Star. — London, England, 1820-12-06 00:00:00

•:` LAW INTELLIGENCE. ~.- COURT OF CHANCERY, DECEMBER S. This being the first Seal after Michaelmas Term, the LORD CHANCELLOR came into Court at an early hour. SEROISSON R. BERGMAN. Mr. HART addressed his Lurdshlp at considerable length, stating various objections to the verdict given in this case, which was sent by his Lordship to be tried in the Court of King's Bench, to ascertain the legitimacy of one of the parties. The Learned Counsel wished the case to be reviewed by his Lord• ship, and the verdict set aside. The LORD CHANCELLOR considered it was an un usual application, but he would see the CHIEF Jus- TICE to-morrow, when everything should be done calculated to promote the ends of justice. The Court was excessively crowded, particularly With Ladies. COURT OF KING'S BENCH, DECEMBER S. CLEARY V. COBBETT. This was an action . brought by the plaintiff, Mr. Cleary, to recover from the defendant, Mr. Cobbett, a compensation in damages for a gross and malicious libel, inserted by him...in several Numbers of The Potilical Register, imputing to the plaintiff, that a certain letter, read by him on the hustings at the Westminster Election, purporting to be . a letter ad dressed by the defendant to Mr. J. Wright, and con taining certain strong reflections on Mr. Hunt, who was described in it under the appellation of " the Bristol man—a fellow riding about with another man's wife, &c." was a forgery. . The damages were laid at Three Thousand Pounds. . The first witness called was, Mr. J. Wright, who proved that the letter in quest tion was written by Mr. Cebbett to him, and that he delivered it to Mr. Brooks, with a desire that it should be handed over to Mr. Cleary, for the purpose of its being read on the hustings, in July, 1818. Cross-examined by Mr. Cobbett.—The letter was written to witness by Mr. Cobbett in 1808, and he handed it over to what was called the Rump Corn : mittee, at Mr. Brooks's, in the Strand. Witness be lieved the whole of the letter was read; he did not deiire that' any part of it should be kept back ; he never refused to permit the defendant's sons to see the letter, for the purpose of ascertaining whether it was their father's hand-writing. The letter was not a private one. Mr. Place was at the hustings on the 3d of July, 1818. Mr. Cleary was present and read the letter. Cross-examined by Mr. Cobbett.—l read the let ter to Mr. Cleary, and gave directions that the whole of the letter should be read. The publication called a forgery, in The. Register, contained only part of the. letter. Witness was desirous the whole should be read; and did not tell Mr. Cleary to leave out any part of it. W. Adams heard the letter read at the Committee, and afterwards by Mr. Cleary at the hustings. Wit ite,s recollected the terms of the letter, and had no doubt it was the same letter. Cross-examined.—Witness was one of the Rump Committee, and advised the letter should be read, n account of the attacks made by Mr. Hunt on Sir F. Burdett; and to shew that Mr. Cobbett's sentiments were changed. Witness advised the whole to be read, and believed it was 41 read ; is not certain whether the name of the person to whom the letter was written was mentioned; don't know who handed it over to the public Papers; won't swear be did not see what appeared in the public Pape' s next day ; nor can he say if the whole letter was published, nor .Whether he had ever seen it all published. Witness considered this as a public letter, at least intended for the Committee ; don't know that it was intended it should go to the world, but he believed it was in tended that the Committee - should act on it with the Public, and was written far the purpose of guarding them against Mr. Hunt. Witness- did not consider the part containing private information, was intended for publication ; but thought the part, that which re lated to the House of Commons and to Mr. Hunt, was at least that which detendant had no objection to being published, as be had frequently published such sentiments himself. Did not consider whether de fendant would object to have published in 1818 that which he wrote in 1803.. Had not seen the letter published in the New Yolk Evening Post, and could net say if the letter they called a forgery was the same as was read at the hustings; don t know whe ther sending the letter to the Newspapers was the act of an individual, or of the Rump Committee. It did not strike the witness, that it was necessary to publish this letter previous to 1818. It was then published in consequence_ of the opinions promul gated by Mr. Hunt respecting Sir Francis Burdett. Has never seen any other private letter of the defend ant's. Don't think he ever saw the whole of the let ter in print. Did not desire that Wright's name should be suppressed. W.Jackson.