The National Register. — London, England, 1822-11-18 00:00:00

The Lord ChiefJustice—Yee, that will be the wore correct way. Perhaps they will be here to-worrow. Mr. Adolphus-1 will tale care to Lave then' as early as pOebIIIe. The Judges rose before two o'elock, to sit with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Lord Chancellor, the Earl of Hai rowby, Lad Colchester, Mr. Peel, &c. in the Court of Exchequer, fur the "election of Sheriffs to aerie for the year ensuing. LIDNESDA NOV. 13. Tilt KING v. DoLUY. This was • prosecution against the defendant, Mr. W. Dolby, bookseller, preferred by the Constitutional Society far the public.dion of a work entitled " The Political Dictionary." The cautie was tried before the Lord ChiefJustiee, at the sittings in Middlesex, and the Jury found a verdi t of Guilty. M. J. Evans moved fur a new trial, on the ground that the Coroner, who by rule uf Court was ordered to return • Jury, in lieu of one returned improperly by Sheriff Garret ; a member of the Constitutional Society had no authority to return certain per h Ullll to act as 'falesnien, in the event of a sufficient number of Special Jurors not being present. By the Act of the 42d of Edw. 111. it was enacted, that the names of persons to serve on inquests should he returned to the Court six days before the trial ; and in the 21 Hawkins, sec. 21, page oil, it was held that statute applied to criminal cases end to Tales Jurors, with the exception of Wryness de Clreirivast.ottitns. The $I era could not summon any set of Jurors without giving the parties the panne'. The Act of the Bth of William the Third gave no power to the Coroner similar to that exercised in the present case, and wide!' completely negatived the prom i sions of the two Acts of Parliament to which he had referred. lithe power exercised by the Coroner with respect to summon ing Tales:nen was allowed, that officer might be the means of packing a Jure. Judge Illyley —lt is a selection by an indifferent person.— It does not hear the invidious sense of the words packed Jury. Mr. Evans—l use the words in the worst sense. Lord Chi,fJustioe—You do, but you are not authorised to •se it in this. case. Mr. Es aus said he was prepared to justify the term he had u.ed by argument.. Lord Chief Justice.—lt is not necessary for you to go on i■ that line of argument. Mr. Evans then said, if the Coroner bad power to summon wham he chose. he might summon thole who had been struck out of the list of 48. Mr. Juice Bayley—Does not the Coroner take an oath of dire.? Mr. Evans—l believe be does, my Lord. Mr. Justice Bayley—ls it uot then bush to suppose Ise would be guilty in the way you suppose? 111 r. Evans said public (Akers were not exempt from political Kling. at least that was the opinion of the legislators who formed the enactments to which he had alluded. Judge Llayley.—lf the Coroner v as not to exercise his dis cretion will, reaped to summoning Talesinen, might not an ob jection be made on the other side, that the defendant might have friends of his own standing near Mr. Evans proceeded in his argument at considerable length. He wounded another point, which was, that the Sheriff was the person who ought to hav e returned the Special Jury, which was never challenged ; for which lie quoted the authority of the king and Edmonds, 4Sth Harnwill and Alderson. 171. lie quoted also, 2tl Voiotia, 173. Ile contended that tide was nut a public prosecution, but a prosecution carried un by private who acted on a political bias, &c. and not to be at all favoured by a Court of Justice. The Judges having consulted awhile, 'l lie Lord Chief Justice maid, that when these objections were taken at the trial, lie bad, on the best consideration he could give 4i them, thought they should not prevail ; hut being fully impressed with the importance of every thing which related to the trial by Jury, and that every thing regardis..; that important branch of the administration ofJurice should be duly con sidered (although without meaning to intimate any change in hi s o .ea opinion). Mr. Evans might take a rule to sliew cause. BECALM OF PHOMISE OP MARRIAGE. BEY !JOUR v. OA lITSIDE. Mr. Williams moved in ibis case, which was tried at the Somerset Assizes, fur a rule to skew cause why the verdict of 4th. damages in this case should not be set aside and a non-suit entered, upon the ground that it was not proved, as set forth in the declaration, that he had refused either to marry or con tract marriage with any other ; and the defendant pleaded, that he denied having broken the promise, and that he was Mill ready and willing to marry her when called upon so to do.