The National Register. — London, England, 1820-11-27 00:00:00

W laying it down to be an offence, was unsupported by any legal authorities. That being, as he contended. the fair construction to be put upon the nature of a libel, he had next to consider where the author or publisher was amenable to the law. He contended that the defendant could not be tried in any othcr country than that in which the libel was written and published. The King is. Butters proved that the mew must be laid, and trial had, in the county where the offence was completed.— The case was trie d re IBM before Mr. Justice Graham, at Hereford. It was an indictment for obtaining money under false pretences or threats. The threat took place in one county, and the money was hail in another, yet the venue was laid in the county where the offence was completed. The money was received in Hereford, and it was held to be the proper county for trial. The Learned Counsel insisted that this trial ought to have taken place in Middlesex, where the offence was com pleted, and where the publication took place. After using other •lar arguments in support of the motion for a new trial, he said, that he had a duty to perform which he was sorry had fallen to his lot, but however painful it was in hint, the ditty he owed to the Mrs, not only as his advocate. but his personal dilly to him— and his duty to the public, compelled him, regardless of consciences, to honestly discharge it, fairly, openly, and fearlessly. The Learned Counsel then strongly commented on the conduct of Mr. Justice Best at the trial of Sir Francis Burdett at Leicester. He said, that the constructions of the Judge upon the writing and in tentions of the defendant were not warranted by the libel, and unfair. He was surprised that in this country a Judge, 011 whose heart mercy ought to be engraved, should have put constructions upon the intentions of a defendant, to obtain a conviction, when au opposite construction could as fairly and more properly have been put upon the: libel. The Learned Counsel then read the libel, and Mr. Justice Best's comments thereon. In one part the Learned Judge stated, that " he never read a more mischievous production, or one in which was condensed so much matter of an injurious and libellous character." In another part he stated, that" the defen dant had said, that his intentions were good, but he (the Judge) knew of no way of judging of a defendant's intentions except by his acts, and he must say the writing was a most dangerous libel." After the Livened Counsel had read the above from the printed trial, and toe AAAAA ented upon the unfair inferences drawn by the Judge, he insisted that a new trial ought to be granted, also upon the ground of the improper summing-up of the Judge. He had not the least intention to otter of fence to the Learned Judge who tried the cause, but he should not have acted towards his client justly had he flinched from performing that duty which he had en trusted to him. Mr. Justice Beat.—" I can assure you Mr. Black burn, that I. am not offended at any thing that you have said." Mr. Blackburn.—" I did not intend to offer offence to your Lordship, but was determined to discharge toy duty without considering who might be offended at at" _ _ Mr. Evans followed on the sane side, and in a speech replete with legal knowledge,ably supported the doctrines of the Lamed Gentleman who preceded him. The Court. he contended. in the fair exercise of its authority, were called upon to put a liberal construction on the points presented as 5 o round for a new trial. The Attorney General, at the conclusion of the orrtuenti. for a new trial, waived his right to reply. and the Chief Justice intimated that the Court would defer its judgment. It is expected the Judges will deliver their opinions in this term. _ _ ...._ After hearing several motions on points of practice, the Court rose. TUB 4111,41 V. H. EUNT. 141 r. Chitty said he had to bring before the Court the affidavit of the defendant, made with a view of obtaining same relief under the hardships and restraint he suffered itt 11chester Oaol. He did this upon the expectation entertained by the defendant that the Court would in terfere to procure him that treatment which the circum stances of his case required. The defendant complained that the order of the Court had been violated. When he received sentence, the Court stated that the defendant would not be subject to solitary confinement, notwith standing which he had been confined from nine in the morning to four in the afternoon, and kept in a close dungeon. without the power of seeing his friends. The defendant was not sensible of any impropriety of con duct, having never violated the decorum of the prison, but had conducted himself peaceable on every occasion. Mr.Jurtice Heat.