—Witness knew the defendant in 1817, previous to his going to America, and received a co mmunication fium - him relative to the future pub lication of the Register. This communication was in writing, and was read ; it proposed, that the u itness should in future publish the Register, and receive half the profits, which he estimated at forty pounds a week. He promised to write carefully, and so that no danger should result to the Publisher; but at the same time observed, even should anything happen, and the witness got into prison, still the publication might go on. Witness, in consequence Of this ar rangement, did publish the Farewell Address; and afterwards, at various times, received manuscripts . from Mr. Cobbett, and published several numbers; commencing in July with No. 15, vol. xxxii. This was published on July 16, 1817, and continued pub ; lishing till Januai y, 1819, regularly accounting to Nr. Cobbett for his part of the profits, which witness paid to Mrs. Cobbett and her son. Witness published No 10, vol. xxxiv. on the 19th of November, 1819, containing a copy of a letter to the Editor of the New York Evening Pest; also No. 11, in which was a letter to Major Cartwright ; and N 0.12, containing a letter to Henry Hunt, Esq. and No. 14, in which was a letter to Major Cartwright. The passages from these publications, containing the alleged libels, were then read. In No. 10, the defendant accused the plaintiff of - forging his name to the letter in ques t--lion, and having done so on several occa sions for -fiairdnlent purposes. No. 11 contained a charge of a similar kind against the plaintiff, and a description, in poetry, of a supposed conversation between the . • • plaintiff and Sir Francis Burdett. .Na. 12 contained a letter to Mr. Hunt, speaking in similar terms of the plaintiff. No. 14, containing a letter to Major Cartwright, was also read, charging the plaintiff with cowardice, &c. The witness was cross-examined by the defendant. —Cannot say when or where he lass sat down in a room with the defendant, or who were in company with them ; nor does witness recollect where he first saw the defendant, but thinks it was with Lord Cochrane; in the King's Bench Prison ; and after wards witness went to Botley, with a message from his Lordship. Witness did not tell the defendant he had advised Lord Cochrane to escape; he said just the contrary. Lord Cochrane told witness that the defendant was about to go to America; and his Lord ship said, he feared he would not find any man with sufficient courage to undertake the charge of pub lishing The Register. His Lordship also said, he I , had recommended the witness as trust-worthy. Wit ness sometimes made slight alterations in the manu script, by leaving out very strong expressions. He bad done so in some of the passages now under con- 1 sideration ; but the only alteration was omitting the words miscreant and reptile, or expressions having such a meaning ; but could not say he made the pub lication harnlless or proper for publication ; but he, considered if these parts were improper, other parts were interesting, and he was therefore desirous of keeping it up. He did think he had a right to alter , or abridge, if 'he kept up the publication. Would not swear he did not tell a friend that he would not 'publish a particular Number; but if he did, he was certain he afterwards did publish'it. He did some times consult on the propriety of publishing parti- 1 attar Registers, and particularly one containing an attack on Sir Francis - Burdett. He consulted Major Cartwright and Mr. Sheriff Parkins; but that Regis ter was afterwards published, or at least most of it. Witness at times inserted whole articles; and on one occasion published a whole Register, from manu script, not from America. Some of the American, manuscripts were in the defendant's hand-writing, and some in his son's. Could not swear that the New York Paper was not copied from the Paper itself; but he could positively swear he had no doubt he, received the printed paper from the defendant. — Witness had seen a pamphlet signed Thomas Cleary ; but for himself, he could say, he never wrote anything libellous or malignant. Mr. Cleary's pam phlet was published in July, 1819 ; all the a . .ieged libels were published before that time. Witness had not the manuscripts of the libels, but he had no doubt'some, if tot all, were in the defendant's hand writing. Witness don't recollect having written any letter to the defendant in America, congratulating him on having tickled the Rump. Cross-examined.