— (Laughter.) Lord Chief Justice —lt is not the business of the woman to mill upon bins to usury her. It is bis business to perform his piumise, by asking her to be married, and then this Robin, which is fur noicperforinaoce of contract, will he abated upon the marriage taking place, Ths Court rejected the application. r. Lt:%. Sun. v. sitoUGIS. _ . This was an action to recover damages for assault and battery. 'the defendant pleaded that be kept a public house, and a hide before the assault the plaintiff came iu and conducted him self in a riotous and quarrelsome manlier, and on his refusal to 1,0 out, the defendant put his hand upon hint and turned Min out. The cease was hied before the Lord Chief Justice, at the Sittings after last Term, in 3liddleses; The plaintiff is the son of an auctiounr, and the riefendant, who is a respectable licensed victoaller, keeps the Swan, in Bury-street, St. James's. It ap peared on the trial, that the plaintiff and another person entered the J. femlaiit's parlour, and not only lung the bell with violence hut be.tati to stir the line in a moot off. naive way. The defein d.out Cutting there wan a dispositiun to behave in • disorderly manner, requested his visitor.. to leave the bouse.—They re fused, and the defendant turned the plaintilf out of doors. The tads of the case were !wood in a very able manner by a little boy in the sera ice of Mr. 'trough, and the Jury found a verdict fur the defendant. Mr. Chitty this day moved to act usitle the verdict and ob tain a new trial, on the around that the justification by Ate de fendant had not Levi's itle nut. Mr. Ncarlett also said he bad some recollection that his Lottlshiii at the trial intimated that the joint : keit:Wiwi Was Mut made uut. The Lord Chief Jsistice observed, that he could not have chugtil the Jury that wuy , because the evidtuee in support of the itistthea:in , 11441 some weight on his mind. Air. t hilly then adverted to the evidence, and patticularly to the uct of stirring the lite. The Ocular an his friends were driven into the defendant's house, be said, by the pellin4 rain. They willed for beer, and the defeialant refused to supply them, on the mare ground that they had stirred the lire. lie nest assaulted the and turned him out. It was the li,sl time Le had limad that stirring the lire in a politic house was sufficient to instil). an assault committed by the landlord. The Lord Cisitl Justice said, Mr. Chitty was not warranted in that cunclusion. Tile evidence proved improper conduct on the pit of the plaintilf and his comps .In ease the July fd 1 . 4.114 d a I dt,lict fur thu 11114461 r tiot dun ages 0111111 ha, e THE NATIONAL REGISTER been trivial. His Lordship, under idl the bearings of the case, allowed Mr. Chitty to take a rule to chew rause ; but recom mended, fur the benefit of the pubes, a ski precessme. TILE ICING v. HAIL. . 111 1 / 1 was a proceeding on a writ of q..ir imirranio, calling upon the defendant to sheYY by what authority he chums to be Regis trar and Clerk of the Court of Requests at Bristol. The question was tried at t.wi K.:sixes, and it mime before the Court in the form of a special case. The Judges bad tu decide whet:ter several commissioners of the Court of Reqn:sts at Bristol were resident told qualified to elect tile defendant to the office. Alter the case had been a!ily ar4aril by Mr. Selwyn and Mr. Adams, the Court took lime to deliver Omit judgment. ThURIDAY, NOV. 1-i. At half past nine, Mr. Justice Bayley name into Court, and immediately after Mrs. Susannah 1\ right entered, with a child iu her anus, and another in the arms of the nurse, supported by two mule friends, and three females in her train, and imme diately following entered Waddington, with a yuia n.g glass suspended from his neck by a bright purple riband, and Black stone's Conutientariem in his band. At ten, two 11101 C female