MORE ABOUT THE CLAIMANT.

Globe, Volume V, Issue 526, 24 February 1876, Page 3

MORE ABOUT THE CLAIMANT.

(Pall Mall Budget .) Mr Baron Cleasby had before him on January 31st, in the Exchequer Division of the High Court of Justice the case of Cobbett v Morrish, which was an action under the Habeas Corpus Act to recover the penalty of £IOO from the Governor of Millbank priton, for omittting to supply the plaintiff (on application duly made to him) with a copy of the commitment to prison of the man called Arthur Orton. The plaintiff conducted his case in person. The Solicitor-General represented the defendant. Mr Cobbett read a long statement with a view to show that the claimant was illegally convicted, and that there were thirteen distinct breaches of Acts of Parliament committed in the treatment of the claimant during his trial and on his conviction. He was repeatedly interrupted by the learned judge who told him that the court bad no power to review the case, and his lordship at length said that if Mr Cobbett persevered, he had only one course to take in order to stop him —a course which he should be most unwilling to adopt. The jury also told the plaintiff that his statement was wholly unintelligible to them. Ultimately Mr Cobbett stopped short, and, gathering up his papers, asked his lordship forleive to appeal to the full court. Baron Cleasby said the plaintiff could appeal to the full court without his leave. His lordship then told the jury that the Act of Parliament on which the action was brought did not apply to the case of Arthur Orton, because he was convicted in due course of law, and was in execution under legal process—facts admitted by the plaintiff himself. The jury accordingly returned a verdict for the defendant.