before the magistrates of the borough of Liverpool, at the quarter sessions, and who was sentenced to an imprisonment of three months. A verdict was taken for the prosecution at the assizes, subject to the opinion of the court, upon a special case. This special case set out various factsthat the magistrates for the borough of Liverpool had from time immemorial holden quarter sessions of the peace, that until 1809 they had been in the practice of granting warrants for the commitment of offenders to the house of correction of the county at Preston, and that this power was first disputed in the year 1809; that the borough of Liverpool had immediately contributed to the county rate for the maintenance and repair of the house of correction; and that its proportion, which in 1809 was only 801. had since been augmented to 3001. annually. The question was, whether the justices of the quarter sesions of Liverpool had authority to commit persons found guilty of petty larceny to the house of correction of the county, or whether they ought to be imprisoned in the gaol of the borough.

Mr. Richardson, who was in support of the verdict, contended, that if any difficulty upon the subject previously existed, it had been removed by the stat. 53d Geo. III. c. 162. The question had been argued in 1811, but the court had not come to any decision, though two doubts were mentioned by their Lordships: First, Whether a court of session could commit to a county house of correction for the specific crime of petty larceny? Second, Whe

ther, supposing it had the power, it could commit for any term less than six months, and exceeding two years. These questions both originated in the terms of the act 6 Anne c. 6., which referred only to cle: giable larcenies, and pointed out a limited period of confinement. It was followed by 6 Geo. I. c. 19., which authorised commitment to a place of confinement in the county for vagrancy and "other small offences,' among which, he argued, petty larceny ought to be included. The 15 Geo II. was the next material statute: it gave power to justices of liberties, and corporations contributing to the county rates, to commit to country gaols generally; and the 52 Geo. III. c. 44. enabled them to commit offenders, if they thought fit, to some place of confinement where the prisoners were kept to hard labour. He relied, however, upon the 53 Geo. III. c. 162, which gave any judge or justices authority, for grand or petty larceny, to commit prisoners to any lawful or convenient place; which words were to be restrain. ed to the county in which the crime was perpetrated.

Mr. Williams, on the other side, went through the various acts of parliament, contending that none of them gave the power here claimed, which could not exist without some positive enactment. The only act which gave authority to commit to the house of correction, eo nomine, was the 6 Anne c. 6, which, it was admitted, did not apply to the of fence of petty larceny: the 6 Geo. I. c. 19, was equally out of the question, because it related

merely

merely to offences of vagrancy, bastardy, and offences of that kind, not meaning by the words "other small offences" to include larceny The 15 Geo. II. only respected imprisonments previous to trial; and the 52 Geo. III. spoke of commitments to hard labour, but did not, as would have been natural had it so intended, notice houses of correction. to the 53 Geo. III. c. 162, on which so much stress was laid on the other side, he submitted that it gave no authority to justices to imprison in gaols not before recognized, and a house of correction had not before been mentioned.

As

The Court was of opinion that the terms of the last named act decidedly gave a power to the magistrates of the borough of Liverpool to commit to the county house of correction; for it gave authority to imprison, in any place the judge or justices should think fit to appoint, for such time as they should direct, for the crimes expressly named, of grand and petty larceny. In this case the borough of Liverpool paid a part of the expense of maintaining the house of correction, and it was reasonable it should derive from it a part of the benefit.

The King v. Fowle and Another. -March 19.-This was an indictment for an assault against the defendant Fowle, and one of his men, he being churchwarden of the parish of St. Mary the Virgin, at Sandwich, for turning the prosecutor out of a pew at church on the 4th of June last.