friends of Mrs. Wright, young ladies of genteel appearance, whose father, we understand, presented her with live guineas on her trill, jollied the part), cud took their seats facing the King's Counsel. TIIE ILINU, ON THE PHoSECCTIoN OF THE SOCIETY FOR THE SUPPREs,,IoN 01 ICE, O. sUsANNAII U RIGH r. Mr. Gurney nan.ed the judgment on SuAannan 11 ri,ht, who then stood up ; rife at caned rather eledwute in her health— genteely dressed._ The Lord Chief Justice read the libel and sword of eon vi-tion, being a letter addressed to the Rev. Mr. Wade, of Bristol. The defendant being asked if she had any allidavit, answered in the negative. The Lord Chief Justice—Have you any thing to say in your defence t—A great deal, my Lord. The Lord Chief Justice—Then proceed. . . . . The defendant then proceeded to runt her defence in a clear and audible voice, from a manuscript.—l ant charged with pub lishing a blasphemous libel on the Christian religion—what in that religion ?—it in an anomaly. Mr. Justice lispey—W hat in it? Defendant—A non-entity—an anomaly-- Court—We cannot pursuit you to reVile the Christian religion in this Court. Defendaut—l am accused of disturbing the peace of our So vereign Lord the Kiog—now no libel uu religion can disturb his peace, whose conduct is itself— The Lord Chief Justice—We cannot permit you to go on in this course of senile. Mrs. Wright, attend to me—a greet deal of what you have attempted to read the Court canuot allow. That Christianity is a non-entity, is what we cahoot, as Judges and as Chriatiaus, sit here to hear, 11 you choose to go house and reform what you have written, you way come up another, day, and address the Court as to that which you think may avail you in mitigation of punishment. Mr. Gurney—That is written by some wicked adviser of her's, who bits behind her. Defendant proceeded—The thirty-nine articles of the esta blished church— Mr. Gurney—As that which the defendr.nt is reading has no more to do with the subject before the Court than the History of England, she ought not to be permitted thus to waste the time of the Court. Defendant (raining her voice)—But I will proceed. Lord Chief .1 ustice—We cannot bear you. Defendant—My Lurd, you refuse to hear me. The Lord Chief Justice—Let the defendant stand committed to Newgete for time to reform her address in mitigation of punishment ; and for the purpose of bein4 again heard, let her be brought up the fourth tiny of nest Term. 3G alibi* country tolerated any men following such relishes as he approved, or to discuss temperately the truth of all dontrimea. But this was a libel on the Bible in general, and impeaching that which we were taught to look upon with reverence. Ho had no difficulty in sayisig, this was properly described as a MO; and there was the judicious •.cotence of this Court, in the car...! of Carllie, that it Visit. The sentence of the Curt is, that you be confined for twelve months in C. Idhatti-fields, and to find security fur good helms iour fur lire years, youistlf in 5001. and two sureties in IUOI. IVais.dinglon-1 hope sour Lordships will allow me the use of pen and ink there. Cow Lave uothing to do with that. NV addington.—( kietiiing in custody.)—Thongh I Sid not tell this Look, I will bow to the sentence of taia Court wheu the Bishop of Clogher i, brought to justice.--(Laughter.) tIIAM ATTORNEV.—TiIi ILJAQULS. The defendant uppeartd to s.,ew cause a by the Court should not commit bins pursuant to the provisions of the Act of Par. humeri', fur having practised as an attorney in the name of Thaekeray without qualifica.ion, lie being only an attorney's clerk. The facts have been several times stated in our reports. The Court ou this occasion, read as much of the allidarits es appeared necessary to make them co.mimuit of the fact, which was clearly proved against the defendant, nut only on the re pout of the ouster, to whom the mutter was origii.ally referred, but on the defendanCa own I kn. which contained entries of money paid to Tharleray for allowing bins to practise. The defendaut alleged en this occasion that Chia was not a proceeding against him in open Court, and that witnesses ►hould hese been examined ri. a truce as before a eiai;ietrat,. noel the Court on that account atteuded with great patience to all the defendant had to °Kr. The Lord Chief Justice, after the defendant had concluded said, the Nitrate gave the Judges the power to commit fur any term not more than 12 mont.is, and the only question was, whether they ought to commit for that period or for less. The dukedom had submitted an alfid,vit, in which he represented the distress which had fallen on himself and family, by a vio lation of the law. The practice of acting as attorneys without qualification, was much cutuplaiued of. The ►entence of the Court was, that the defendant he committed to the prison of this Court for six calendar mouths. FUIDAY. NOV. 