al 
THE GARDENERS’ CHRONICLE. 
as 
eir 
ifi be taken. The lik 
os construction of t! harter, the main ore ae tea con- | now discharged hls assistant, It 5 8 fa mot toh ag pect the 
sider ation of the Master baie whether the compromise was for | defendant was n move to dissolve the injune- 
the benefit of the charity. The costs must be reserved and the tion, she would cats t be able effectually to defend the action, for 
tioners have leave to attend, as well as tiie Attorney-General, es to give ps ence whom hi uld 
dependently of the relators. not bring oes yr to make affida vits in t of, the motion, 
torney-General vy. Foster. —.The Vice-Chancellor Wigram lend Langdale said, he should be sorry to ape upon the defendant 
vered judgment on the exgeptions for impertinence taken to by a commitment, but he must pay the costs of th nd 
the answer of the defendants in this case. The information was e Se om n must extended to restrain him from selling the 
in Trinity term, 1835, against the Earl of Wilton, and the appara or using any part of thei heh the the plaintiff, who 
other trustees of the Manchest chool, and the object of it was | must bring his shes within a a reasonable 
effect considerable alterations in the mode of carrying on the Cour F QvUEEN’s BEncu. — rsi a ‘Ban co.J—In Re 
1. In Michaelmas term, 1837, a supplemen 1 Captain Lou Tai thi case ab us had been obtained 
s filed against Lord Francis Egerton, Ww trustee, and two | to bring up the body of Captain Douglas, « who was in the custody 
gentlemen, who were then the head-master and usher of ieutenant- Colonel Hay, at Chatham, on the ch ge of having 
whool, seeking the sa relief against. them the Attorney- | deserted from his thie pot in India. The ret to habeus 
General would have been_entitled to if they had been parties to | corpus was read. It s out that Captai uglas been 
the original information. The wers were pti to both of | charged before J. Hard $q., one of the justices of the peace 
these informations. Before the —? nd § upplemental suits | for the county of Mid diese swith having deserted ae the 49th 
had the Earl of Wilton resigned his office as Regiment of Native intantey, of the gee ys Poe ast India 
€ of the trustees, two others of the triktees hens Fa another Dean | Company; that on such charge he had bee d by th 
of the Collegiate Church of Manchester and a’ are master | said justice to the custody of the gaoler of T othill-f fields bride- 
of the school were appointed; and the defen sped oster; | well, an me since such committal the Secretary at War had 
Wilson Patten, and Mr. Burleigh, were chosen as wiigeees 3 in | issued hi r to Lieutenant-Colonel Hay, t the commander of 
place of three retired and deceased trustees. The new t Indi t 1 
fties thus introduced were not, however, then made parties to of Captain onheny and have him safely kept t till he could be 
ciple cia and the cause was heard without : The | despatched to —., Wing oe ayo denied that he was a deserter, 
ir place in 1839, and Lord a ag ae nudgment was | as he had ap of a rch 1843. The order contained 
no con i November 1640 putes arose between the | a statemen of th apr se of des Sereicns » which was made on the 
parties on fei be utes of the dactes, and ae poet be were not | ground tl vel the leave of absence only applied to the Neilgherry 
settled until long afterwards. Another supplemenrital informa- | Hills. After a long argument on the admissibility of affidavits, 
tion, being that on which the present qu bested het arisen, was | which the eee considere von the case did not call upon them to 
filed against Foster and other gentlemen who had come into | receive, Mr. Kelly stated the facts of the case at great length, 
office before the his Piri mses and contended that Captain Douglas was an officer, not a com- 
information stated. the parport of the original rs first supple- | mon soldier, and it was plain that the words of the statute d 
mental suit, the proceedings which had t __s and the | not authorise such proceedings as had been taken in this instance 
decree. It st the pointment eS defendants | agair a were, - og three objections to these 
Pp 
He 
in the same position as gt 
hig be before Age “orretiva l and first sapotemental nie 
be clea 
tT 
h they were answer- 
bevy 
infor- 
ndants 
ould be pre 
eg! But, ee" if the ehiecs of the statute and its ged 
were looked at, it would 
a that it did not apply to 
view to 
