Star. — London, England, 1820-12-12 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE. COURT OF HMO's BENCH, DECEMBER 9. MARTINERE V. MACKAY AND WILE. Mr. ADOLPHUS stated, that this action was brought by the plaintiff, a young woman twenty-five years of age, against the defendants, General Mackay and his Lady, to recover damages for injurious words spoken by Mrs, Mackay, for which the General was answerable. Mary hies was servant to Mrs.Levie, who resides at West End, Hampstead • she was lady's maid.— She took a note to Mrs. Mackay from her mistress. It was about Mary Martinere. She asked where Mary was to be found? Mrs. Mackay said, "I do not think the young woman would suit your mis tress ; I have missed different articles —wine, cam bric, &c." When the witness returned, she told her mistress what had passed, and Mary was not hired. Mrs. Levie, wife of a solicitor, said she had known Mary Martinere. In September last she inquired her character, and, finding it satisfactory, engaged her at fourteen guineas a-year. In consequence of what Mary Jones told her, she did not take the plain tiff. She received the character from Mrs. Adolphus. She did not learn from Mrs. Adolphus that the plain tiff had gone by the name of Cunningham ; that she was a married woman, and had a child. H. Martinere, brother to the plaintiff, went with his sister to the house of General Mackay on the 4th of October. They went into the parlour. Mrs. Mackay said his sister was a notorious thief. The words were " I have missed ten pounds worth of things since she has been in my service; I have lost five pounds worth of cambric, and five pounds' worth of other thirgs. I will call the men -servants, and I dare say they have some of my property in their pockets." T. Jones, servant to T. Winter, Esq. St. James's street, deposed, that he went for the plaintiff's trunk. He saw it opened, and Mrs. Mackay took notice of a pAir of silk stockings. She said it was no wonder Mary had such fine things ; if she robbed every person as she had robbed her, she might easily get them. A handkerchief was detained, as the property of a Miss Beeton. The plaintiff's Attorney stated, that the handker-, chief was returned to him by the defendants. Mr. DENMAN addressed the Jury for the de fendants, and called Miss Becton, who proved that t'.c plaintiff, in a conversation she had with Mrs. Mackay in the kitchen, admitted that she received some tea, and a bottle of wine, from another servant in the family, named Anne. The wine was drank a:nong the servants in the kitchen. The Jury then returned a verdict for the plaintiff, Damages £5O, costs, 40s. DECEMBER 11. WRIGHT V. COBBETT. This action was brought by Mr. Wright against Mr. Cobbett, to recover a compensation for damages, for an injury his character had sustained from seve• ral gross, false, and malicious libels published by the defendant in the Political Registers of the date of .3:101111 y 4, 1317 ; March 6, 1819 ; and January 6, 13=:0 ; in V:h1C11 he described the defendant as a wretch wEom he intended to hold up to infamy the first orportu.iity—an associate with Cleary in fabri-1 cating letters and Rise vouchers—a person who he •Vad ottea said would be hanged for forgery, and ' whom he had cautioned to beware the jest did not become a prophecy, .Btc. The Jut). liavini been sworn, the defendant stated that he meant to withdravi the plea of justification, and stand upon the general issue. The CHIEF JUSTICE observed, that theslea could not be withdrawn in point of fox in, but e defend. ant perhaps meant to say, be would offer no evidence in justiii -ation. Mr. Cobbett.—lf your Lordship wishes, I will . rate my reasons. CHILI? Ju.Trrea.—lt is not necessary at present.— You will have another opportunity for that. Mr. SGARLETT, as Counsel for Mr. Wright, stated the case to the Jury. The plaintiff, Mr. Wright, was recommended to him as a person of the highest honour—one who was e.teemed by all who knew him—a person to whom, in the whole course of his life, fraud had never been imputed, except by the defendant. Mr. Wright was known as having given to the Public several works of great labour and uti lity—The Parliamentary Debates, Parliamentary History, and State Trials. The defendant, Mr. Cob bett, had been many years known to the Public.— He had become celebrated by his writings iu all Parts of the world where the English language was known. Whether his talents were directed to good or evil, he should leave mankind to determme.