The National Register. — London, England, 1823-02-09 00:00:00

k i 1 40. L4W COURT OF CHANCERY, FEB. INJUNCTION —FILItt;VIaN LOAN. At Ilia rising or the Court, the Attorney General said be bed a motion lc make of a must pressing nature, namely, fur au . it to restrain money from being rent out of this country • to what has keen called the Peruvian Government. Individuals have tome to this country in great haste, one of diem culling lonmelf are Celery Extraordinary, arid another tire Plenipo tertiary of the Peruvian mord/ ; but we may say, (coutinued llailearned gentleman) there is no such empire iu existence — we know nut the Peruvian government. It, however, there he such, we suppose that it roust belong to Spain—but it is unknown to us, and as a very large sum of isionay tea been 'mid into the bands of Messrs. Everett and Cu. hankers in . Lumina, for the purpose of supplying that loan, we pray un ' tretulf of the petitioners, Jones mid others. that they may be restrained from parting with such money—cur application is Diatit On ail UULLIA it of these facia. h is Lindsoip--Take your irsjuuctimi to restrain them until further u•dcrc. • COURT OF KING'S BENCH. aIuNDAY, FEU. S. Mr. Adolphus moved to strike °tithe Roll of the Court, Clarke and Isaacson, two attorneys. The application was made. on as affidavit, settiug forth that Brooks, (who had so narrow an e.cripe at a recent Old Bailey Sellllol3ll, where he was ca pitally indicted fur forgery,) applied to a person, requesting permission to sue for a debt of di. sad giving an iodemorty that be would not wake out a bill of coma. 14utwithstandiNg that engagement he ran the plaintill up a bill of 451. The •Urtnit on to date this wall dune iu the names of the attorneys against whom Mr. Adolphus moved the Court, sod that it had Bode 6111101100. The court granted a rule to sinew cause. Mr. Stuart moved fur a rule to show cause why an attorney of the Court. trillium name for the present Ire would forbear to. mention, should at be struck oil' this rolls, for sating as agent to an unqualified person in the country, and why that maim, whose name also be would cuuceal, should not be committed for his offence : and why a ennourt, green to that person, • maid :wet be delivered up to the defendant against whom the pre . eididiegs were taken. The party who acted as principal was not as attorney, but only a conveyancer, and he and his agent In town had both been concerned in the conduct of s suit, which they bad settled by taking payment oldie debt, sad a sognee.l of the costs. The Court granted a rule to strew cause. ThE KING V. Hai:GaAs% aIU MUTT. Aldo was a rule obtained in las► Terse by Mr. Searleta, call ing on the defendants to show cause why a criminal inform...ion should nut be tiled against them. The deferalaute are two of the Conimissioners appended under the local act far .paving, .lighting, and improving the town of Brighton; and the parties -applying for the rile are Magistrates of toe division. Between those bodice, disputes have fur moue time existed, respectiug the etude in which the act of Pediment should be curried tutu effect ; and this rule was moved fur on •thrse Lgroanda— brat, that the Commissioners had called a nieekrig of the sobs bitauta of the town, to consider of the conduct of the Magis trates: seouuti, that they had caused sre•olutioue. contui JJJJJ g libellous remarks on the Magistrates, to be .published iu the .local newspapers and third, that they had refused to send one set their belittles. when requested by the Magistrates, to amide sin quelling a disturbance in the town. ftl r. Murryatt now abu•ved cause against the rule. The Lord Chief Justrn . suggested, that it was highly desi rable that some amicahle termination should be put to the proceediegs. Mr. Scatted, on the part of the Magistrates, expressed his manners to accede to soy recommendation of the Court. Tire case was limn ordered to stand..over to give opportunity fora coloprenriae. At a later period of the day, Mr. Marryatt produced urshort affidavit of We defendants, stating that they bad been actuated by no wish to insult the magistrates, which Mr. Scarled.received as satisfactory and the rule was dos- charged. THE KING F. WM. FOX. 404 The Solicitor General moved kir the judgment of the Court on thin defendant. When called he did not appear aud uit an pilidavit that be isad been duly nerved with notice, his recugni wasices were entreated. THE [INC e. JOHN IRWIN. The Solicitor General moved for the sentence of the Court on OM defendant, who had suffered judgment to go by default to an indictment on .19 Geo. 111. c. 126, for pretending to sell to a ,person named A 111113211 a place in the Excise. A wan named .James Vs °Wall was charged with a participation in the olleisce, but. tad not been touud. The cirealustances of the case, as disclosed by the affidavit Of the prosecutor, were as follows:—Having been unfortunate is bu►iness, he caused an advertisement to be inserted iu the 7'iours newspaper of the 10th of May. 1810, oltering a reward to any one who would procure for the advertiser a permanent mercantile situation, and desiring letters to be addressed "P. W.,20, Fleet-inarket." A day or two after a letter came by the two-poesy post iu answer to the advertisement, request ing hint to coinexo Walker's-terrace, Mile-end-road ; to which