Star. — London, England, 1822-01-10 00:00:00

This was an action against the Proprietor of The Tines Newspaper, for a libel inserted in that publi cation of the 12th of April, 1819, reflecting on the character of the plaintiff. The SOLICITOR-GENERAL stated the case to the Jury. The plaintiff was a Solicitor, carrying on busi ness in London ; he was formerly Coroner for the City of Westminster, and at present held that office for the Duchy of Lancaster. The libel complained of was contained in what purported to be a report of certain proceedings which took place on a trial at Kingston, in which the plaintiff and others were de fendants, and certain observations and comments which the Reporter had thought fit to add thereto.— He was one of those who thought nothing could be more important than faithful reports of tire proceed ings of Courts of Justice. 'Faithful reports were not only of great interest, but of great benefit also, to society ; but if of a contrary character, they might be most injurious. The Jury, in the course of their exper;ence, could not have faded to have observed, that in pi ocredings in Courts of Justice, it frequently became necessary that ex-parte statements should be made. Such statements were necessary for the ends cf justice ; but nothing could be more unjust or cruel than to publish such statements. The conduct of some pro. , :ecutors might be such as to place indivi dnals, cf the most honourable character, in situations in which a Counsel, in opening a case, speaking from his in aructions and in the discharge of his duty, might in his address to the Jury state something, which, whilst it remained unanswered and unexplained, might bear most oppressively on the character of a defendant. Something might afterwards occur in defence which might suddenly put an end to the case, and the defend:tr.t obtain a verdict in his favour, but still have no opportunity of answering the slander s heaped upon him by the plaintiff in the opening his case. The Counsel, who had made the speech, might I have done no more than discharge his duty; but the cruelty of publishing such ez-pai te statements must be obvious to every one. It was cruel and unjust ; and he thought lie might add, illegal also. The libel of which the plaintiff had now to complain was of that character. The plaintiff Irkd been the Solicitor of a Gentleman, named Bingham, resident in Hampshire. An execution had been issued against Mr. Bingham for upwards of L:2000, under which the Sheriff was in possession of that Gentleman's property. This execution gave rise to proceedings in the Court of King's Bench, under which Mr. Lewis acted as Mr. Bingham's Solicitor. In the course of these proceed ings, after the Sheriff was out, and the property had been restored, the parties litigating thought proper to institute proceedings against Mr. Bingham, Mr. Lewis, and Mr. Hawkins, for an alleged conspiracy. The cause, in due course (having been removed by certiorari), came on to be tried at Kingston. The charge was not proved, and after one witness had been examined, the Learned Judge directed that the defendants should be acquitted. A Learned Friend of his (the Solicitor-General), Mr. Serjeant Onslow, opened the case, and in doing so, bad stated many circumstances reflecting on the character of Mr. Lewis: in doing this, he spoke from his instructions, and only discharged his duty to his client. But Mr. Lewis was acquitted without having an opportunity of answering er disproving these assertions—and to publish such a statement under such circumstances, was the height of cruelty and injustice, especially in I a Paper circulating so widely as the ?Inns Newspaper did. But the Reporter, on this occasion, had not con fined himself even to the speech of Mr. Serjeant Ons low, for he concluded his report in the following words :—" The Jury felt themselves obliged to give a verdict of acquittal, to the great regret of a crowded Court, en whom the evidence, as far as it went, had made a strong impression of the guilt of the defend. ants."