— Under the pretence of patriotism there was hardly any public character who had not occasionally been the object of his attack. To the honour of Mr. Wright, he was the first to bring this great libeller before the Public. Mr. Scarlett then detailed the circumstances attending the transactions between the, parties up to the exposition of Cobbett's letter re-' specting Hunt. The Learned Counsel observed, that, he should make out the libels to the satisfaction of , the Jury, and then they would say what damages a man ought to receive for so gross an attack on his character. Thomas Dolby proved that he published the Regis ter for the defendant. An action being brought by Mr. Wright, the defendant said he would justify all he had written. Mr. John Reeves stated, that when the defendant was prosecuted for a libel in 1810, he authorised him to make an offer of giving up the Register, if he was not called up for judgment. The witness did com municate the offer to the late Mr. Perceval, and also to Mr. Yorke. The Registers containing the alleged libels were then put in and read. Mr. Paal stated his belief, that the libel, speaking of a wretch whose infamy was not to be equalled by Jonathan Wild, applied to the plaintiff. Mr. Adams, one of Sir Francis Burdett's Commit tee, saw the letter, written by the defendant in 1818, respecting Hunt. The witness recommended the reading of the letter by Cleary on the hustings, in 4818. The whole of the documents having been read, Mr. Cobbett entered upon his defence. He began by observing, tha t the proverb forbidding the cob bler to go beyond his last, might be extremely ap plicable, as well as useful, to Lawyers. If Mr. Scar lett had not gone beyond his brief, a great deal of time would have been saved to the Inry. The plea of justification being abandoned, the plaintiff's Coun sel might hive come at once to the question of gene ral issue; but he had not thought fit to do so. Mr. Cobbett then proceeded at considerable leng th to complain of the introduction of his private letters into the present cause, and entered into a detail of his various transactions with Mr. Wright, and into an exposition of the cause of his original acquaint ance with that Gentleman. He denied that he had received a loan of £2O from Mr. Wright, on account of any want of money on his own part; spoke of the plaintiff as having lived in a state of absolute de pendence, even for food and raiment, upon him (Mr. Cobbett); and of his having afterwards, during the time when he conducted the sale of the Register, lived in a style of splendour and extravagance to which he (Mr. Cobbett) himself had no pretensions. Mr. Cobbett next proceeded to state his reasons for, having removed the bones of Thomas Paine from America to this country. He had not taken that course from any admiration of the irreligious princi ples of Paine, or from any fellow-feeling with him in his ideas of the advantagenf a Republican Govern ment. Indeed, he (Mr. Cobbett) had ever held a Republican Government to be unsuited to the genius of England. Under a Republican Government, which - he had materially served, Paine had been re fused even Christian burial ; and one of his principal objects in bringing the relics of that man to this country had been, to shew the People of England how completely all public. spirit and all public virtue were destroyed by Republican Governments. The defendant went on to account for his having first jus tified, and afterwards abandoned, his plea of justifi cation. Instructions for that plea had been delivered to his Attorney, at a time when he was deeply en gaged with business of more interest, and when he was not aware of the precise documents which would be necessary for him to support that plea. He had power to prove all that he had said against the plaintiff, and ten times more; and whatever course the present action might take, that proof-should, in proper time, be forthcoming ; but it was not ready now. He well understood, that against no man but himself would the present action have been brought. Ile knew the political feeling which the plaintiff trusted to. The Jury had been told that he had li belled Sir Francis Burdett, and it was hoped that the Jury would visit that libel upon him in the damages which they might give for the present. He trusted, however, that they would do no such thing, and he was sure that no man would despise more heartily than the Hon. Baronet himself, such a