—Mr. Cobbett never objected to any ci the articles inserted, nor did he ever complain of any alteration made by witness. Mr. Molineux, printer, delivered out the manu script to the compositors, and was inclined to believe it was in the hand-writing of the defendant. Mr. Cobbett then proceeded to address the Jury. He was no, persuaded that he should be able to de fend himself with any ability. On tke contrary, he was persuaded he should suffer by not having the benefit of a regular Counsel ; but he was obliged to defend himself, on account of the description of per sons he had to contend with. Mr. Brougham had been selected on this occasion to conduct this cause, and, he would say, to make an attack on him. Mr. Brougham had described him as a man of extraordi ' nal y talent, and bad gone on to describe him as a man much to be dreaded. Vas that a compliment to a man, to tell him he was much to be dreaded ? Mr. Brougham hal also described him as a man, without scruple, over zealous, and not caring how he to :e a person to pieces. But he was used to be li belled. Yet he would shew that Mr. Brougham was -the greatest libeller he had ever had the misfortune to meet with. He had Leen a political and public writer in England and America for twenty-eight years; yet, doting all that time, he had never been brought before a Jury but twice—once in England, and once in * America. Could any Newspaper or MA gaZille say as much? No, not even the Evangelical Magazine. The libel of which he was convicted in America subjected him to pay a penalty of /500 dollars ; but this sum the people of America, on re flecting on the character of the- alleged libel, paid for him by subscription ; whilst the libel which had sub jected him to judgment in England, he received from a Judge, and had verified by a Marquis ; and whilst he was convicted, imprisoned, and- bound over for seven years, the Learned Judge had a place and a pension. The libel, therefore, could not have been of a very serious description. Yet Mr. Brougham had described him as a libeller ready to tear persons to pieces - and opinions uttered by Mr. Brougham were, indeed, libels of consequence, though Mr. Cleary's trash was of little importance.. Why, he would ask, was not Major Cartwright called, who would have told the Jury who and what Mr. Cleary was? That he was a person who-came from Ireland, some • way or other, and here had the good fortune to be made a Sub-Secretary to the Hampden Club ; but-it was said by Mr. Brougham that he was a Gen tleman born, and though connected with Reform, was receiving no pay from the Club. Now, had Ma jor Cartwright been called, he would have proved that Mr. Cleary did receive pay ; and more, that he became a travelling apostle, and went about the coun try with a little cart and a bundle of papers, trying to make converts to his opinion. Could Mr. Brougham, or any other person, say, that he, Mr. Cobbett, had ever been found trying to establish any Club or little nest whatever? Mr. Brougham had talked of at tacking private families; but bow did it appear that' ] he had ever been guilty of any such conduct? When had he ever been seen prying into the concerns of private families or private individuals? Was Mr. Cleary a private individual? Was he not Secretary to a public Political Club ? Was he not an Elector of Westminster? And had he not in that character, on the hustings at Covent-garden, published a pri vate letter of his, improperly obtained? And had he not thus commenced the attack, for which he had now no right to complain of retaliation? At this Election a dispute originated between Cleary, Hunt, and Major Cartwright. Cleary first brought forward Major Cartwright as a candidate, but afterwards turning, gave his support to Sir Francis Burdett.