In the Court of King's Bench, on Monday, Sir William
Follett ap- plied on behalf of Colonel W. Blennerhasset Fairman for a rule to show cause why a criminal iiiformation should riot be filed against Mr. Joseph Haywood of Sheffield, for a letter written by him to Lord Kenyon. Sir William said that Colonel "'airman stated in his affidavit, that the members of the Orange Society were not bound by aay illegal oaths.
Lord Denman asked if they were bound by any oaths ? for if they were, he could not take Fairman's construction of their legality. Sir William Follett said, they were not bound by any oaths ; and then proceeded to explain the nature of the charge brought by Hay- wood against Fairman. Ile read the letter of the former to Lord Kenyon, and an affidavit by Lord Kenyon denying that he had ever directly or indirectly instructed "'airman to state to the Orangemen that in the event of William the Fourth being deposed, it would be their duty to support the claims of the Duke of Cumberland to the throne.
Lord Denman inquired, at what time Fairman obtained the know- ledge of Haywood's letter having been written ?
Sir William Follett said, he knew of it shortly after it had been published ; but there were circumstances, such as the absence of Fair- man's solicitor from town, which accounted satisfactorily for the delay which had occurred in making the motion.
The Court then granted the rule.
On the same day, Sir John Campbell, the Attorney-General, ap- Ile.red to show cause against a rule obtained by Mr. William Carmi- chael Smith, for a mandamus against the Lords of the Treasury, direct- ing them to pay to Smith the arrears of a pension of 1661. per annum accruing from April 1826 to November 183.3. Sir John said that be had no affidavits on behalf of the Lords of the Treasury; for they were of opinion that the Court could take no cognizance of this matter.
It appeared that, in June 1811, Mr. Smith was appointed Paymaster of Ex- chequer Bills; and continued in that office till 18'26; when he received a letter from Mr. Hill, Assistant Secretary of the Treasury, stating that, in considera- tion of his distressing state of health, the Lords of the Treasury had appointed him a retiring allowance of 1661. per annum from the 5th of April in that year. lo November 1629, Mr. Smith received another letter from Mr. Dawson, the then Under Secretary, stating that the pension had been granted, and would he paid on application to the Paymaster of Exchequer Bills. In May 18:15, Mr. Smith applied to the Paymaster, who told him there were no funds for the purpose. This induced him to write to Lord Melbourne ; who directed him to apply to the Paymaster of Civil Services. On application to that gentleman, the answer was that he had no orders. Mr. Smith was subsequently told by a friend of his, that if he called on the Solicitor of the Treasury, he would as- (Titan] the conditions on which his pension would be paid. On inquiring, he ascertained that the conditions were, that lie should sign a bond of 10001., and give a surety of 500/. not to take civil or criminal proceedings of any kind against any of his late colleagues. This bond Mr. Smith refused to sign, and intimated that he would resort to legal measures to compel payment of his pension, These were the facts : the Attorney-General submitted that Mr. Smith had made out no legal claim to the money, although his name might have been mentioned in the Estimates. It was the Appropriation Act which gave the legal claim ; but there Mr. Smith's mune was not mentioned—there was only a lumping sum for Civil Contingencies. He contended that the Court could not interfere to prevent the Lords of the Treasury from requiring the security they deemed necessary; and moved to discharge the rule for the mandamus.
After a speech from Mr. Lewis in defence of Mr. Smith's claim, Lord Deninan said- " It appeared from the letters of Mr. Hill and Mr. Dawson, that the Lord. of the Treasury had received the amount of the pension, and could therefore ba looked on in no other light than as depositories of the money for the use of Mr. Smith ; and he could not see any reason why they should withhold it from hills when demanded. They declined to pay unless certain annexed conditions were agreed to by Mr. Smith, but which conditions they had no legal right to im- pose. If any return had been mane by the Lords of the Treasury, showing that the payment could not be made with safety, owing to other demands for the
public service, the Court would have considered of the matter; but as it at present stood, it was a refusal to pay money voted to an individual, will' out any grounds for their refusal, and the Court therefore was of opinion that the rule for a mandamus must be made absolute."
In the Court of Exchequer, on Tuesday, Mr. Fenn and Mr. Walker, two of the Commissioners of the Westminster Court of Requests, ap- peared to show cause against the rule obtained by Mr. Rawlins, the solicitor, for a prohibition of proceedings in the case of Sonnies verse, Rawlins. They contended that they had jurisdiction in this matter ; as the claim of Soames was in the nature of a pecuniary demand upon Rawlins, who owed him three days' wages, which he had lost by attend- ing the Registration Court, to defend his claim to the franchise against an objection preferred, but not maintained by Rawlins. [Them are conflicting. statements on this point. Mr. Kelly said last week, that the objection was good, and that Soames's name was struck off the register.1 Lord Abinger and Baron Parke had no hesitation in making the ride absolute ; as they decided that the Court of Requests had exceeded it, powers in this matter.
In the Central Criminal Court, yesterday, William Allen and Richard Clark, master and pilot of the steam-boat Adelaide, were tried for the manslaughter of Richard Baker, the owner of the fishing-
smack Fawn, off Woolwich. The first witness, Henry Baker, son of the deceased, admitted that the night on which the accident took place was dark and rainy; that he was steerine.b by the wind, although he had a compass in the binnacle ; and that there was no light on board the smack. The Court naving heard this evidence, stopped the trial, and directed an acquittal. The case, their Lordships decided, did not come within the cognizance of a criminal court— It must be shown that there had been wilful negligence ; but here there was no such proof. If a vessel was run down at mid-day, an indictment for man- slaughter could be sustained; but a captain could not be responsible criminanj for the negligence of others.
The defendants were acquitted, after some hesitation, by the Jury; Baron Alderson remarking, that he "was glad to see that the Jury deliberated; for it would show that there was a determination to make the fullest inquiry into these lamentable accidents."
Nathan William Green, Captain of the -Monarch steamer, was then tried for the manslaughter of William Williams, under nearly sinii:ar circumstances. Baron Parke said that the occurrence was entirely accidental; and the Jury acquitted Captain Green.
Previous page