miserable at tempt to pander to their prejudices. lie still con tended, that the mutilation of a letter .virtually amounted to a forgery of that letter. Even Dr. Franklin, having made an improper use of some let ters obtained from the Govetner of Massachusetts, had been called a thief by Lord Rosslyn, at the Bar of the House of" Commons. Mr. Cobbett then re marked upon the evidence which - had been adduced by the plaintiff, and intimated to the Jury the ground upon which he proposed to rest his defence—that ground being simply this:—that it was his son Wil liam, and not himself, who had been the publisher of the libels in question, and that a considerable por tion of the matter complained of in the Registcr of the 6th of March, 1819, had been written by his sons IVillianfand John. He then called William Clement, who deposed that the Political Register, in ISIS, was legally published by William' Cobbett, jun. In the beginning of 1917, witness pub lkhed the Register. Uitness kept his accounts with William Cobbett, kin. He settled his accounts with' the son ; but always considered the father as respon sible. He considered the father the proprietor of the Resister, though not legally so. In his cross-examination, witness admitted that be had never treated with the son, but as the agent of the father. The father's name was entered in his books, although he settled accounts with the son. Before Mr. Cobbett went to America, witness gave bills to a considerable amount for his use. 'Those bills were given in anticipation of the proceeds which, were to arise from the rale of the Register. - Charles Preston, Clerk in the Stamp-office, pro duced an affidavit of William Cobbett, jun. dated s:h of January, 1816, stating himself to be sole proprie tor of the Political Register, and another of the 25th of the same month, in the same year, stating himself to be printer, publisher, and sole proprietor. William Cobbett, jun. was next called. The ma terial part of this witness's evidence went to the ques tion whether he or his father was in truth the pro. prietor of the Paper? The witness swore, that the property of the Paper was made over to him by his father, and that his father received from him a salary as Editor. That salary varied from time to time, from thirty-five or forty guineas a week to L'3so per month. Witness was bona fide proprietor of the, Paper. He frequently made alterations in the mat ter transmitted by his father, and made most' 'Mate rial alterations in that part of the Register of' che 6th of March, 1819, which alluded to the plaintiff. In his cross-examination, witness admitted that he paid his father no consideration for the assignment of the Paper, and that he re-assigned it without re ceiving any consideration. During the time that the Paper was the property of witness, his father had not the power at will to resume it; but, of course, if he had withdrawn his writing, the shadow only would have been left to witness. Mr. John Cobbett, another of defendant's sons, de posed principally to some alterations by him, and by his brother, in the article of the 6th of March, 1819, which regarded Mr. Wright, the plaintiff. The al terations were made, because the article was not suf ficiently bitter. Mr. SCARLETT, in reply, contended that the whole course of Mr. Cobbett's defence had been an aggra vation of the injury which he had done to plaintiff. The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE, in summing up, held that Mr. William Cobbett, either as bona fide pro prietor, or as the Editor of the Political Register, would be liable for its contents. With respect to the alterations, if a principal authorized an agent to make reasonable alterations, then, for the effect of such reasonable alterations he was still re sponsible. It was for the Jury to decide whether the evidence had brought home to the defendant the libels in question ? If they were of that opinion, the line of defence adopted by Mr. Cobbett, if not per mitted to weigh in aggravation of damages, would be a very sufficient bar to any plea in mitigation. The Jury retired at about a quarter to nine, and after an absence of one hour and three quarters, re turned with a verdict for .the plaintiff—Damages, Oxa Thowsand Pounds; Costs,. Forty OLD BAILEY. Saturday, Mary Singleton was indicted, for utter ing a forged £1 note, with intent to defraud the Go vernor and Company of the Bank of England. The prisoner went to a publican, named Chapple, in