mation when the as need. defe case like the present. The passed with a the 
put in their answers to this iiitormetlon, and namiteed to management and comman ry a “the British army, and there 
such proceedings had been _ bres tg Farrer a of the ras but one section which partially ee its provisions 
were settled, past that the: mately pass 0 the forces of the East India Company. That was the 
entered as of the 5th of Denstiibier,. 1820. The y stated that they Pt section, dere: made the act applicable to we dorees of 
hi i trustees of the charity at t me the decree was made, | the Com ay while they should be in any part of the United 
ought to have been parties thereto, and they cogptoed that King And ie 22d section declared, that it aay soldier 
the decree was invalid as pride em, and that the ney- | should 2 fi und, who had deserted from the which 
General was not entitled bene: fit of the ition: on and | he ought to letoie: and should be charged with s teh deaettb 
_ proceedings as cui: The defendants stated a variety | he might be taken before a magistrate, on the ofier of thd 
of circumstances connec with thé history and present state Magistrate might committed, 4 w . a herefore, 
and prospects of the school, for the purpose of showing why, on ! that before the m gistrate had any right to mit a man as 
thie merits of t €, the Attoi abe seg tate ought idk t6 have | guilty of the offence of retion deserted, he imitet be satisfied > 
the same decree against them. To vag of the gonna the man was & soldier, and was a person who ought to have beer 
the relators excepted for impertine ae verr vhic ch he belonged; and being satisfied on thet 
the exceptions, and the parties now “appended. from h a edison point, the magistrate might commit him ee civil custody, and 
Nothing ought to be in the answer pens the dr tr li for, | then the Secretary at War might give an order for his tenasfer 16 
or — would not be a tea o to the defe somes to military custody, to be there dealt with ebeordiingt6 martial in, 
the o or decree whicli m be made. The 4 ane estion was on | The ne ae pe: the course which had been phates i here were 
the application of this prince.” The ide of the court re- hag e first was, that <i ore of the magistrate extended 
quired that the mew trustees should have been parties at the ip, commen Fo hast rp en moet straine and unpre. 
hearing, eek: they might have made any defence which me A d pro ite tie e had ever heard of 
justice of the case requ They could not be likened to pur- | this provi? of the Mutiny ‘Act being applied to an officer. The 
asers pendente lite ; they did not come in under the old trustees, —— istrate had, in fact, no eee ction in a case like Paar 
ut they derived their title from the founder of the charity. Th he seco os regen was, that 
information itself so treated the case, and, he thought, correctly. a € magistra Bog that he aid fi di 
was accura’ his ition, i gm that the new | the Secretar ptt pte te in ond — nor was it “stated i in ne 
€es ust, | at the time of answ information, be | return, that tia whom h in on 
pe 
who ought to Se: with the c orp me lade he belodinedy.. 
objections rpanets to the vn yr Zn of the act. The third 
of the 
€ 32d sec 
ar ; it wo ight have | tion réla eg act, which was th 
mac 7, deft ich. they. it. ee secibed by the | where the seisio s of pe et were declared applicable to th 
i stice of the » Subject a gue f_ costs, should | forces of the East India Company while in the United Kingdom 
ey needlessly have repeated matter contaiuied in the answers , that the sfc did uot apply in this sananee: 
; f the former trustees. His propositi S, not the fe the corps to which eget glas belonged did not, for: 
= xuew trustees would necessarily be unaffected the ers ny part of the forces of the E ast 1 ate Company in this eedcted. : 
q the former trustees, or oceedings the catise, The “earned counsel here read the section in question, aiid 
4 but that they were not so bound as to be absolutely pre- | Lord Denman asked whether the proceedings to; 
& élided from niaki ng possible case against oats decree prayed, | under the 22d and 32dsections, The Attorney-Ge (who, w 
4 and per eard to argue against its correctness and propriety. | the rad in ¢ Gener 1, Mr, Clarkson, Mr Pollock, and Mr. Forsyth, 
Thea figuee of a defesidatte who had become baitktelpe, after an. | appeared in support of the commital) answered in the affirmative. 