—There were other counts in the declaration. Evidence was offered to prove that the plaintiff I was an Attorney ; he was proved to have been ad mitted, but there was no proof of the certificate of his admission, in order to enable him to practice. Mr. SCARLET? (with *Whom was Mr. PLAT?) made two objections-1. That it was necessary, in order to sustain the introductory averment, to prove that the plaintiff was a certificated Attorney. This objection went to the first set of counts ; and 2dly, That in the second set of counts, the supposed libel was set out in such a manner as not to distinguish whether the sup posed libellous matter was originally composed by the publisher, or uttered by the Learned Serjeant, whose speech was the subject of the statement. He referred to Bell v. Byrne, IS East, 554, as a direct authority; on this point. The SOLICITOR-GENERAL was heard in reply to both objections; but The CitlEt JUSTICE thought them both well taken, and therefore directed the plaintiff to be--Non,suited. • ilt ~~ Mr. Gettings is a farmer at Godstone, Surrey, and the mares in question were missed on the 14th ult. from a field in which they were at pasture. Mr. Get ting: came immediately to London, and, with an officer of Union-Hall, obtained information which induced him to go to Narrow-walk, Paddington, where Cutts occupied stables, and where Mr. Get. tings saw one of his mares. He inquired to whom the stable belonged, and Cutts presented himself as the owner. Mr. Gettings said he wanted to buy two horses, and Cutts took bins into a stable, but not the one in which he had seen the mare. He said there were none in that stable that would suit him, and asked Cutts u;iether lie had any cart-horses in the other stable? He hesitated, but at length said he had only two young colts there, that had never been shod. Mr. Getting' pressed to be shewn into that stable, and Cutts,with evident reluctance, opened the door, and there Mr. Settings found his two mares. --Their shoes had been taken off before they were turned into the pasture ; but it was quite impossible that a man experienced in horses could mistake them for colts that had never been shod. Mr. Gettings claimed the mares, and said they were stolen pro perty ; and Cutts accompanied him and the officer to a public-house in the neighbourhood,where he pointed out Home as the man from whom he had received them ; and stated that he and another man had, on the previous night, brought them to his stable, and requested to leave them till morning. The prisoners were taken to Union-Hall; where lloine made a con• fession of his guilt, and told the name of the tnan who accompanied him when be stole them. • When the case was nearly closed,the Learned Judge (Boling:A.lJ) expressed an opinion that there was no evidence beyond the declaration of Cutts (which could be taken against Home) that Home ever had posses sion of the mares in Middlesex ; and the venue there fore was wrongly laid. The prisoners were found Not Guilty. but an order was given for their detention, to be tried again in :he County of Surrey. _ _ _ Abraham Alexander was indicted for stealing from the person of Miss Phoebe Church, a reticule and other property therein contained, value lOs. and up wards. The prusecutrix, an inte:esting young lady, stated, that she was passing through Bishopsgate street, about six o'clock in the evening of the 4th inst. and when near the corner of Devonshire -street, was stopped by the prisoner, who looked her in the face, and at the same moment she felt the reticule taken from her hand. The prisoner then ran away, pursued by witness, who cried out, " Stop thief!" and he was taken into custody about twenty yards from the spot where the robbery was committed. Witness did not see the reticule in the prisoner's hand ; it had not been since beard of. There were sevetal other persons round the prisoner during the robbery, and she was positive he was the person who stopt her. Peter Burrell, beadle of Devonshire-square, heard the cry of " Stop thief !" and observed several per sons running, the prisoner foremost, and witness se cured him ; they all appeared to be of the same party. The prisoner at the time said, he was not the person, but had joined in the pursuit. In his defence, he slid that seeing a lad snatch the lady's reticule, he pursued him, when he darted up a court, and the prisoner in his speed passed him, when, he was immediately seized by the officer. Burrell was again called, and said that he saw no boy. which he must have seen had one been running. The COMMON SERJEANT summed up the evidence to the Jury, who retut ned a verdict of—Not Guilty. Henry Sims, a respectable-looking young man, was indicted for .stealing a watch and appendages, the property of Mr. John Cricksley. It appeared the prisoner was celebrating