— He at the same time desired Hunt should retire also, but he would not ; upon this dispute and squabble it was that they thought fit to introduce his name, and . •• - - to read his private letters in a garbled state. Wa s this to be defended? If a man quarrelled with 'Ps neighbour, was that a justification for stabbing a third person? But this was the course adopted by the Gentleman at the hustings.. It was true, he had said this was not his letter, but a forg er y ; and he had been charged with a breach of veracity for so denying his own letter; but he would ask, if taking The letter of any individual, and reading a particu lar part, and omitting all the rest which was in tended as an explanation of such passage, it could be called the letter of that individual? He con tended it could not ; and that any one who should promulgate it as such, would be guilty of a forgery. The defendant then commented in strong terms on the malignity of publishing such a letter as that con taining the reflections on Mr. Hunt, and the Lady who was alluded to in it. This letter was written at a time when he knew Mr. Hunt only by report; but Cleary published it in connivance with Wright tea years after. The defendant then contended, that the breach of confidence on the part of Wright, and the conduct of Cleary, who had induced Wright to give up a confidential letter for publication, ten years after it was written, was conduct only to be equalled by that of the individuals who had been examined as witnesses against the Queen. Even Baron Ompteda had been less to be blamed than Wright, for he was not in the confidence of the Queen. The conduct of the Rump Committee was also worse than that of the Baron. The Baron had only I)rced locks ; but the Rump had seduced a confidential servant to be tray the confidence reposed in him. With respect to the imputed libel, and its effect on Mr. Cleary, he bad for a time felt a load on his conscience ; having heard that that honourable Gentleman, who bad ..-... _ _ been preparing for the Bar, had been checked in his career by his, the defendant's, writings. When he considered what a scarcity Of candidates there were for places at the Bar, and that lawyers were so scarce we could not get law either .for love or money, he certainly was conscience-struck to think of the sin he had been guilty of—a poacher would not forgive him who should crush a bird in the egg. He had been guilty of a similar sin ; and how could he hope the Bar would forgive, him for having thus crushed this lawyer whilst yet in the shell—(A laugh). His conscience was, however, in some degree relieved, since he understood the plaintiff had other reasons for seeking retirement. Mr. Cobbett was proceeding to state several other circumstancsa connected with Mr. Cleary, when Mr. BROUGHAM objected to his going into a state ment of facts unconnected with this case, unless he intended to call evidence to prove his statement. The CIIIEF JUSTICE reminded the defendant, he was not at liberty to state facts, unless he intended to prove them by evidence. The defendant said, Mr. Brougham had stated many things in his open ing" speech, which he had not proved. He was then proceeding to put a case hypothetically, when he was again stopped by Mr. BROUGHAM, who objected, and contended, if the defendant proceeded to state such facts, he, as Counsel for the plaintiff, should submit to his Lordship, he had a right to reply, whether the defendant called witnesses or nof. The CHIEF Jusims said, Mr. Cobbett was now putting an hypothesis. If he called no evidence to support the statement- he had made, he should tell the Jury it was their duty to discharge flour their minds all which Was said by the defendant, that was not proved by evidence. Mr. Cobbett resumed, and commented in strong terms on the conduct of Wright, Jackson, and the other witnesses called against him, who, he said, had received the weightiest obligations from him, and were admitted to his inmost confidence ; though they now, forgetful of all obligations, turned round upon him, and took advantage of the confidence he had in them, to sting him the more effectually. Wright, to-day, had done so, by giving up the private confi dential communications of friendship. The Learned Counsel had accused him of changing his principles from day to day. Now, if he had changed, he had i the satisfaction of reflecting that his change had been from bad to better. But, if he was to look round him, be thought he could find out some who had changed their opinions, without having such constr. lation. He did recollect a certain Learned Gentle. I man, who, at a Public Meeting in Westminster, de., dared himself a Radical Reformer—a friend to Unit' versal Suffrage and Annual Parliaments ; and he had even the imprudence to commit his sentiments to paper, and to entrust that to the hands of honest Mr. Place. Some time after, the Gentleman is question, having found occasion to change his opinion, in the I Hcuse of Commons, thought proper to ridicule