V. Mackreth,* the court, for the same cause, quashed the pleadings. This plea is verified by affidavit, but in Gray v. Sidnet, it is said there is no necessity for it; indeed, as it must appear upon oyer, it cannot be necessary, and, as there is no writ actually issues, it ought not to be made."

The Court were strongly impressed with the effect of the cases, which took away the oyer of the writ, and said that,from the cases in the Common Pleas, it seemed, that, at this day, they ought to discountenance such pleas wholly, and to let the plaintiff in to sigo judga ment.




The King against STEVEXS and Another. Criminal

There a fixed fine, by statute, for a misdemeanor is miscalculated in Judgment. Penalty, Pece. Alte rerdict and the judgment, the court, upon a rule served on all niery ine. parties interested, will alter the rule for the judgment agains: the

prisoner, and the entry roll, as to so much of the punishment, but

they will not alter the judgment and verdict, co TN this case for the particulars of which see ante versits - Vol.1, p. 437, the defendants being found guilty of a and Another. 'misdemeanor committed in the East Indies, in taking

a bribe from one of the native princes, part of the penalty for which offence is the payment of the amount of the suin received, as a bribe, it appeared that, in drawing up the judgment, a mistake had been made, in calculating the value of the foreign coin, East India money, which constituted the bribe. .

Dallas, therefore obtained a role calling upon the proseculors to shew cause why the rule made on Monday next, after three weeks of the Holy Trinity, in the 44th year of his present majesty, and the entry rollin this prosecution, should not be amended by inserting after the

* 4 Term Rrp: 370,

words, and also" the words,“the sum of nine thousand 1805. three hundred and eighty-five pounds part," upon no- The Kixe tice of the rule to be given, to the attorney for the said Dersus

STEPHENS prosecutors in the mean time. This rule was obtained and Another upon an affidavit of Mr. Dowse, attorney for the defendants, which slated, that the fifth count in the information, charges the defendants with having received from a certain person, called the Samouny Rajah, 85,000 rupees, being of the value of 10,6251, of lawful money of Great Britain, as a gift and present, against the form of the statute, &c.; whereby they forfeited to our lord the king the said sum of 10,6251. being ihe value of the said rupees. That there was no evidence of the ralue of the rupees on the trial; that finding there had been a miscalculation of the value,the rupees being estimated at too high a value,be applied to the solicitor for the East India Company, who wrote to him, that he had seen the attorney-general, who informed him, that if there was any mistake, it should be rectified ; and that having advised with counsel before the defendants, were brought up for judgment, as to an application to the coort to rectify such mistake, it was omitted to be made in consideration of such communication. That, on the morning when judgment was pronounced by the court, it was agreed between all parties, that the rupees should be considered of the value of 2s. Qd. each, and at the time of pronouncing judgment, the attorney-general, from a paper in his hand, stated the said agreement of the parties, and that the value was 9,3851. with a small fraction,and expressed his consent that the judgment should record the forfeiture at the sum so stated by him. Which was now made absolute by consent of all parties, and the rule and entry roll was accordingly altered as follows:

Monday next, after three weeks of Easter, 44 Geo.. III. Rer v. Stevens and another. The defendants


1806. being brought here into court, &c. and being by a The King jary of the country, convicted of certain extortions

ve and misdemeanors charged upon them by the fifth, and Another. sixty-ninth, seventieth, and seventy-first counts of the

information in this prosecution : Upon mature deliberation had here in court, it is 'considered and adjudged that the defendant, James Stevens for his offences aforesaid, do pay a fine to our sovereign lord the king of 5,000). of lawful money of Great Britain. And that he the said James Stevens be imprisoned in the custody of the said marshal for the term of two years now next ensuing. And that the defendant John Agnew, for his offence aforesaid, be imprisoned in the custody of the said marshal, for the term of two years now nextensuing. And, that the said defendants; for the extortions and misdemeanors charged upon them by the said 5th count, do forfeit to our said lord the king, the sum of 10,6251, of lawful money of Great Britain, being the full value of the gift and present received by them as in the said fifth count men. tioned. And they the said defendants are now recom. mitied to the custody of the said marshal, to be by him kept in safe custody in execution of the said judgment and until they shall have paid the said forfeiture. And the said James Stevens, until he shall have also paid the said fine. And it is ordered that the whole of the said fine, and also [the sum of 9,385). part] of the said forfeiture, be paid to the United Company of Metchants trading to the East Indies, being the prosecutors in this proseculion.

BUT BY THE COURT, the judgment itself cannot be altered.



Versus PALMER.

Attachment will not lie against a witness served with a subpæna Subpæna duces duces tecum, if he do not produce a warrant described therein, tecum. Attach

ment. because he says that he has not got in his custody ; although in men truth it appear that he had it. This is properly matter for an in

dictment for perjury. ESPÍNASSE moved for an attachment against a wito Knight

ness for not obeying a subpæna duces tecum, and I stated the following ground:

The defendant was sheriff of Esser; the action was for ån excessive levy under a fi. fa; and to prove the levy, the plaintiff called one Thorn as a witness; who was the officer to whom the warrant was delivered ; when called upon to produce it, he said, that he had it not; he had delivered it to one Reynolds to make a copy who had not returned it. Reynolds now said in an affidavit that he had delivered it to Thorn's wife. Thorn said he had it not; and the present affidavit; as Espinasse stated it, went to shew that he had it.

By ihe court. " If so he is guilty of perjury, but an attachment cannot be granted if he had not brought

[ocr errors]


Rex against Fenwicki

Exparte Gilla

Epon a habeas corpus on which the gabler returns a commitment, Apprentic. the court will only try the validity of the commitment upon the H

momentet von the Habeas Corpus.

Commitment. face of it. And where a return was that an apprentice was committed for absenting himself froin his master's service, undet stat: 20 Geo. II. c. 19, s. 4, which appeared good, the court reNO. **X1. N. s. B



manded the apprentice, although it was sworn that he was bound when a minor, and that when of full age he avoided his indentures. A habeas corpus cannot be to discharge an apprentice when of age fron indentures; exparte M Daris, 5 Term Rep. 715. contrà. Semble, it should be to bring up the apprentice from some custody or improper controul over his person ; as, perhaps, that of the

master, if he detain him by force in his service. . The King ESPIN

ESPINASSE obtained a habeas corpus directed to

the defendant to bring up one Gill, an apprentice, to be discharged out of custody, and to be discharged from his indentures. He produced an affidavit stating in effect, that he was bound to one Garnsey, while under age for seven years; that in April 1806, he became of age and previously informed his master that when he was of age he should quit his service; that when he became of age be gave notice to bis master,but said that he would serve on a week with him or a fortnight, until he could get some journeyman in his place, unless he would give him wages ; that his master then made no objection, and he left him on the day he told him that he should quit bis service, where upon the master complained to a magistrate, who coinnitted him to prison under the statute, 20 Gev. II. c. 19, s. 4. Notice of the rule was served on the magistrate; and now the defendant the gaoler (or governor) of Tothill Fields Bridewell, made a return containing the commitment as follows:

Whereas complaint hath been made before us Aaron Graham and Edward Naish, esqrs, two of his majesty's justices of the peace, for the said city and liberty, upon oath of John Garnsey, that Samuel Gill, apprentice to the said John Garnsey, upon whose binding out no larger sum than five pounds was given, hath committed divers misdemeanours against the said John Garnsey his master, and in particular in having for several days absented himself from the service and employment of the said John Garnsey his

« ForrigeFortsett »