Christmas night with the prosecutor in the house of his master, Mr. Reynolds, and there being a scarcity of beds they slept together, each placing his watch in a different situation. In the morning the prosecutor missed his watch, and informed the prisoner of his loss, when the latter observed, he had no doubt it was a joke of Mr. Reynolds's, but on the latter being' questioned, he knew nothing of the matter. No further notice was taken till the parties met at the dinner-table, when a more serious inquiry was entered into, and the watch was found in the hands of a neighbouring tradesman, wrapped up in brown paper, as a parcel, which the prisoner had purchased for that purpose. On his return home he was taken into custody. The prisoner, in his defence, protested his innocence of any criminal intention, and said, that he had kept the watch for a joke, and merely intended to retain it till he had excited the utmost passion and concern in the mind of the prosecutor. Several respectable witnesses gave him a most ex cellent character for honesty. The Learned JUROR, in summing up, observed, the only consideration for the Jury was, whether the watch had been taken with a criminal intention ? The Jury, without hesitation, acquitted the prisoner. In the course of the morning, Baron RicnAnos took occasion to make some observations upon the neglect of Magistrates to return the depositions which were taken before them on the examination of pri soners. It frequently happened, that the testimony given by witnesses in this Court differed materially from that which they had previously given before the Magistrates; and it was of the last importance to the due administration of justice, that the Judges should have the depositions before them in all cases; and he wished that M ag i strates w ou ld b e more attentive ,to their duty.—Mr. Sinwrobr i , the Clerk of the jr. •• ~.• •4r Mrs. Sarah Rayner deposed, that she knew both the defendant and the prosecutor; she was in the room of the wife of the latter when he came in; the defendant was mending a hole in the floor of the room, he was on his knees at the time. The prosecutor, on entering the room, put his fist in the defendant's face, and was coming towards the witness, and she was so much alarmed, the prosecutor being quite drunk, that she begged of the defendant to put him out of the room, which he did in a very gentle manner. The prosecutor's children worked for the defen.lant and his father, and their wages went to pay the rent of the room. The prosecutor had not paid any rent for four years, or in any way contributed to their support. The CHAIRMAN then summed up the evidence ; and the Jury brought in a verdict of—Not Guilty. The remainder of the day was occupied in hearing petty assault cases of no interest. ' ' " `lllq.l • LAW INTELLIGiNCL COURT OF KING'S BENCH, JANUARY 9. LAWNS v. BRUM AND ANOTHER. This was an action against two Custom-house °M eer% for uulawi oily seizing a quantity of British-made iteedigris,at and for contraband uncustomed verdigris. The plaintiff was described to be a very respectable orysalzer, and the defendants, Brefitt and Steel, as Custom-house officers. In February last, the plaintiff was possessed of a quantity of verdigris, which was made so exactly to resemble French verdigris in ap pearance, and in the mode of packin as to attract, the .observation of the defendants, who entered his premises and made a seizure. They were told that it was of British manufacture, and were referred to the persons of whom the plaintiff purchased it, and by them to the manufacturer, to prove the fact. When the Case came to . be investigated before the Commis sioners of Customs, they ordered the verdigris to be delivered up to the plaintiff, and it was accordingly delivered up, but so deteriorated asto be less in value by £7O odd than when seized. One witness said, the imitation of foreign verdigris; which was considered of superior quality, was so great as calculated. to de ceive very good judges. The Soirceroa-Gerritaar. admitted that the plain tiff was entitled to a verdict, but contended that there was such reasonable and probable cause for the seizure, from the imitation of foreign verdigris, as to deprive the plaintiff of his costs under the Statute. The CHIEF JUSTICE charged the Jury that the plaintiff must have a verdict, but said he would certify under the Statute as to the reasonable and probable cause.