The prosecutor of the indictment was a man of the name of

Basden, a gardener, at Sandwich,

and he stated that he was not a parishioner of St. Mary, but had been so formerly, but that for many years he had used a particular pew in the church of St. Mary; that Fowle, one of the defendants, was churchwarden of St. Mary; that on Sunday the 4th of June last, he was at church, when the defendant Fowle came to him, and said that he must not sit in that pew, for that it was wanted for another family; he refused to go out unless he was compelled; upon which the defendant went away, and brought with him two of his workmen, he being a brewer at Sandwich, who came in their working dresses, and seizing him by the collar, dragged him out of the pew, and along the aile until they got him to the church door, and then they thrust him cut. On cross-examination he admitted that the defendant had been with him before, and told him that the pew in question was wanted for a Captain Warner, who had taken a house in the town, which had long been untenanted; that the defendant had also offered him a seat in his own pew, which was opposite, but that he preferred sitting in his old pew. He had not been an inhabitant of the

parish for many years, and he also admitted that he had gone to church early that morning because he knew that Captain Warner had used that pew the Sunday before. The defendant first asked him if he would go out? He said, no, unless he was compelled to go by force. That the defendant came with his two men in their working dresses, one of

them

The statement of his being thus forced out was confirmed by a Mr. Stuart, a magistrate of the place.

Mr. Marryat, for the defendant, contended, that the prose cutor, not being an inhabitant, had no right to the pew in question; that the rector and churchwardens had a right to regulate the seats in church, and because the seat in question was wanted for Captain Warner's family who had come to reside in the parish. The prosecutor was told he could not have the pew, but that he had told the prosecutor he should be accommodated in his own pew; but the old man obstinately persisted in going to the disputed place, and therefore the defendant Fowle, as churchwarden, removed him from the place.

Mr. Justice Bailey said, the prosecutor had clearly no right to intrude into that pew, but they did wrong in removing him in the indecent manner they did. They should have locked the pew; and besides, if they had a right to remove him from the pew, they had no right to turn him out of the church, which they had also done. In this they had clearly exceeded their authority, and upon this ground alone there must be a ver lict against them.Verdict-Guilty.

Mr. Serjeant Onslow stated the particulars of the case. He said that he was glad to see that the defendant had made this cause a special jury, because they would judge temperately of the amount of damages to be awarded against a brother magistrate for an act of tyrannical oppression. The question of damages would be the only one they had to consider, for his conduct was clearly indefensible at law. The plaintiff was tithing man of Chart, in this county, and on the 22d of September last he executed a warrant of the defendant's, by taking a person in custody for some assault, or other trivial offence. He had to carry him to Farnham, which was near nine miles from his own home; and when before the defendant, he asked to be allowed something for his trouble. This the defendant refused to allow him, upon which the plaintiff said he would not execute any more of his warrants. For this offence alone-for this affront to the dignity of the defendant, he immediately ordered him to be committed to the cage, where he was imprisoned the whole of the night, and not released until the next morning. This, the Serjeant said, was clearly an illegal act, and beyond the magistrate's power. Admitting what the prisoner had said was a contempt of the justice, yet none but a court of record could commit for a contempt, which a single justice clearly was not. The question, therefore, which the jury would alone have to consider was, what damages they should give.

Mr. Shuter, the attorney, proved serving the notice of action on the defendant,

T. Stucey, the constable at Farnham, stated, that he recollected the plaintiff bringing a man in custody on the 22d of Septem ber last. It was late in the evening, and the witness was called up to take him into custody, as the plaintiff wanted to return to Chart. The parties in custody made up their quarrel, and they went before the magistrate, Dr. Lock, to discharge the warrant. The witness then applied to Dr. Lock to allow him some reward for being called out of his bed. The doctor thought this reasonable, and directed the parties to give him two shillings. The plaintiff then said, he thought that he ought to be allowed something for bringing them six miles. The magistrate said, no; it was his duty; he took the office to save himself from the militia, and he must take the disadvantages. Upon this the plaintiff replied, "Then I will serve no more of your warrants." The magistrate asked, "What is that you say, Mayhew?" To which Mayhew replied, "Send no more of your warrants to me, for I will not serve them;" and added, in an under tone, what the witness thought was, serve them yourself." Upon this Dr. Lock ordered him to the cage immediately. The witness told the plaintiff he had never seen a magistrate so treated before.