place be went, sad there met the defendant Irvin. Jrviu told him the situation lie proposed to obtain fur him was in the Ex cive ; to which i.e replied that he was sit upholsterer, and .would prefer something in his own line, hut It yin assured him •that the salary attached to this ohlice was 901. a year, and that It also afforded considerable perquisites. Deluded by these representations, lie agreed to give eighty guineas for the situ ation, which was to he procured by the influence of a clerk in the Treasury, by whom the premium was to be accepted. On the next dry, Ashman was informed that it would be necessary to advance 351.; this lie hesitated to do ; hut °tiered to deposit the whole money iu the hands of some third persou, to be paid over as soon as he should be in the enjoyment of the office. lie was then introduced to Woodall, by whose persuasion he was ultimately induced to pay the 351. in notes and short dated bills ; the whole money was taken by W °Wall ; and a joint and several promissory note si.sed by Woodall and Irvin, for the .repayment of the advance in Eve weeks. When the note became due it was not paid ; and he called on Irvin, who gave Lim a bed and some other articles, not worth more than 51. in part payment. In prison, afterwards Irvin had uttered him 21. to give up the bill. tin the Isar( of the defendant, his affidavit was put in, setting forth that he hid kiwi& here the dupe of Woodall, and that lie had a wife end three children entirely dependent upon him tor sabsistence. Mr. Jas ice Bayley pronounced the sentence of the Court, inhielt was, that he should be i•uprisoned in the Hou►e of Cur receive in Coldhath-fields for sui caleuthr months. TIII: KING V. JOHN FIIOST. Mr. Puller preyed for the judgment of the Court on this de • fendaut, who was brondAt up in custody of Om gaoler of Mon- Leve Loot' vtilq at the 14.1 eaat4ea (ut that Tilt rM. REdniTtlk comely on two indictment*, charging him with the publication of libels un Mr. Tbontae Protheroe. The Lord Chief Justice directed that that the case should stand over till hluuday next, and that in order to Means, the gaoler of Monmouth, he should Le committed in the matt time to the custody of the Marshal of the Marshalsea. Mr. Frost thou retired in custody. Ccesikerrt V. WALKER. This was au action in the case for infringing the copyright of the air " Vire Henri !holes" with variations, composed by Mr. F. liallibrenner, and by him sold to the plaintills, who ate entieent dealers in musical instruments and publications. It appeared from the evidence of Mr. Kalkbrenner himself, hat in Juan or July, 1814, just at the tune when the Allied 4iovereigus slatted London, be sold to the ',Weigle the copy right ef• the sunk in question, with that of our or two other airs, for 301. which lie received. On Lis return to Paris, he sold the copyright of the mime work there, excepting England suit Germany, to Mr. Pleyel ; and it wa duly registered es his properly according to the law of France. The air conti nued on bale. by Messrs. Clementi, but no assignment in writ ing (which under the statute of Anne is essential to the copy right) was made to them till the 24th of January, 1822. In time, she work was sold opeuly in Paris, and Mr. Walker being there with his son,,inlBl7, purchased a copy and republished it at his shop in Soho-64min, where it has been sold since the regular assignment to the plaintiff at half the prise which he demanded of Lis customers. The Lord Chief Justice gave no opinion on the point of Iwo, but suggested that, as •it was of importance to musical profteeore,• it should be brought before the Court fee more solemn decision. A verdict was accordingly taken for the plaintiff.—Damages 2s. subject to the opinion of the Court on a special care. TKU La BAY , PER. 6. BLASPIIEMY.—JUDGMENTS. THE KING V. TONIIRRIUSE. The Solicitor-General moved for the judgement of the Coati on the defendunt,•foand guilty of publishing a blasphemous libel, namely, Palater's Principles of Nature. The Lord Chief Justice read his notes of the trial: The (10'41E111a Put 'in no allidevit in mitigation of punish ment. The Solicitor-General also declined petting in any on the part of the prosecution. The defendant addressed the Court, and read front a paper, the ground on which, lie said, the Court ought sot to pas& judgment on him. On the 20th January. lie was tried, he said, and found guilty upon the evidence of phi:, officers, who swore the book was sold in Carlik'e shop, but not one would swear be deliver ed the book. No one could say lie sold the copy which was the subject of prosecution. The Court bad no evidence of his having published the book. The Jury fonud him guilty, not upon the evidence, but in consequence of his LIMN tittered a hasty expression.—The defendant was proceeding .l a strain of violent abuse, directed to the Judges and Jury wilts tried him, when The Lord Chief Justice said--" If you forme the Court to hear whet it is our duty not to hear, we have tasty one course to pursue." The defendant then said he was not disposed to mask his principles, which were like those of the philosophical work he had sold. The defendant complained, that he had ant had a fair trial. lie Was weltered to make a defence, which must have made an impression on the Jury, had lie not been inter rupted by the Judge. Their Lordships, as Judges, had nothing to do with religion.