—What is the cruelty he complains of?-1t1 sh g him up from nine its the morning to four in the afternoon, without the power to see his family. He states also that his life is in danger. Chief Justice.—We are anxious to put the matter in ouch a course that ass investigation may take place, for the purpose of ascertaining whether the defendant has just came of complaint. Only point out what the Court can 110. Habeas Corpus will not answer your purpose. We have not power to alter the Order os Mr. Chitty then observed, he would move fur a rule to thew cause why the defendant should mil be allm%ed the same indulgence prisoners received itt cases of rum enlea 111101'. Chief lustice.—Very well, take that rule to 'hew cause. IVe must hear the other side. 'lake a rule callus oil the Gault'. or Magistr.:te, which you pleab:. Mr. Chitty accordingly took a rule to skew cause. TH3 LIMO V. LEWIS. The Solicitor General prayed the judgment of the Court on the defeneant, convicted at the Warwick assizes of publishing a libel. Mr. Lewis addressed the Court, and requested the judgment might stand over until Thursday. on the gru 1111 l I that he was in another cause, iu which a mutton was to be made for a new trial. The Solicitor General did not oppose the application, Slid the judgmem was put ut Thunolay. THE NATIONAL REGISTER THE ELKO V. JOSEPH EOSSIL.„ The defendant, e bookseller, at Birmingham, was brought up to receive judgment, convicted it the War wick anises of publishing two descriptions of libels; one of seditious, and the other of religious tendency. The defendant put in an affidavit in mitigation of punishment, stating that he was ignorant of the contents of the pamphlet he published. He complained of the bad state of his health, the loss of his wife, and being left with two children. The Court sentenced him to be imprisoned in War wick Gaol eight months, and at the expiration of that term find securities for his good behaviour. himself in 201. and two in 101. each. . . Russell, after sentence was pronounced, applied to be sent to the King's Bench Prison instead of Warwick Gaol. The Chief Justice said, the Court could not send the defendant to the King's Bench, they could only give 111111 the alternative of going to Culdhath Fields Prison. The defendant declined going to Coldhath Fields, and the judgment strxxl as it was originally delivered. THE ICING V. IRANDISH. The defendant appeared to receive sentence, having been found guilty of publishing a seditious libel, which was a plain unequivocal exhortation to rebellion. The defendant carried the manuscript to the prititta, hut whether he was the author or not did not appear. The Court, under all the circumstances, ordered and adjudged the defendant to be imprisoned one year in Warwick Gaol, to find security for three years, himself in 501. and two others in VSI. each. THZ KING C. OSSORNZ. The defendant was brought up to receive judgment fora libel, namely, a printed address, to seduce the sol diers front then allegiance, and excite them to set in opposition to the Government. The Court sentenced the defendant to be imprisoned in Coldbath Fields Prison one year. lATSOW V. De - NOVAW. , The Court gave judgment in this case, after having taken time for consideration. It was an action against a common carrier for the loss of 4,0701. in bank notes, sent by the plaintiffs in a Rime! by thedefendant'scoach from Berwick to Newcastle. At the trial on the northern circuits, the defendants had a verdict on the ground of notice of restricted liability, the plaintilis not having insured the property. In a former term, the plaintiff moved for a new trial, and the case having stood over, judgment was now given. The Court (Mr. Justice Best dissentient) ruled, that tinder the peculiar circumstances of the case. the del, ti dings were not liable at common law, there having been a Loncealment on the part of the plaintiffs as to the amount of the property lost.—Rule discharged. salvaasal. NOTESSIMISM till XING V. ‘•RTWILIGHT, WOOLIM, MADDOCK, CD. MONDE, AND LAWIS. The defendants appeared in Court to move for a new hist. Mr. Denman appeared as Counsel for Edmonds and Madduek. Mr. Hill appeared for Major Cartwright, and Mr. Weider was prepared to address the Court himselfi Mr. Deleeuw then said. this was an indictment against the five defendants, tried before a Special Jury of the county of Warwick, and be bad to apply for a Rnle to 'hew cause why a verdict against all the defendants should not be set aside, and a new trial granted. The grounds on which be made this motion were independent of any thing which leek place during the trial of the indictment. The ground he proceeded upon was the objection to the mode in which the Joey was collected. Four special Jo ules and eight common Jurors formed the Jury. The Met objection he had to urge arose long before the day of trial. It related to the mode of appointing special Jurors by the Coroner. According to the doctrine in the case of the King sr. Woofer, decided in that Court, their Lord ships were of opinion that the Master of the Crowu Office had done right iu nominating and selecting special Jurors without exercising any discretion, but iu the case before the Court it would appear that the Crown Office had ex ercised discretion. 