—Verdict for the plaintiff—Damages, £7O. LEWIS V. WALTER. - • • OLD BAILEY . SESSION& Yestifrday these Sessions• commenced jtefore the LORD MAYOR, Mr. Justice BORROVON, Mr. Baron RICHARDS, acc. George Bryan was capitally indicted for breaking open the house of Samuel Potter, and stealing two flutes—Guilty. Edward Sem7h was indicted for stealing, in the dwelling-houie of Edward Horgan, two coats, value £S.—Guilty. ' Ann Marks was convicted of stealing one pound of butter, a piece of pork, two pillows, some fire-irons, and other trifling articles, the property of G. Ives, by whose wife she was employed as a char-woman. LatorenceHicks,an infirm and decriped old man,up wards of 50 years of age, was convicted of dealing a pewter pint pot, the property of Thomas Hunt. Samuel Home was indicted for stealing two mares, value £5O, the property of D. Gettings ; and William Sitilk Cutts for receiving them, knowing them to have been stolen. nips, said, the Magistrates had Leen vnittsn to %woo the.subject, but the neglect - was still •ery frequent. Baron RICKARDS said, such conduct was highly reprehensible ; and Gentlemen who were guilty of such a neglect of duty ought not to be Magistrates much longer. MIDDLESEX SESSIONS. -CRIM. CON. Yesterday, Henry Saiasbury was indicted for as saulting James Saunders, on the6th of November last. James Saunders stated, that on the evening of the day laid in the indictment he went to his residence, No; 17, Bell-yard, and he found the defendant in the. room with his wife, and he had some suspicion that he was not there for nothing. He asked him what he was doing there? on which the defendant struckhim and put him out of the room. On his cross-examination by Mr. WA 'MORD, he said he had never been in custody for.deserting his wife ; he was once at Guildhall Police Office on that account. The CHAIRMAN then observed to the prosecutor, that, according to his own evidence, he had only sus picion that there was something improper passing be tween the defendant and his wife. He recommended him to go home and take care of her, and not to be suspicious in future. The Prosecutor.—a I cannot help my suspicion (putting his hand to his forehead), for I do not know what passes between my wife and the defendant when I am from home." Mr. NVALFORD, Counsel for the defendant, said, the charge of his client having any improper intimacy with the prosecutor's wife, was without foundation. The fact was, the prosecutor had deserted his wife and six children for four years. The defendant and his father were printers, and they had employed them, and given them a room to live in, and the defendant was mending a hole in it when the prosecutor came in, flourishing his fists, and wanting to fight, on which the defendant was obliged to put him out of the room in his own defence. • POLICE._ Boty-STREET.--Joseph Arnold, Esquire, of Duck lane, Westminster, a retired hackney-coachman, better known by the title of " the Rough Diamond," and as the intimate friend of Bill Gibbons, Esq. P. C. Com. Gen. was brought before the sitting Magistrate under the following awkward circumstances:—Mr. Peter Guy a tailor (by trade), deposed that himself and Mrs.PeterGuy were invited toter by Mrs. Cheey, the accomplished hostess of the Russian Hotel, vul garly called the Brown Bear, in Bow-street. Mr. Joseph Arnold, Mr. Joseph Arnold's housekeeper, and s.n , eral other ladies and geldlcmen, were of the party. There was toast and prime Dorset, and muffins and crumpets, with Gunpowder and Bohea, for the la dies; and pig's face, red herrings, and hot coffee for the gentlemen ; in short, there was everything quite genteel and comfortable ! Now it so happened that Mr. Peter Guy wore a white poodle upper bergamin, of his own make, on the occasion, and this unfortu nate dress upset the comfort of the whole party.— Nlr.Joseph Arnold first observed that Mr. Peter Guy's poodle benjamin was as pretty a bit of toggeryas ever he seed. All the company agreed to this, except one lady (Mrs. Jonathan Guy), who remarked that it looked rather too warm-like and smothery for fire-side wear! Mr. Joseph Arnold observed it tuarn't a mossel too warm for those as had any gumption,in 'em; and he offered to bet a shilling that he could get it on, if so be as Mr. Peter Guy would be kind enough to peel. 