% der; mighti 4 some cases be affe cted by it, but they would not be Lo enman: Then, is it not a fatal objection that. it no- 
a Ni de rs where stated that Capt. Douglas is a soldier, and ought to be with 
lié relief p xtreme cases had been put for i e purpose his corps? It seems to me that these allegations ought to h 
9 of showing 2 the inconv oreo which Papen ss ay oy ~ od a been made in order to give the magistrate j ction, The At- 
’ peated chilinebe of trustee Those extreme ca te torney-General answered th he return hi een fi d wit! 
a fact, rarely, if ever, occurr “a did not furnish a ie at all chic those materials which had ne laced before the advisers of the 
a ing his ee or the principle sree which it proceeded. Upon | East India Company, and if t phe existed in those materials 
the second question, which w ne of ict pleading, he cer- | themselves, the court must deaie how far it woul - affect the re- 
tainly had -felt difficulty ; but adverting to what Lord Re turn itself. Lo en : It certainly appears t that it is 
had fret as to the frame of an original bill, pur. te y in this case that these two facts dened natinetly ap 
pose of having thé benefit of heats and existing suits as | pearonthereturn. The Attorney-General admitted that if that was 
a fiist persons who were not parties to rar ia ar. edings, he se opinion of of bees Court, ne or which of course was found 
meant an original bill in the nature of a bill vivor, the t, could not be suppor d Denman: I put 
and iginal bill in the ig of a “bigploinenta bill, that question to ein expecting that you would answer the 
and referring to what Lord m had also decided, not- | way y e. The Attorney-General felt that he could not 
i anding his intima tion of opinion as to what would be | do beherwine: Till this momeiit, when the objection was inted 
contin phe ap open hd t oo ‘infor imation, were so | the return, being foemere on 
foi, at the Court might, at the | such a way as the facts of th 
ve oy the le aes, ‘ee ee the vs e at te, arge as against the new en ordered to be discha 
teat s, and would not be con to a narrower issue. The 
Mas re erefore, cess issuing x out of the office 
Ba .— The Queen v. Charles Devon and Rober N, " 
ter’s m 
: in CourtT.— Quee: 
Esqs.—Mr. Erle applied to Mr. Justice Pobieedn 0: 
he defendants a iinet y 
ts whic 
the war 
ra be made in 
& 
Eee. —Immediately ee this and as he 
f the 
of the Sheriff of cs eonpes a 
virtu 
court, he was arrested on pro- 
upon the cause wiit of man ne court, aid 
sho 
h ic! 
i isputein y,% oot rde. xe 
who officia side in the Palace are liable to be ioe to the | cute to beware of ‘violati ting the privileges of ambassadors, &c. 
relicf of the poor, and upon which a decision has already been | Mr. Kelly cont oeee that the arrest was a civil proceeding, and, 
given by the Court of Queem’s Bench, His Lordship granted a rule, efore, illeg: ha i r the recent seal uittal. pe rhe that it 
LLS RT.— y. Edwards.—Mr. Pemberton and Mr. contentp’ gets urt, and that no arres d take place 
ToFraiio bar hark ‘tt ie “sondanieeal to the warden of the Queen’s want lefendan ae reached his On fe e gr ate he 
Prison of the defendant, Edw: osephs, otherwise Edward | applied for his disc ge. Mr, Chawahars followed on the same 
Josephs Edw waits, for diso obeying an injunction granted on the | side, and adduceil cases support of his argument. The At- 
° rath of September last, Me glenenge J him om preggo the invention | torney and Solicitor Generals at some length replied to this argu- 
a e plaintiff's bill c he daguerreotype, and from taking prviigt an Peas s hat the offence for whic pt. Douglas 
a Bonelli the portr ng pet delineations, ‘and Toth giving in a8 a Statutable offence of a criminal nature, and: 
_ Structions in the art of using the ai. E leork = Pagans letters that the arrest ‘had ante r — gs be ogi - frog left the ain 
: patent of the 14th of August, 1839, to ry, the enrolmen in which the court holds tings. could dou 
of the specificatio ‘ebruary es ‘the agent al ain s Sow ee inisdemeanour 
of Lo ques Maude Dagueire aid Joseph Isidore Nie epee ae ame eclar ed by the 1able istle. 