Mr. Marryat, fo: the defendant, took two object ons; first, that the act of parliament directed the notice of action to be indorsed with the attorney's nanie, and objected that the letter D. was no

Ellenborough had so ruled in Kent last summer; second, that the conduct of the plaintiff was a contempt, and that the magistrate had a right to commit for a contempt in the execution of his duty.

The learned judge saved both these points of law; and the jury found a verdict for the plaintiff Damages 51,

Middlesex Sessions.-On Saturday, Sept. 21, George Vaughan, Robert Mackay, and Geo. Brown, were put to the bar, charged with a conspiracy to induce William Hurley, Michael Hurley, William Sanderson, William Wood, and Dennis Hurley, to commit a bur glary in the house of Mrs. M'Donald, at Hoxton. There was also a count in the indictment, charging the defendants generally with conspiring to induce certain persons to commit burglaries, that they might afterwards obtain the reward for their apprehension.

Mr. Gurney addressed the jury on the part of the prosecution, and observed, that had the opening of his learned friend been the first information which they had heard of the case they had now to try, it would still have been a most important one: but in a country like this, where it was impossible that popular discussion and popular feeling should not exist, it became doubly important and he had now to call on the jury to divest their minds of every impression which they might previously have received, and to enter into the present investigation coolly and dispassionately, and to decide on the guilt

or

or innocence of the prisoners on the evidence which should be laid before them Having said thus much, he should proceed to state the case. It was necessary for the peace and well-being of society, that crime should be repressed, and offenders apprehended; and to accomplish this object, it was necessary that reward and encouragement should be given to those persons who risked their personal safety, and frequently even their lives, in the discovery and apprehension of offenders. The law had given rewards to such persons, and still the country owed much to individuals who meritoriously performed such services; but as much merit attached to those who well discharged this duty towards the public, great in proportion was the guilt of those, who, for the sake of obtaining these rewards, should lay traps and throw temptations in the way of others, to induce them to commit crimes. Such was the offence with which he hal to charge the prisoners at the bar and in proving his case he should be obliged to have recourse to evidence, which it would be the duty of the jury to look to with suspicion, and receive with caution. The witnesses might, perhaps, differ in some immaterial facts; but if they should agree in the min points, and after being sifted and cross-examined it should appear that there was no reason to doubt the truth of their testimony, he should submit that, whatever might have been their former associations or modes of living, their evidence was not therefore to be rejected on this Decasion This transaction was

brought to light in consequence of five persons, named Wm. Sanderson, Wm. Ward, Wm. Hurley, Jas. Hurley, and Dennis Hurley, being charged with a burglary in the house of Mrs. M'Donald, at Hoxton; and on that occasion Vaughan, who was a patrole, Mackay, who had been in the employ of the City Police, and Brown, the other defendant (what he had been, he, Mr. G., could not state), brought the prisoners up, and Vaughan deposed as to the facts of the burglary in question. [Here Mr. Gurney read the depositions of Vaughan and the other defendants, and continued.] Had these depositions been all that passed, the magistrate would have completed his duty by committing the prisoners for trial; but the prisoners, on being questioned, said they were taken to the house of Mrs. M'Donald by a man they met at a public-house, and went in with him, but took no hing. Something here occurred, either a look or a word, he (Mr. G.) could not say what it was, which excited suspicion in the mind of Mr. Nares, the magistrate, who turned to Vaughan, and observed, "Vaughan, you went to the spot at the time the prisoners were committing the burglary in consequence of information you received; who gave you that information ?" Vaughan declined to say who gave him the information, observing, that mentioning names might be attended with danger to individuals, and would operate to prevent their receiving informa tion in future. This, and some other circumstances, induced Mr. Nares to commit the prisoners for re-exami