Radical Reform altogether. On this occasion ho nest Mr. Place was ready to produce his written J declaration of former principles; and, by so doing, enabled the venerable Major Cartwright to give the Learned Gentltman such a dressing as be had not yet forgotten, nor he believed ever would. He had been accused of attacking Sir Francis Burdett. He denied that he had dime so ; but, if he had, he I was yet to be told that to attack Sir Francis Bur dett was blasphemy. If men were fearful of having their public conduct attacked, they ought to keep themselves out of public view. That was what Mr. Cleary ought to have done. With respect to the present libel, he contended the proof against him failed, since Jackson had acknowledged that he was in. the constant habit of altering the manuscripts ,which he received from America, and that he had, in fact, altered this very manuscript which contained .the alleged libels; and, even supposing he -was the author of the libel in question, he could not but wonder at the audacity of the plaintiff in coming here to ask for damages, after the conduct of which he had been guilty. The CHIEF JUSTICE proceeded to sum up, and commented on the publication and the nature of the evidence to bring it home to the defendant, observing, at the same time, that should the Jury be satisfied that the plaintiff ought to have a verdict, they would then take into their consideration the circumstances out of which this libel arose; and especially they would consider that this letter, at the time it was read by the plaintiff in public, had been written by the defendant nearly ten years; and that had his consent to its publication been then asked, he would, without doubt, have refused to consent to its bitig used in the manner it had been. • This would be a inbject for consideration - with .the Jury. in the.cla mars tile/ gave• - . The Jury retired at. twenty minute.% before seven, and, after bitig:iiitias hoot` inittlretity minute, returned with a verdict for the plaintiff—Damage s 40s. Costs, 40s. • " • COURT OF EXCHEQUER, THICEMBER s.. • THE LING V. SIR .7. HILL,•AND . SIR J. POWELL, DAR 73. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL stated, that this information to reamer the penalty of three 1k: amounting to i:100,000 each, entered into by t! '.e Pendants •for the faithful performance of dot;es he Eyton, a Receiver-General of Taxes for shire, during the years 1813, 1814, and 1815. Eyton died in 1816, at which time he was'in to the Crown about £lOO,OOO. W. Turner stated, that he was Mr. Eytan's De puty in 1813, and to the time of his death in'lBl6, and he read a very particular account of all the sums received by him as Deputy during the three years te which the. Bonds applied : the total amount of whi c h was £659,108 4s. 6 1 hd. part of which he lodged itt the Bank of Messrs. Rock and Co. at Shrewsbury, and the - remainder he remitted to Messrs. Gosling and Sharp, in London. It was now admitted by the Arroatirs-Gctitaat, that Mr. Eyton had received Taxes, in .1813, 18!4, and 1815, to the amount of £639,105 10s. 3A4, and that he had paid into the Exchequer £511,930, leaving a deficiency of £127,455 10s. 3IA d. out cf which there were allowances to be deducted •to the amount of about £33,000, which would leave Lis amount of deficiency C:)4,455. Serjeant Pr.r.t contended, that if all the - moues' paid by Mr. Ey ton during the years 1813, 1814, 181 A, together with £40,000 which had been level by the Crown since his death, was applied tothe pay.. ment of the taxes for those years, there would re main no demand on the defendants; and if the ?:;b -lic Ocers had not done their duty, •by causinglina to make' his payments regularly, the defenclarizs miOt say they were entrapped. The ATTORN EY-GENERA L said, the fact of part the money received for those years having beenic , itd by extent,. proved that the bonds were forfe're.i: be.ide, -Mr. Eyton might have had the Money that he was in arrear in his hands at the time these belles ' were entered into, and might have misapplied chat he received during those years. Serjeant PP,LL said, he would be able to skew that the money paid during the three years for which the bonds were given, had been received during the sarre years, on which evidence the Jury, he trusted, Would find for the defendants. - The CHIEF BARON said, it was in evidence, that part of the money received for those years had been levied by extent, which was proof that he had net paid ; and, in his opinion, the defendants were liable, but their Counsel