Cross -street, Hatton-garden, with a decanter, and asked for some rum, in payment for which she ten dered the note in question ; but being told be could not give her change, she went out as if to get it. She,, however, soon returned, and said she could not pro cure change. Chapple then gave it her, and she told him she lived with Mr. Roberts, of2s,Charlesrstreet, Hatton-garden. A few days after she was taken, in company with two other women, one of whom was endeavouring to utter a forged note to a person named Gay. It was also proved, that about two months before she uttered to one Gregory a forged . : note, exactly similar in the plate and wr►tten indorse ' ments on it to that which she afterwards uttered to Chapple. To Gregory, however, she gave her true address ; and, after being in custody a week, was discharged. Her defence was, that she had taken the notes in the course of her unfortunate career as a woman of the town, and that she had been induced to give a false address in consequence of the trouble she had been put to in having given her real address on a former occasion. A most respectable elderly Lady, named Glover, a relation of the prisoner, gave her an excellent cha racter up to two years ago, when she (the prisoner) was seduced, and left her service in a state of preg nancy. The unfortunate prisoner, having been de serted by her seducer, was driven in a state of desti tution on the town. Mr. Justice BAYLEY summed up with his known humanity ; and the Jury, after retiring for tea mi nutes, acquitted her. Mr. Justice BAYLEY said—" Gentlemen of the Jury, I have very great satisfaction in telling you, that the unfortunate prisoner will be rescued from the dreadful course of life in which she has recently been plunged. It will be a great pleasure, lam sure, to you, to be informed that her friends will take care of her." The Jury expressed their thanks to his Lordship for this communication ; awl ., his Lordship ordered the unfortunate girl to be immediately gives up to her aunt, Mrs. Glover. M. Hardy and 2: Fullmer, were also acquitted. Yesterday 26 prisoners were tried, one of whom was capitally convicted, viz. 7'. Munday, for stealing a mare, the property of Isaac Franklin. E. Lewis was indicted for stealing a watch from J. Power. The prosecutor is an Irishman, and just arrived in London, when he met the prisoner, who recommended him to a lodging. There he con ' trived to steal the watch from the bed's head, while the prosecutor and his wife were asleep.—Guilty of stealing to the value of 395. only. . C. Johnson was indicted for stealing three watch seals, the property of J. Scott, from his person. Mr. Scott was passing through Great Queen street, Lincoln's Inn•fields, on the day the St. Giles's precession was going up with an Address to the Queen, when the prisoner ran against him, and made a snatch at his watch-chain, which broke, and he ran off with the seals. Several witnesses gave the prisoner a good character.—Verdict, Guilty; and Mr. Baron GAnnovrtold him that he must expect to receive sentence of transportation for life. James M'Nabb and Samuel Mears were capitally indicted far assaulting Sarah Norris on the highway, and stealing from her person some articles of a trifling value. The prosecutrix, in her examination in chief, stated ;bat she was carrying out beer to some houses in Is lington, when she was attacked by the prisoners : she was pinioned, her mouth stopped, and thrown on the ground ; she fainted, and when she recovered found her property gone. On her cross-examina tion she admitted that she had said before the Ma gistrate that the prisoners were not the men. She had done so at the suggestion of her father, who told her that the prosecution would be attended with a very heavy expense. Being afterwards told that the expense would fall upon the County, she immediately swore against the men. 'Mr. Baron GARROW here stopped the case. Al though bethought the girl had not done intentionally wrong, ,yet, upon such evidence, the prisoners could not be convicted. A verdict of Not Guilty was instantly pronounced. William Price stood indicted for a burglary in the house of J. Wilson, and stealing a quantity of linen, value £s.