and in June 1841 assigned the patent to Ren plaintiff, who was | mean and to subject hg warty wgisilty of it oe only to fine 
using it; but the defendant, prea be nse, was scarchiigy and imprisonment, but to a of good tinal 
it in Liver — di takin ng portraits of per- | offen It coul no 0 character elas it, sO, 
a a 
ect, 
of obj 
affidavit of the 
eline ects, e plaintiff’s 
witness stated, that rch was shown the apparatus by ab defendant, privilege of fr 
who explain ned it, and t that it was in every particu hed 
apparatus in the plainti fe opeciatataon, oa oe fendant sa ion to 
him for 5 guineas, offered to instruct him in e of Horvat n said, 
in that 
Me, Sandys, Pog the eee ss 
= sell ry apparatus. 
- wot Coawe feecees 
so doing, and he 
7 =— 5 ginees, s or ts that he had a 
a — — same ber} cod hin 
eed- 
to ‘insolve the in injuuetion. 
He ad not ot know gino ie Wh was 
intention to 
would 
ings. The 
ye phos — 
be 
equally. important is 
enforcin 
mi , 
The arrest pers was, therefore, a lawful ii te the appli. 
og gts ned A go: a ag be mi be refused. 
who i 
ord 
wally in custody i is iat ‘an 
Iiberty by this estas ery is priv ileged ro arrest in civil proceed. 
se chy - really, the refore, whe’ ther this arrest 
itself, sacred for other purposes, forms oie 
invasion if the individual, w me with 
; itself ee gh the invasion of and 
ceably get yy yn rem but by his Roche me 
the outer e, is whether 
penal act — I think it is perfectly 
clear t inal proceed ing : and I think that we 
cannot ro tay this application, for it is not reer the 
duty of the court to individ iran who are properly re. 
ained of their liberty said on the nature of 
this proceeding, b had oa plac aa in the hands of 
s oP he ane pee 
esi be rift rye the defendant na left the court, we should have 
nd to say that he h: 
boun ad no oa tee a protect him from 
ote te bond fide l introduce the 
expression bend Bie eee e; in a anid ark ted to by Mr, 
Cha ted the c process of the law bay abused, and the 
2 therefore F rettaly a ed from custody. "Ba t that 
is not pon ease he pplication to di 
ere. 
een Ii 
Parke there declare 
¢crimina 
that he thould Lege disposed to say, that any dpe availing 
imac i nal process to obtain the custody of | 
4 eh be was not entitled to, should nh 
Dieraarea poe hit her means to render such a potas 
nduct adve self. There is no proof of any- 
thing of that kind inthe present instance. e case cited, there- 
ore, does riot in an to the present ; but if we had 
found — this custody, is now clearly of a criminal nature, 
ad been obtained ngs set on foot for the purpose 
ing * partie the ojiportunity of afterwards detaining the 
defendant on anothe e should not them 
avail themselves of it. case w ref different from th 
ne I have how st Ay ~ ifie offence, 
and there is no grow Pe Pat that the advisers 
of ee Crown po perce tine’ the "plant Who issaed one werd pes — 
for mere p of laying 
under anothe! oh: J cannot rage 
exter en tend, by any perinien of any ete 
of la ain ve i iy "ander a bond side criminal charge, an 
emption from liability toe arrest apon it, Thi judges con- 
curred, and t Captain Dotgias was 
he application was refused. 
then removed in custody. 
SPORTING. 
TATTERSALL’S, Whey eet | Derny.—Offers of S101 
on the field gh: 0 to 1 about Murat, and 29 to 7 about 
ery esour, but n ee attendance being thintier 
usu al, ow see rey the country mettings which take place at 
ens time of the ycar. 