'ere was not a lady in company who did not laugh outright at this proposition, because Mr. Joseph Ar nold is a large round man, upwards of six feet high, and Mr. Peter Guy, .as one of the ladies very justly observed, is a little hop-o'-my-thumb-chap not much above half as big. Mr. Arnold, however, swore by Boles (a favourite oath of his) that he would not flinch from his bet ; and at length Mr. Peter Guy took him at his word, the stakes were deposited, and Mr. Peter Guy having slipped out of his benjamin, Mr. Arnold squeezed himself into it without a vast deal of trou ble, though when it was on, the sleeves did not reach much below his elbows. Mr. Peter Guy readily ad mitted that he was done, and requested his benjamin again ; but Mr. Joseph Arnold refused to restore it, observing that it was a prime fit, and he would give it a turn among the swells in Duck-lane. The ladies remonstrated, the gentlemen laughed, the noise ran high, the tea tables were hurried away, alid the crum pets were upset in the ashes ; but it was r'l of no use, as Mr. Arnold swore the toggery was too good for a tailor, and he would keep it for himself! and so say ing he sallied forth and strutted up and down Bow street for nearly two hours, till at length the patience of Mr. Peter Guy became exhausted, and he gave him in charge to an officer, who carried him before the Magistrate.—His Worship, having first ordered Mr. Joseph Arnold to be placed at the bar, asked him what he had to say for himself? He replied that he did feel himself a bit disgraced by being placed in that 'ere bar, being as how he was well known to Mr. White and Mr. Markland, the Magistrates at Queen square, and to all the inhabitants of Duck-lane, as an honest man, and one that was so well to do in the world as any man who was no better off than him self ! And as to the benjamin there was such a bother about, he had got it on by the free consent of the owner, and he would keep it on long enough, unless the owner stood a drap of some at short !—" If that is the case, Sir," observed. the Magistrate, " I shall instantly commit you for the robbery."—This seemed to have a considerable effect upon Mr. Joieph Arnold, for he instantly, though slowly, began toped, and at length he handed the coat over the bar, sulkily ob. 'serving, 'this comes of taping company wi t h your Worship ; and . 1 can't say but it sarves me tizl lt Howsomdever be ssorght have • had it hef , ire if h • had not been so d—d stirand consequential about it:' Mr. Peter Guy then . thanked the Magistrate for his kind interference and the parties withdrew. Woassur-araur.—Saarrarel Sealheard,the colleq m of.tolls at the turnpike-bar, Hackney-road, was sum moned before ROSIIIT [hula., Esq. (the presiding Magistrate), for exacting a greater toll than he r,.,ts authotisal to take. It was proved by Mr. Charr : Cobham, that he passed on horseback through th., gate on the ;:d inst. between twelve and one o'clock in the day, and that the collector held out his hard, and took three-halfpence. Mr. Cobham, on his re. turn, having found that the toil was a penny ode, mentioned it; but the collector would not return ti t halfpenny, observing, that it was due at night ; a n d u people generally passed without paying it at night i be made them pay it in the day. 'll-,e collector', licitor contended, that no demand had been mack ; but Mr. Bevittt was decidedly of opinion, that ing out the hand constituted a demand, and convicza the collector in the penalty of 4.0 c. and costs. MA razoti-Houss.--;.A boy, about ten years et a ,, was brought before the Loan MAYOR and Alderine 4 ATKINS, by the beadle of a Parish in the City, f qe the purpose of being bound apprentice to a slic e . maker. Alderman ATKINS, upon looking at the size of the boy, objected to the idea of Wooing a n. tre child to a trade of a sedentary kind, and asked ther the boy could read and write? The beadle he believed the boy could do neither the one irt other; but, he added, it was customary to bind ell. dren to trades at an earlier age. The Lotto 11. t w% and Alderman ATKINS agreed in the opiiin n t: they would not be justified in giving their sanctiaa to an act which would tend to injure the boy's health, without in the slightest degree improving, hi ,nind. —The Overseers of the Workhouse were, Grey highly reprehensible in not having enabled the -1 1 . fortunate little pauper to read and write betere th e y entertained a thought of binding him to a trade. the hope that this hint would be taken, the toe, Niz gistrates directed that the boy should be taken bac: to the Workhouse; and they declared, that wha.eva might be the determination of those who ha.i tle superintendence of the house, with respect to :L children who fell to the care of the Vari.h, they (sl.e Lord Mayor and Alderman Atkins) would nave: co:. sent to imprison to a trade any little creatti.e young and so neglected as the boy before The boy was then taken back to the Wurkhou e, :711 the beadle was told that he might hi ing him up :e years hence, after he had learned to read anl rite, to bind him to the trade. John Ashby, a boy, was charged with picking •.:.e pocket of a bervant-girl, while she was gapin . : some Italians, of two hall-crowns.