—Guilly of stealing, but not of the burglary. Mr. Baron Gareziow asked him if he had any means of getting a livelihood if the Court should pass a lenient sentence upon him ? The prisoner replied in the negative, and added, that he was quite friendless. Mr. Baron GARROW then said, that sentence of transportation should be passed upon the prisonerpro forma, and he would send him to the Penitentiary. James Nelson was indicted for stealing a trunk, containing a variety of wearing apparel, the pro perty of the Earl of Aberdeen. It appeared that the Noble Earl and his Countess were passing through Hanover-square, on their return from Brighton, in November last, when the prisoner and one of his companions were observed by a Gentleman, of the name of Bachelor, endeavouring to get possession of a trunk, which was fastened by patent chains to the' back of the Noble Earl's travelling carriage. They effected their object, but the alarm was immediately given by Mr. Bachelor, and the - prisoner was se cured.--Guilty. • Joseph Ireland was capitally indicted for stealing a silver watch, the property of Charles Smith, iu his dwelling-house.—The female servant of the prose cutor, deposed that he and his wife were accustomed to spend the greater part of the day up stairs. On the day in question Mrs. Smith went down to the parlour, where the watch was hanging up. In the evening they had a friend with them, and Mrs. Smith, wishing to know the hour, found that the watch was gone. The girl w as below stairs that evening, and having heard a faint knock at the door, went to open it, when she saw the prisoner, who in quired if her master or mistress were at home ? . She replied that they were not; as she did not wish to have them interrupted at the time. The prisone then asked for some milk, and she said she would let him have' it, expecting, as a matter *of course, that it would be paid for. She went into the parlou r to get it, and the prisoner followed her. She th en heard the door suddenly shut, and found that prisoner had disappeared. The defence set up was an alibi, but the evidence in support of it was contradictory in the most mate , rial points. A witness, named Linnet, told a vo:, which was entirely at variance with the stateme..t made by the father of the prisoner. —Verdict, of stealing in a dwelling-house to the value of Mr. Baron GARROW said, that as this appeared :$ be his first offence, the prisoner should be sent to th e Penitentiary, which might emphatically be te rme d the house of mercy. His father should be anew ed 3 visit him at stated intervals, and the duration of Li t confinement was to depend entirely on his behavi ore . The Learned JUDGE informed the Jury, that this was the last of the capital cases which were to cor e before them. Henry Brockly was.indicted for stealing from I' 4 person of Henry Stowell, a watch, chain, and seak The prosecutor stated; that he belonged to rl e Bow-street patrol. On the night of the fire in Dram lane, he was attending there in the execution of L i duty, when the prisoner snatched his watch from hi s fob, but could not succeed in carrying it off, because it was fastened by a steel chain, which he wore rou s t his neck. The fact of the watch being removed front the place where it was deposited was, according V) law, sufficient to constitute the offence with whi c i s the prisoner 'stood charged. Another witness ccrro. borated the statement of the prosecutor. SoMe respectable witnesses who had known Li, on board the Orwell Indiaman, gave him an exec'. lent character; but the facts arainst him were ton clear to admit of any doubt, and he was found Guilty. In the course of the afternoon, the Grand Jury fcr the City of London came into Court, and having pc. seated their Bills. the FORE:SAN addressed the Coln:, stating, that Mr. 13RowN, the Keeper of Nev - gat , :, had reffised them the right of visiting the J Baron Gaanow informed them, that right, al for merly claimed, had been considered by the Judg:., and that, as the subject would, in all probability, la brought before them in their judicial capacity, t!;:y did not think it right to give an extra judicial opinicn. He would therefore suggest to them, if they th•mat!'t it necessary, in the performance of their duty, to visit the prison, to consult proper persons, and adopt means to have the case legally decided.