not disputed, and possession by every unqualified person without lawful excuse was reckoned in the eye of the law equivalent to an exposure for sale. There was no difference allowed by the statute. It was incumbent on the person to show he came by game innocently, otherwise he was liable to the penalty by the mere circumstance of possessing it without being duly qualified. The penalty was 51. for every hare, partridge, &c. Here there were four birds. Verdict, 201. penalty, with costs. : Field Preaching. At the general Quarter Sessions, holden at Wisbech, on the 17th of July ult. a singular and novel appeal came before the magistrates for their determination in which Robert Newstead, a preacher in the Methodist connexion, was appellant, and the Rev. Algernon Peyton, rector of Doddington, and Thomas Orton, Esq. two of his Majesty's Justices for the Isle of Ely, were respondents. It appeared from the conviction, and the evidence adduced in support of it, that the offence with which Mr. Newstead stood charged was, the collecting together a congregation or assembly of persons, and preaching to them, otherwise than according to the liturgy and practice of the Church of England, in a field which had not been licensed. This was Mr. Newstead's crime: it was for this that the Rev. Rector of Doddington caused him to be apprehended; and that he and his brother magistrate convicted him in the ntmost penalty which the Toleration Act imposes! Against the legality of this conviction Mr. Newstead appealed. Richard Vince, servant to Mr. Peyton, proved that he heard Mr. Newstead preach in a field at Doddington, on Sunday, the 7th of April last; that he preached contrary to the liturgy of the church of England; and that there were more than 20 persons present. On his cross-examination, he admitted that he did not know what it was he preached, whether it were a prayer or a sermon; it was something, but he knew not what; and that he knew he preached contrary to the liturgy of the church of England, because he had not the Prayer Book in his hand. John Lane, another of Mr. Peyton's servants, corroborated the testimony of the last witness, but he would not swear that there were twenty persons present. The Magistrates conarmed the conviction, and hence Mr. Newstead became liable to the penalty of 301. or to three months imprisonment. A case was demanded, on the part of Mr. Newstead, for the opinion of the Court of King's Bench; but the prosecutors having proposed to abandon the prosecution, and engaged not to enforce the penalties, the friends of Mr. Newstead withdrew their application, having obtained all they could desire. The question of right, however, between the recfor and the preacher, remains undecided. The King v. Thomas Houghton. The defendant, the governor of the house of correction for the county of Lancaster, át Preston, was indicted for a misdemeanour in refusing to receive into his custody Richard Bruton, who had been convicted of a petty larceny before 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-ince 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, suppos ng it had the power, it could commit for any term less than six month-, 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 cominit prisoners to any lawful or convenient place; which words were to be restrained 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 offence 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 parti cular 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 out. On cross-ex amination 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 ! them with a constable's staff, and forced him out. In doing this the congregation was much disturbed, and several persons cried out "Shame." 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 prosecutor, 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 few, 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 verdict 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, defendant, which was indorsed christian name, and that Lord D. Shuter. 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 even ing, 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, for the defendant, took two objections; first, that the act of parliament directed the notice of action to be indorsed with the attorney's name, 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 Satur day, 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 di-cussion 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 |