'this being paper day, the Court proceeded with 01115011 on the Special Paper. cunt: o. COLRIDGI •SD ANOTHCa. This (muse came before the Court upon a demurrer to t h e plea. The plaintiff is a solicitor, and the defendants are magistrates of the County of Lancaster. It appeared, upon a statement of facts, 'lint a person named George brown was charged wills felony, and being essusaintd before the defendants, the plaintiff presented-himself as the prisoner's attorney, fur the purpose of cross-examining witnesses, and producing opposing testi mony. The magistrates refused to permit him to be present, and not only prevented him from cruet-examining the witnesses, but turned him out of the justice MIR. The plaintiff then brought his action tor assault. The defendants justified and alleged that they bad a prisoner in custody, and that by law the plaintiff had no right to be present at the elimination.— The plaintiff, in his replication, said lie had a right to be pre sent. The defendant demurred to that, and the demurrer canto en tube argued. 'l he question was, whether at the easitainatioa before a m. gistrate of a person charged with felony, an attorney has a right to insist upon admission as a legal adviser of this party accused. 111 r. Colridge, in support of die demurrer addressed the Court, and contended that the magistrates' court was not a ju dicial trammel. They had only lower to enquire into the nature of any charge Nought under their cognisance. A ma gistrate had a right to examine privately, ■nd consequently go admit such persons only as he might consider necessary for the ends of justice. The magistrates in this case were justified is turning the defendant out of their Whet, and the action avoid not be sustained. The Common Sergeant, in support of the replication. treated this as a question of great importance to the public, imuniuch as personal liberty was deeply conceived in the reboil. A ma gistrate was bound to bear both parties with strict impartiality, and to allow the accused MI opportunity of proving his inno cence. The question *Gaul the liberty of the party, and every charge ought to be well investigated before the defen dant was sent to prison• lie contended that every perm' cc cured had a right to receive the assistance el his attorney, am' to deprive him of that right would be snaking a deep inroad upon public liberty. The phoutill, in the discharge of his 'MU. lessioturi duty, Mt muted the prisoner, and the magialrates were not justified in turning him out. The assault having been coin • muted under such circumstances, the plaintiff was entitled to judgment. The Court gave judgment ■t considerable length on the main question, mutely, whether an attorney had a right to be admitted to a ningistrate's room, as legal adviser of the accused under evainination.—The Judges were deafly of opinion uo such right existed. .1 magistrate was not judge of Lis coos. ; hu busi ness was to enquire, not to ilekrmine, mid that enquiry w•ta necessarily private ou some occasions. Income cases it might happeii, that the object of the magistrate was to discover thieves, and that object would he defeated if the attorney of the accused was peraiitted to Le ',rearm, because he might Bit e the thieves notice of the measures taken tut their apprehension. if attor ney s had the right to attend before the magistrates, they would a!so has e a right to attend before grand juries. hider all the circumstances, the Court gave judgment for the dekudanta. COURT OF COMMON PLEAS. rei DAV NoV. L. Mr. Justice Pork arrived i• 110.11 • few minutes before oa• o'clock, when the J•ry being sworn the following eawbe cam• on for trial. • NI:11)1AS 14 Day{Nor/. Sergeant Pell slated, that it wag an action, bronght by the plaintiff against the defendant, for money b. d and reeeit e. 1.