7 his Jury was struck on the It.lth of February, and the indictment tried at the Lent assizes. At the moment of striking the special Jury, objection was made and reiterated. When the cause came to trial the defendants also objected. and complaiued of psi tiality in the Master of the Crown Office. That circumstance will no doubt have great weight wills the Court; but the first distinct ground of my application for a new drat is, that the Muter, in exercising discretion in she nomination of special Juries, csistiot be sanctioned by law.--Challis Pearson, the defendant's attorney, and John Cat twt ight, Esq. both state that they attended on Friday, the of February, before the Mutes of the Cowes' Office, fur the purpose of striking a special Jury, and a book ()film free huiders was produced, containing t,:.O•J Major Cartwright asked the Master of the Crown Office, what was the rule he followed in striking a Joy. The Master said, he had been iu she habit of opening the book, and taking the names as they occurred. That was his mode of selectiou; but for some time he had selected from the list according to his own _indolent. 1 hat being so, the questiuse is, Whether the Master ol the Crown Office is to exorcise his judgment and discretion in the selection of persons to serve on Jusies ? Both the gentlemen who made the affidavits say they protested against the pro ceeiting.—lt is of importance that the Master of the Crown Office should nut select. lithe Legislatine gave him that power, it would give him considerable oppurin. tiny of exercisisig pas The Conn t would liras with surprise, that ill the list Waswickshiie Is eelioldrrs, amounting to '2,400 persons, ki only uric dt•igil.llll E• 40111 4 ,11, and If a Sbelst bad the panel to select its flout that deinguatiou, the saute i 5 wood must pi ohal,ly lie se— lected in every tustance.-31 . Ocumati then Mosel that the only ilesetivtion im Ihr Act of Parliament hr tumid given to Jurors was, that of frise mid law Ail men, bus he had to stitineit that a special July must he a wells of 48 names taken by ha said unit made special by the latticing oil twelve by each person. li e w as a s a ho., to host, to any Act, that putter was given to the 314sier to make a selection at his disci elm°. The norm 16 ought to be taken ilie way imi.t tommyrot with taw aunt IteloAttlatil3, J.ll4ite sbultid be takes without dsurinsinatioo. There was iii the Act of Pailiamtut which said the Master should use iliseiumilatiun. It so happened iu this case that no less ttau luaittuid ;summated a, special Jurors, had been on the Grand Jury which timed the Bill. Mr. Denman then stated, that only four special Jurors appeared on the trial. Mr. Wuolcr, on the swearing of the Ju►y, challenged the array ; but the Lord Chief Harou refused to allow a trial as to the competency of the Jesus so selected, on the ground that a special Jury could not be challenged. Mr. Denman stated also, u ground for a new trial, that the Sheriff had improperly summoned one of the July, a Mr. Samuel Beech, who could not attend In consequence of receiving the summons too late. Having concluded his argument, The Chief Justice asked the other defendants if they meant to rely on the points stated by Mr. Denman. They answered in the affirtnotive ; situ Mi. Wouler, in addition, moved is, person fssr a new trial, on the ground that the list of special Jurors was altered. Mr. Burch, who had stood originally twelve on the list, sate' we'd.' appeared to stand tin:fleets on the paper. The Chief Justice observes!, that the last statement was not sufficient to induce the Court to grant a hew trial. With respect to other mutters stated, the Court was des posed to grant a stile to skew cause. Mr. Denman accordingly took a rule to alscw cause. RIOT AND •flt•OLT.Tlie RING V. lIIELIDLICOMR, PER.. NUTT, ANDREWS. IPOINTIK, AND SEVERAL cummy. The Solicitor General prayed the judgment of the Court on the defendants, nineteen in number, convicted at this Bridgewater +wises of a conspiracy to commit a riot, and burn the effigy of ono Barnstaple, an assessor of taxes, and to injure a