion was not made. The COURT sat till five o'clock. COTuRT O' RTNfl'R T.r'o$ -.- kf. 00