—Lord lisle said the Courts of Law La Ho poweeto take cognizance of religious offeuces. The duty of defending religion devolved on the Church only. The Church, in early times, burnt heretics without the Court of King ' s Bench. lie was one of the heretics of Om present day, and he complained of a religious inquisition, which was now as delusive as witchcraft its the 16th century. Ile had been stopped on Lis defence by the Judge, on the ground that he was not taking • legitimate course. The word legitimate itself was so odious that he might almost apologize for using it. The Bolicitur-General said, in aggravation—l shall nut make one observation on the general topes introduced by the defend , alit, but with respect to one pond, 1 merely wish to advert to wLot had occurred at the trial on the fact of publication. The ilerendast said at the trial—" 'I lie sale of the hook 1 do not deny ; 1 was bound to sell it in the discharge of the duty I owed my employer ; Palmer's Principles of Nature was no libel, but au honour to every persou who might have it in his possession. !" The Lord Chief Justice.—l called the attention of the Jury to that point. Judge Bayley then delivered the Judgment of the Court.— W' Tunbridge, you are to receive the judgment of this Court, after having been cut icted upen information tiled by his Majesty's Attorney General for publishing a libel. The law of this country tin the subject of religious opinions is ax liberal as the law its any other country in the world. It allows every man to judge for himself. It prescribes for no mail. It leaves every one to adopt any particular species of worship, but it does not suffer that any men in a court of justice, or elsewhere, shall enter into argument to sliew Christianity to be an abuse, when it is the etitehlislied law of the land. Yuu may not be aware what mischief you may do, and huw high the religious crime stay he you will hive to answer for, if you shelie'die religious principles of young persons who have no opportunity to study red confirm their inuile of faith. if you take from their minds all moral and religious impressions, you may be the author of all the crimes they conouit. This is nut a.pheoe for the discussion of principles of Christianity, hut I may say the best and the wisest nieu who have applied their minds to the subject have the honied belief. No man eau have attended to the reading of this libel, without feeling it is an abuie, that it is likely to contaminate the minds uf youth. The 000 rt taking iutu consideration the circumstances of your offence, and believing it to be their bounden duty to protect p who have not the opportueity to obtain information sufficient to rebut the effect of there publications, do order and adjudgb, that for this offence you he imprisoned in the House of CIO% remind Coldlnith-fields, two years that you pay a Sue to the King of 1001. mud bud sureties fur Gee years, yourself in 1001. and two others in 501. each. 'the defendant.—lt is a sentence worthy of a Christian court. It is worthy of a Court that— The Lord Chief Justiee.—thge e r t a k e hi m away . The defendant then kit the court in custody. TIM KING o st'ssNNAII WRIGHT. Mr. Gurney moved the judgment of the Court on this de- Content. Mrs. Wright, attended by a female friend came into Court. She proceeded to tend an address—in effect—that after some months' imprinonntent, among felons, shelled cause to complain. The Lord Chief Justice refused to bur her defence, which had compelled her to get it printed, and seed it to their Lord -011111%, suit hoped they bail tend whet she intended to teed as bet deteuce. bite Lurid to contend uuw, as slit did thew, that - I to deny lbe troth of obrietiunity -was not spies. lair. Jnatice Bayley referred to an act of Parliament which r. side it penal. Defendant proceeded.—You declare christianity to be • divine system, toe act h,r tnleiatiug the Unitarians says it is not so, nor against law to deny this. The .Court iuteriuptcd.—lt saes against the oath of the Judges to perueit a defendaut to read that which was against law. Befendant.—Your Lordship refuses me to proceed, but I persist with my defence. Could any thing be called law against an Act of Parliament which said what the law was? Mr. Justice Bay ley interrui ted the defendant in these words NV right, the sentence of lb.- 4..;oart is, that you be isms ` poisoned for 11:1 months in the House of Correction, Coldbatk . belds, to pay • fine of 1001. and to find two sureties for your good behaviour for live years, in the arm of 501. each, and to be further imprisoned until *rich fine be paid, and such sareties entered into. The defendant, on being ushered out of Court, I hope your Lordship will give me a ,check on ,our banker for the summit, as 1 shall never be able to pay it." THE KI SG V. JOHN STURGES. The defendant was brought up to receive judgment, having been found guilty at the sittings after last term, at Guildball.of making an indecent exposure of his person to several youns female*, in Mouriielda. The defendant put in his affidavit, stating that he had lest the situation lie held previous to his conviction, and (halite bad been smicted with a disorder in his eyes, which would deriti• him of the means a supporting his family. Other affidavit.; described the