294. ANNUAL REGISTER, 1813. 



if she were merely tlie servant, but, 

 if she had the management, he 

 should hold her liable. 



Lord Ellenborough, in his charge 

 to the jury, declared, that this ac- 

 tion was brought on a very whole- 

 some statute ; that the indigence 

 of the offender had nothing to do 

 with the case, as the law was posi- 

 tive, and unless the penalties were 

 high, the law would be nugatory. 

 The advantages of the act were ap- 

 parent, for otherwise a person might 

 be carried away to a mad-house, 

 and be deprived of the advantage 

 of visitation ; for the house could 

 not be open to visitation, unless 

 knowledge of such house were 

 conveyed to the commissioners, by 

 means of a license. The jurj had 

 no right to presume that any 

 cruelty had been exercised, and he 

 hoped there had not been any. 

 But the law had said, that any per- 

 son concealing more than one lu- 

 natic, should be liable to a penalty 

 of 5001. It was, therefore, the ab- 

 solute duty of the College to bring 

 the action, as it was the duty of 

 him and the jury to give effect to 

 the law. He had looked with great 

 anxiety to see thj^t the case was 

 proved, and he thought that it was 

 fully proved. 



The Jury asked, whether they 

 had the power to mitigate the pe- 

 halty ? 



Lord EHenborougli told them, 

 the legishture had affixed the pe- 

 nalty, an<l that they had no power 

 to mitigate it. 



The jury hesitating, his lordship 

 said, that neither they nor the 

 Court, if it should be brought be- 

 fore it, had any power to mitigate 

 the penalty. The jury did not 

 know the facts of the case, for 

 Shey would recollect, that he pre- 



vented the counsel for the plaintiff 

 from going into any matters of ag- 

 gravation. 



The jury found a verdict fcr 

 plaintiff, for the penalty of 500^. 



Court of King's Bench, July \G. 

 Morris v. Sir Francis Burdett.—^ 

 This was an action brought by the 

 plaintiff, the High Bailiff of West- 

 minster, for the expences incurred 

 in erecting the hustings, &c. on the 

 election of sir F. Burdett to be a 

 representative of the city of West- 

 minster in parliament. The ques- 

 tion at issue did not concern the 

 amount of the charge, but whether 

 the defendant was liable at all to 

 payment ; and the defence was sup- 

 ported on the ground that he was 

 no candidate, but had been pro- 

 posed and elected without any con- 

 currence on his part. 



The plaintiff's counsel contend- 

 ed, that by taking his seat as mem- 

 ber, he had adopted the acts of 

 the persons who elected him, and 

 thereby made himself liable to the 

 expences. 



Lord Ellenborough said, he 

 would reserve the point, whether 

 by taking his seat, which seat he 

 was obliged to take, he was to be 

 considered as a candidate ? By 

 candidate, he understood a person 

 who solicits votes, but in this case 

 it did not appear that sir F. Bur- 

 dett took any part. He therefore 

 directed the plaintiff to be non- 

 suited, with leave for the defend- 

 ant to move to set aside the non- 

 suit. His lordship then observed, 

 that there might be some circum- 

 stances attending his taking his 

 seat which miglit make him liable 

 to the expences ; but the ground 

 on which he had nonsuited the 

 plaintiff was; that the naked fact of 