would have an opportunity of ar guing the law 9f the question on a motion for a new trial ; and he most sincerely wished them success, as he had the pleasure of being acquainted with the de fendants, and knew they were as honourable men as any in England. The Jury immediately found a verdict for the full penalty of £300,000. • • A few days ago, an accident occurred at Bonhard , near Perth, to the son of Mr. ALEXANDER BLAIR farmer at F.andowie, a fine young boy, about nine years of age. As the unfortunate youth was gal loping his pony along the road, the animal made a sudden spring to one side, in- consequence of which, the boy's head came in contact w ith a large tree, which, occasioning a severe fracture, caused his death a few hours thereafter: Tuesday se'nnight the Police of Glasgow appre henled an Irishman, named Connell, on a charge of having committed, or been present in-the commi - sion of,-`a murder in Ireland! After -being ez mined he was sent off with a proper es cort to Bei . - fast on Wednesday morning. A dreadful assassination was committed onWednes day in the street. of the Seine, in, the Fauxbourg of St. Germain, on Louise Leroux, an uncommonly fine young woman, aged 18. She was the mistress of the assassin, a solaier, named Montreuil, aged aB, who stabbed her to the heart in-a fi t of jealousy.. IA per son named-Laporte, who was dining in the public house where the horrid deed was perpetrated, seized the murderer by the throat; but an Officer, who was also an. eye-witness of the transaction, having drawn his sword to prevent the assassin from committing further atrocities, Laporte unfortunately quitted Montreuil to gUard himself against the officer, whom he took to be an associate of the murderer. During this strange mistake the villain made his escape:,hav ing first snapped his pistol at Laporte, which fortu nately did not go off. He was expected to be soon taken into custody. Mr. Lewis GRUMMITT, formerly an eminent gra zier in Lincolnshire, died a few days ago. in that county, at a very advanced age. It was from an hospitable joke of this worthy man's thett Dr. GOLD. SMITH took the hint of Marlow mistaking the-house of Mr. Hardcastle• for an inn, in the Comedy of She Stoopito Cowper. The circumstance was as fol lows :—Mr. Gaustserrir, at a late hour one night, met a commercial traveller, who had mistaken his road, and inquired his way to the nearest inn or. public house. Mr. GRUMMITT replied, that as he was a stranger, he would shew him the way to a quiet re spectable house of public entertainment for man and horse, and took him to his own residence. The tra veller, by the perfect ease and confidence of his man ner, spewed the success of his host's stratagem, and everything that he asked for was instantly provided for himself and his horse. In the morning, he called in an authoritative tone for his bill, and the hos• pitable landlord had all the recozupence he desired is the surprise and altered manners of his guest: Mawr other whimsical acts of kindness-are related of him. A Clergyman, residing in the neighbourhood ef Cullompton, on his war to Church, about a week ago, met one of his flock- in his working habiliment; and accosted him, 1 ‘ Don't you follow the Church ?' " Follow the Church, Sir I (replied the man) wl.sTe is it gone?" t- MAILS tins Dar.--a au. DEC. Dublin 1 ' • * 0 I Luber Waterford • 1 01 France • Guernsey and Jersey 0 [ Hamablatak Holland • • 1 Q [ Crottenbursi •Itit. Int • 0 1 O 1 ▪ 0 2 O 1 HIGH-WATEIiat"LONDON I RIDGN TO-MORROW- Mcruing ' I • le minutes after 3 Alterman - • . 11 3 .11444;4 V an Ftc LONVON nifitett indt rlice, eniple- . m A T at the 1820, in thipful t d3f Fete Queen, 808 Essoz : ion, the wicked Queen. 'Drat anted u lively int and• chat :Ind to F bered air That That ben in I Address Thar lirouzha . for their defence ; the powe daring hi That t London Nesvg.. That t' Lis prom; same. The Cl werc una pendent WEST V A ST, terms to ment •tlic DIJ The Hot Sir 0. F Sir John James P John Bel Stamp B Zanies II The P year's Di rrHE IL and County c aforesaid the Fore tract for rish of S Hastings New inches w per foot New thick, at New] New J per yard New ( Labou ing takin places, a make gm round ti The IN 0 be cot The P nish Hi 'ersons, :1000,f Partic seen 2 tAweer This Cu LtNTA Lon& ! Longrn 2. Dic >rice 9s. 3. A ( ;s. t 4. I'r; rtalian L REV. 1 riais day fished v V L. 'onal Di Orthoi :rongly .ore attz ' from !Po lay i t Londe ,:ath.mtt r r il, ul7 g e t ) riXe4 15 Little D. n ch it '1 for ners,.B i. each Lk() be t!ually E 4edicini 1••.-_