8.—There is but little — 
ich t be made at a decline o 
de tg PA hee v is effect by 
eed 
AR ANE, Fr 5 No 
Wheat offering, yet Ae ck Bo o 
2s. since Monday. The trad 
- 
55.2 
tities, the prices being held the aa; sre is not much inquiry 
for bonded. Jarley is ges" alteration, and the same ma 
10ted of Peas and Beans, but they are a dulisale. The Oat Trade 
exceedingly flat: 
BRITISH R IMPERIAL QUARTER, Ls 
Wheat, Exsex, Ket, atid Suffolk . x White ja tot5 Red 
Norfolk; Lincolnshire and Yorkshire, : teu de ite «to. 
Batley ley NM ee and distitlin £3 tod0) Grind. 24 to 26 
Oats, ‘i incolnshire. and Yorks hire Reed Bi Bog feed id to o2 
ati Pore 2 er ae 5 ky ~ otcH i = Potato 15 to 24 
=: iri te Fie be oi Potato 14 to 22 
‘ ; Pe Paes By te Bag fo ; 
Beant, Testa wal a : it sit potty: yeiret Spye 
——— Pigeon; i me ae to 1 to 56 tw 32 
Peas, flite 3 +23 Bite 40 b a 29 to 84 Grey 26 to38 
oh ike urléy.{ Oaté, |Rye. | Beane.) Pénas 
Oct. fer ge kes os ig 6} 3) 0) 38 0} 83 10 
_ . eh ee | “EB | + ibe wl ah 7) Bf 4 be} 3: 
as bt 4 : “33 10° 
a mao aiu elec ia i 318+ 
Her: Bi sts tay 3) 42.8) 220; 8 4 
hee car ide Fm 58 li}. 347 9f a 2] HB re 4 
6 necks’ Aggregnse 4 det 0 0| 3 a 18 ah a 4t ge 7 a 8. 
ry AE a a a 10 6 6 
ARRIVALS IN THE . 
Flour. ws it. Bas. 1 Maley | Oats. | Hye. Bhs. | Peas 
English » + ened ar 108 spi eam WIC oe 297 | 726 
irish : ei salle 25649 —}— 
Foreign. = 1000 7550 a eee 
ARRIVALS THIS WEEK. 
Wheat Burley Oats Flour 
English . - 4110 2960 5999 
te ee hi ~ 
Foreign . « 7 _ one 
+ Van 
ie ‘inte 
tte dale, ban 
yee Sa 
tat ace Capon, New Bond street, Middlesex, 
erlyn, J. Granby Deal dea N. Sees ti 
pao We Cranbroo! fraper—T. yard, 
—D. Smith, Budileronery imerchant—J. w 
d enantactates A S anneal: Blackb 
: japanner—J. » New Malton 
my 
er Toot 
+ Maso W. Bull ar 
F. Turner, Birmi cin: Pars Buler, We: Batler Boson J. Butler, Bir- 
mingham, iron’ nfounders—' m ‘Tyne me — dom ié 
- 
Bell, Newcastie-upon 
eget on ge aT meérchant_—W, Bayley. ii a 
SCOTCH 5 vay ee | 1ONS.—G. B, 
fers ad athe tand J. M‘Dowall, AV Ri Gee thts G. Bishoy 
fied, merchant— D. Kiss, Lacks eé, grocer—W ase Eaiaburgh, sprint 
Anderson and W. Ha: arvey, Paisley, thread m 
nor-square, thee toatl 
THS.—On the 14 thi inst., in Gros itess of Galloway, 
iia a ‘an iter—On the 15th inst. ss at Dover, the lady of E. Ricé;, Esq., M.P., of 
a da mm still-born—On ~ a ~_ -» at 8, Willow-walky Kentish Town, 
tha is ady of Assisyant sett -General Dinwiddie, oe hter—Ag 
Cheltenham, on the Lt e the tai y of John Parkinson, Bsq., innersley 
Ee aoe Herefordshire, a Satghver—On the 26th i 
ét, Montagu- square, t the 
ARR IED. si 
Bea. os of cf Faceneld ito 
ah 
isha 