—The Jury bowed and retired. -------- AbOut four o'clock the Grand Jury again entered the Court, and the Foreman, in the name of CLe whole of them, handed the following Presentment to the Judge: The Presentment of the Grand Jury for the City of London, at the General Sessions of Oyu' and Terminer, and of tHe Peace, holden for the City of London, at Justice Hall, in the Old Bailey, in the said City, on Wednesday, the 6th day of December, 1820, and continued by adjournment until the 11:k day of the same month. " The London Grand Jury, in presenting their last Bill :a the Court, have great satisfaction in stating, that the Calendar is unmarked by any . crime of the first magnitude, and contains very few of great atrocity ; but they regret to add, that the most flagrant depredations appear to be committed in the streets a: all hours both by day and night, and which, in their judgment, might be greatly diminished by an improved system of Police. " The Jurors further present, that this day, in discharge of their duty, they went to his Majesty's Jail of Newgate, in order to inspect its state and condition, and to inquire and ascertain whether the rules and regulations for the management of the same were properly attended to, and carried into effect. They demanded of William Robert Henry Brown, the Keeper of the said Jail, to be admitted for the above purpose, when the said William Robert Henry Brown refused to admit them. They, therefore, present the said William Robert Henry Brown fr: such refusal, contrary to his duty, as they conceive they have a right to be admitted into the said Jail for the purposes aforeszid, especially to examine into its state and condition. —Signed, tee. Mr. BROWN, the Keeper, refused, on their deznanc'- ing it as a right, to allow them to inspect the prison ; but had no objection to shew them very part of if they would relinquish that claim. BIRTHS. At Newport, the Lady of R. Bloxhatn, Esq. Surgeon, of a daughter. At Dublin, the Lady of the Rev. Stephen Creagh Sande, F. T. C. D. of a son and heir. Thursday, at Gosport, the Lk4y of Capt. Hire, R.N. of a son. At Henley, the Lady of the Rey. J. G. Buuell, of a son. At Chichester, on the 10th ult. the Lady of Dr. Burnett, Physician of the Fleet, of a daughter. - • MARR] Thursday last, at Carisbrt;4l6,;;;72, Wm. Hearn, Ifaq. Soli citor, Newport, to Miss Bailey, of Carlabrook. At Limerick, Joseph Gabbett Bourchittr, Esq. of the Royal Tyrone Militia, to Maria, daughter of the late Thomas Gabbett, Esq. of that City, Xlderman. At Colombo, on the sth of July last, William Granville, E n . of his Majesty's Ceylon Civil Service, to Miss Frances Tumour s second daughter of the late Hon. George Tumour. TIED. Saturday, in Lower Grosvenor -street, after a long illness, William Tierney Robarts, Esq. M.P. for St. Alban's. At Bourdeaux, on the 29th ult. George Ramsden, Esq. late Lieut.-Colonel in the Grenadier Guards. Friday, at Batbford, in her 69th year, Mary, relict of the Rev. Thomas Abdy ANT, M.A. Rector of Cooperaale, Essex. At the Cape of Good Hope, Lick. Mudge, R.N. Agent fur CORN: 7, Met -LANE, a Bglt ii. Small Beans ..-.... 34. 366 Tick ditto ...... ...... 266 340 Oats, Potato, 24. 496 --, Poland 23. 976 ---- Feed is. Hs Flour, per Sack SO* .536 Rapeseed, per Last- £4O £42 Wheat, Dantzic s6s 6:3 Baltic Red, Hambro' or Bremen, Brabant red Rs 541 rlm7r.n I , I IWi u MIT I 7 I 'RTMR . ”I , I , 1 WirtlernlerlitirM . 7 l mmr•lP7T!pri -,- .1711/111 , 1 • ~ . INGLISN. Wheat, Kent and - Essex, now 30s 50s old 60a Suffolk, new 30s sos old 60s Norfolk, old ...40s .56s Rye 26. 28. Barley 23s 28s Malt ...... : .... 56. White Peas ..... 32s 36s Boilers ... 38s 40s Grey Peas ........ . —331 36s NEWGATE AND LEADENBA LI. MARK ETS, Du. 11. (By the Carcase.) Beef 21 sd to Ss sd I Veal Ss 4d to Ss 4d Matson Is dld to Es 4d Pork lfs 4d to Ss 04 • PRICES or HAY Jima STRAW YESTERDAY. ST. JAW'S.IarICISATILL Hay 31 3i Od to 41 9s Od Hay... 31 14s to 41 41 Od Straw 11 is Od to 11 101 Od Straw it 8s to 11 12s Od Myer 01 Os Id to 01 Os Od Clover 41 41 to 51 54 Od Ships at Market. 116 Newcastle 47 Sunderland IAL MARKET, Du. 11. Ships Sold. 47} 13 Pike. 30t 6d to 411 34$ 3d 3d to Ott od, MAILS Tim DAY.ARIP. - _ _ Dublin • 1 0 Waterford • 0 1 Guernsey and 'army 0 1 Holland 0 1 Flanders 0 0 Jamaica 0 0 Leeward Islands • 0. 0 NTT- Lisbon France Hainbarsh Gottenbursk Malta New-York Ala. ▪ I O I O 3 O Y O 0 O 0 Mi=tln loan LONDON BRIDGE TID-ma...- Midas -50 minutes afte 7 41AM•ws • 90 LO N VON c -Printed and published by Lem Karr, plc teiw Place, Temple-Dar. • Numi 1MEN;.. 14. AM and LE: Gans I at Three taking it ing to 1 attachm , their fin and the of that tions, lated.— day asse To the I NC IN of r feigned the dec Represt pendent times a of Nati, C .~ mains appe shoul Soul to rem have dilly _ 1,1 and :,',l Law ,err 1, Ina? per Valli nu Oil .•._.