defendant to be a man subject to paroxy snis of illnesss, which produced ietervals of mental derangement, and that previous to the offence for which he was to receive judgment, be was known to be • moral man. The Lord ChielJustice said, there was a circumstance in the affidavits which induced the Court to think it would be better the defendant should come up fur judgment peat Term. The defendant was accordingly admitted to bail to lie brought up next Term. FRIDAY, KER. 7. This day 22 smugglers were brought up by writ of Bairns Corpse from his Majesty's ship Severn, where they bad been detained by the Commaiider on suspicion of the murder of • man named Cullum. They w ere marched along io double handcuffs, ironed, sad in charge of constables, with au ollicer in military uniform, whom came into Court with a letter in his hand, which lie handed over, together with the key of their irons. On their irons being struck of they were drawn up, 22 in Dumber, on the flour of the court. The letter which was here read, was from the captain of his Majesty's ship Severn ; in it they were charged with nuogglitig and also with the murder of Vi illiam Cullum, on whose body an inquest bad been held, and a verdict of wilful murder re turned against some persons unknown. It appeared that Colima was shot during the light between the smuggling cutter (aim unknown) and his Majesty!' revenue cutter, the Badger, ot tin coast af France. The smugglers lost three men in the coo lid, on whose bodies a coroner's inquest had bees bald, and a verdict of Justifiable Homicide returned. The smuggler was laden with tobacco and spirits, and armed with six-pound oars 'wades and • variety of small arms. On the Badger com mencing a warm fire of caution and small arms, the smugglers cried out for quarter. but they afterwards bred upon the cutter. by which tire one man was killed and three or four men were ounded. k.7Mr. Brougham contended that the defendants were estided to their disclffigge, having done no more than this deka* themselves on the roast of France when attacked. They were only suspected of smuggling, and there was no ground to amigo any individual with the murder of Cullum. The court committed the defendants to the custody of the blar.bal of the King's Bench, to be delivered over to • Mr gistrate for examination on the charge of reorder. THE KING v. DUNKER Y AND HILL. Mr. Searlett moved for • rule, calling on two msaistralaaalf the county of Suffolk to ahew cause why a criminal tuformedim should not be filed against them. He made this application ems behalf of the proprietor of a waggon which carried paresis be ',peen Norwich and Thetford, and who resided at Norwich. Is August last a quantity of genie was, on the road, taken up by his servants, and seized before it reached its place of destbsa• lion. Of this transaction lie was entirely ignorant at the dome end when be was informed oflt, Ice dismissed every atm Wee could possibly be implicated froni his aeryice: Tu kin ffreat surprise, in the month of November, - he received • 011111111111111 from the defendants to Appear before them and answer inform. tions on sth Anne c. 14. for exposing game for sale. He at tended, and produced evidence to show his entire ignorance of the tact ; but he was convicted in penalties to the nisoinst of 1501. ; and the magistrates, iu drawing up the conviction s omitted to state the evidence on which it was founded, and ob atis.ately refused to insert it. 'He was therefore left without any means of redress; as the decision of the magistrate* was fival. The Lord Chief Justice expressed his opinion that the learn ed counsel had shown enough to entitle bins to a rule ; but sug gested that, as the magistrates had probably acted wider en erroneous impression as to the law, that the better Course would be to like a laumicamm, directing Mena to insert the evidence, and to give nutiee of a motion for a certiorari to remove the conviction. , Mr. Scarlett assented to this proposal and took his writ of nimilisuis. In the course of the morning Sir Hudson Lowe name into court to swear en affidavit, on which he inteirls to found a mos flout for a criminal information against Mr. O'Meara. It is us deratood that the motion will be made on Monday. The pre sence of Sir Hudson Lowe excited mach curiosity in the body and avenues of the court. COURT OF COMMON PLEAS. FRIDAY, FEB. 7. TURNER V. MEAMOTT. in thin case an action of *moods was tried at the last assines •f Guildford before the Lord Chief Hawn; the plaintiff in which bad been tenant of ■ small house belonging to the de fendant, at 3s Gd. a week. Raving received the regular notice to quit from the defendant, the plaintiff removed some of his goods to another house. At the termination of the period spe cified in his notice, lie landlord went to take possession, but found thes, house locked up, and uninhabited. lie therefore broke it open with a crow bar, and put soother tenant in pos session of it. The plsinfiff under these circuonstsnces brought his action. The Chief Baron held on the trial that the law would not justify a man to take possession of his house in tbis way, 4. such violence might lead to a personal battery, and perhaps murder. The Jury, therefore, gave • ♦erdict for tie plainto tr. Mr. Sergeant Tinkly having on a former day aLtaiued a rule ni.i lot 1111tW 111,11. 1