—lle was tom:. - ted for three months to Bridewell, and ordere.l .k) receive a severe flagellat:on. I - Lcrros-GARDEN.—Yesterday, Eliza D.iffron, :;3 informer, and two witnesses, brought t.rward i:• formations against four publicans residing in t::e neighbourhood of Leather-lane, for permitting cares and dominos to be played in their houses during .::: Christmas holidays. The informer's witnesse, swore positively to haring seen gamb*ing going on in the houses of the defendants; and the info' mer ther:: - ;rt. prayed that each of them might be convicted acct . :: 2- mg to law. The defendants did not deny havirg permitted a few games at cards to be played iii the.: houses ; but pleaded in extenuation of their offence, a received opinion that cards are allots ed to be ibqf.l in the houses of licensed victuallers during the hi*:- ay season. They also brought forward a nuiliber of respectable witnesses, who proved, to the satisiactica of the Magistrates, that their respective hoo.es we:e conducted with the utmost degree of decorum ani propriety. The Magistrates, on a view of ail the ci:- 1 41 cumstances of their cases, ordered each of the ~:. fettdants to pay 17s. 4d. which sum, after Fly ing the costs, will not be found to be such a re:r.- neratiott to the informers as to induce them to co::::- nue the present branch of their honourable callin:,. MA R LISOROUG H-ST R EET.-- William Moulder, co:- lecting clerk in the house of Messrs. Tribe and Co.. wine -merchants, was re-examined on a cliare of fraud. On the fi:st examination a case was ma2x out against the prisoner by Mr. Grogan, a publica7, of whom he had received a sum of money, and a:• counted in his book for a lesser sum. Other chArgei were preferred against him yesterday, for recrivii;g, at four different times, £2O, and accoun,ing fcr only £l5 each time in his book. Mr. Sanbrook, a publican, who had paid the prisoner the money, pro duced his receipts, written by the prisoner, and the prosecutor produced his books with the false entries. Mr. Norman, publican, in South -street, Grosvenct square, proved a like case, where he had paid him £lO, and he had booked £5 only. There was another case, where the prisoner had received money an made no entry. There were in all twelve charges, but these were the only onesentered into, and upon them the prisoner was fully committed for trial. DIED. June 10, at Macao, in China, Mary, the wife of the Mis sionary Dr. Robert Morrison, after an illness (the cholera =t hus) of only fourteen hours. Mrs. Morrison was born in DubL”, October 24, 1791. July 31, at Calcutta, in his 32d year. Mr. James White, Clmi Mate of the Moffatt East Indiaman. Thursday last, at Wandsworth, George Owen, Esq. of the St. llelena Department, East India House. Dec. 10, at Parr's Wood, near Manchester, Joseph Farrirt ton, Esq. in consequence of a fall he experienced as he was leav ing church. Mr. Farrington was one of the oldest member, a: the Royal Academy. PRICE OF FOREIGN STOCKS IN LONDON. French 5 per Cents. 87—Exchange 25 45. Spanish 5 per Cents. Bonds 57;.—Prussian Bonds SC Danish Bonds 74—Neapolitan 5 per Cents. ex. dividend o3t. Columbian Bonds 58. Ships at Market. 571 Newcastle 6k Sunderland COAL MAIRMIT, .b.ll. Sldps Sold. 19 Price. 36s Od to 4Zs 641 36s O to 44s 91 MAILS 111111 bUt. Dublin 1 0 Waterford 1 0 Guernsey and Jersey 0 2 Lisbon 0 1 Holland 0 0 New York 0 0 •aa. Dew France 1 0 Haniburgb 1 0 Flanders 0 0 Jamaica 0 0 Gottenhurgh 0 1 Leeward Islands 0 0 HIGH•WATEIiat LONDON BRIDOZ TO-AION Ft, oW Merning - 19 minutes after 5 Afternoon - LONDON; Muted and published by Lava ZW', Rae"' place, Temple-Du. J. a •111 • A • • 1 • te ng • o 3 I' rd . I In ni rit et at ' L at A Din ti P ;' tit In 1 sou l 'akin virtu f aft. oth i bit.r (Uzi 41 SPh pric iftP