Mr. Howard, the o•yor. . One of the Churchwardens of the lilacs and the constable of the Hundred were among the timers. Mr. Justice Bayley delivered the judgment of the Court. The leaders of the riot were ordered to pay a fine of lON. each to the King. to be imptisutied three months io the House of Correction, Culdbuth Fields, and find sureties fur good behaviour. The rest were sentenced to small fines of ,l. and short imprisonment, and to find sureties fur their Lowe good conduct. NOT. 2I• FRAUD COMMUTED BY AN ARMY AGENT. TILE lif he V. iitinh• The defendant appeared, on the motion of Mr. Gurney, to receive the judgment of thy Court, convicts d in Mi• chiselling* Tints !before the Lord Chief Justice, of frandu• lently and corruptly iirgocialing tor the sale ot a commis skin in the 19th Light Dragoons, coutrary to the statute of the 19th of Geo. 111. This case was of considerable importance. In I -IS the defendant was convicted of a • lar attester, lay which lie obtained 4001. from a gentleman, as part purchase mo ney for a c 'ssion in the army. lie then pleaded ignorance of the statute, and praying the mercy of she. Court, was sentenced merely to return the 4011. which lie had improperly received. In the same year the defendant opened an office, as Army Agent. He was there applied to by G. A. Loraine, Esq. a young gentleman of respecta ble family, who wished to procure • conieley in a cavalry regiment. The defendant untrained hint lie had the dis posal of one in the 16th Light Dragoons, fur which lie must pay hank the saint of 1,200 gammas. Mr. Luraiiic paid 9001. as a deposit, and promised to pay the s emaindee so soon as the necessary business was transacted us the office of the Commander in Chief. only madam - fly Slits defendant had fur receiving the money was Isom Mr. Hodson, a Cornet in the hills Light Dragoons. he defendant bad applied by letter to that °Seer, asking hilt if he was inclined to resign his commissiun? He received a letter in euswer,stating, " that Mi. Hudson, if he could get 1.300 guineas for his co 11111 l lame, might he induced to quit the sword." On the trial it was proved that the defendant, although he agreed with Mr. Loraine to receive 1,200 g es 1;11* the cornetcy, was to pay Mr Hodson no inure than 1,0(01. thereby pocketing MM. contrary to 14w. In cousequeuee of lois refusal to retina the money, lie was indicted tut the offence, mid found Guilty. The defendant read Irons a paper a statement in min ;anon of punishment, but as it contained improper de famatory opener, the Court refused to hear it. Mr. Gurney addressed the Court fur the pruseenii 111 l , and expressed serves° that this defendant, instead or sheeting contrition, Mid conducted Innis% if with tiopai ai leled impudence in citation( the witnesses un the trial with perjury. Mr. Justice Bayley delivered the judgment of the Cone 1, by which the defendant was SI.IIICIICV4i 10 be imprison! d one year in the House of Coo ect ton, Cohlh.stit THE EINE U. t 4; Mr. Williams prayed the iiicitgoiet6t of toeCouri on the deft:Want, who via, found godly at the 6omes4et assists of a violent assault WI a fallow', •awed lilell4ldsole. After Mr. Moore had been heard m mitigation of pit nishinent, the Court sentenced the deft:odium to pay of 1001. to the haus, and Mid tutu elies w i‘eep tile it. ace for three years, himself to 3001. and two w CAN. each. Ancirni Sepukin sluff; di.staisce of S..urits de Cadourne, in the 'lc:pertinent of Gironde, in France. ihe remains of a small city, called Blinn, arc Still 10 irj seen. The existence of the place is to be traved to ihe earliest aces. It was destroyed by the Futelisit, tinder the celebrated Talbot. M. de Rotistaing, of Cadourne. Knight of St. Louis, was (lit:og for a drain, when he discovered a white marble tomb, of gipittic dimensions. The bass.) relive°, which represents soldit ts nt cititibt., is executed in the finest style. The figures h.oc served a wonderful expression. The 101111., ii life and soul which seem to exist nt iii ~ Hill,Nllloll, rays M. de Rou taiga , proves the whol:. to ie a t , ,ni l' e 11,0010 genius. ' Fite L , totscripon has sufl s -ti.d time. The lolloss tug is all that Al. kl. lIES beets able to collect al lottA'Ill: FaUU (ierm 1 V I DEIiALLLN . I Y. 1,1 NOE DVCI CALSAK. The interior of t 1 1 ,2 h cII I 1 I burial place and a pi ece o f m one y, tteh c % v d 111 a sesterte. NI. de Wm* staing intends waking the tomb a prer.rett h , ;ht. .No (tent). 01 Sculpture of Ruts. It lb coo.ithred a prettotta i 4 ejtl a t! llt the Arts rtr,l Sciences. Bets as piescnt are even on the battle to F. foli in he in January next between Spring and ()liver. they are IA ell matched, but of the two, Spring rather eems to be the favourite.