-- that the plaintifr had gnat anfeett the payment of • hill of es • ehanNe..l.ll. 3s. lid. which the defendant not lionour,d, the plaintiff had p. id. The dt.fclidant in the action pleaded • the general ia.ne and sA otr. It appeared that the plaintiff had had cone good.. lodged in his h.dida, to the amount of 201. and upwards, but whi.li the !admit] had wrote defendant a tetter In take away, hut which lie had cot done. Jlr.J.oehua Wallace p.0, , t1 the aelbouledguteut of the de• fen.lltot to a letter put to, of hi. owing the phdadiff the money. The learned Judge directed the Jury to 1.11,1 for the phiihtifr damages 221. 3s. the Odic rence betwixt the amount of the hill• mot the Arnow:a or the goods iu the t.ossession of the leidad seesolliogly. Nlr. Abraham Nloore, bturister at low, Who left Engl tut abruptly al,out a year ag,n, died lately of tee yellow fever at New York. • r .4 draw— - 11! KIN*R wADnISGroN. The next judgment moved was that of Samuel Waddington. The defendant, addressing the Court, said he stood there zlaiming his right to be heard ou a motion for a new trial, and he should insist on that right. He wits silenced by the Court. The Lord Chief Justice read the libellous passages selected from •. Palmer's Principles of Nature," and the evidence on the trial ; and observed the defendant urged strongly to the Jury that tire witnesses were out to be believed who stated that Ire was the publisher. The defendant proceeded to comment upon the term special and petty jury. Mr. Justice Bayley cited Blackstone to show that a petty jury meant a special Jury, as cuntradistioguished f wra a grand jury. The derentlant then referred to the Unitarians being sane tioned by the Legislature, and the Judge's answer to the ques tion of the Jury. The Solicitor General explained, referring to the short-hand writer's notes. His Lordship merely des! fired, that to speak of our Saviour as he did, was against law, and a line',. The Lord ChrefJustice affirmed the truth of this interpreta tiou of what he meant by lire explanation. Mr. Justice Bayley—The Act of Parliament for the relief of the Luiturians was merely as to penalties for denying the God head of the Trinity. It tippears to nine w hat his Lordship said was perfectly legal, and the venlig of the Jury given upon that answer on,lit to stand. Defendant proceeded—The labels attached to the books sold, as well as the hooks themselves, might tie hrought there by the Bow-street ollicers, and sold in conspiracy with the person who kept the shop. Lord ChieiJustice—You ir tie concluded t—Yes. Mr. Justice Bayley thought it perfectly clear, it such pamph lets were sold in that shop, Ilial the person keeping the Amp was auswerable ; such person lending himself to the publication WAS guilty as yuriiceps It was for tile Jury to Oeter mine the fact that be had lent himself to the publication. Mr. Justice Holroyd was of opinion there was no ground for a new trial, and that the obeet vatiun of the Lord CliiefJostice to the Jury was perfectly correct, " that to deny the truth of the divinity of Chihli was a label," and the Jury, meter that di rection, had gi•en that veriiiu,, which was also perfectly correct. There was nu doubt of the evidence vs ailioiting the Jury its bailing defendant guilty Mr. Justice Beet concurred with his brother Judges. Def.wdaut being asked wheat he bad to sty Ire tuitigrfion,pro oeeded in an audible voice. Ile tailed their Lordships' atbm ,tion to the recollection, that for the judgment they pissed upon him this day, they would be called upon to remit e th.l judg meut of all nations before that august Being the Aniline of the UillTerar, who was outraged in his character of cZeillti tllllll and wisdom by this prosteutimi. 'flue Solicitor Geueral rose in wzgrat allot,. There ncve.• wan a more infamous, libellous, or blasphemous work, on say fo.•.tier oscasion publislod. The defendaut had tun,self Warn it churamer in his label. 31" Justice Buy ley proceeded to pn sentence. H. thoo,lbt the Jury could out hare come to tuadbet coucheatoo. Thu Itto Y~ ,~_ - . _ / ~'~` MMEM * ~~ e - Go