The National Register. — London, England, 1820-11-26 00:00:00

-- THE NATIONAL REGISTER hying 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 other country than that in which the libel was written and published. The King v. Butters proved that the route mast be laid, and trial bad, in the county where the offe•ice was comp'.eted.— The case was tried in tank 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 thy cease 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 similar 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 to him, the duty he owed to the defendant, not only as his advocate, but his personal ditty to him— and his duty to the public, compelled him, regardless of consequences, to honestly discharge it, fairly, openly, and fmrlessly. The Learned Counsel then strongly commented on the conduct of Mr. Justice Best at the Trial of Sir Francis Burdett at Leicest r. 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, on whose heart mercy ought to be engraved, should have put constructions upon the intentions of a defendant, to obtain a conviction, when an opposite construction could as fairly and more properly have been pot upon, the libel. The Learned Counsel then read the libel. and &Ir. 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 m 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 do way of judging of defendant, Intentions except by his acts, and he must say the writing was a most dangerous libel." After the Learned Counsel had read the above from the printed trial, and commented 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 bayoneted towards his client justly had he ditched from performing that duty which he had en trusted to him. 111r.Justice Best.—" L can auure you Mr. Black burn, that! am not offended at any thing that you have uid." Mr. Blackburn.—" I did not intend to offer offence THII KING e. JOSIIPM RUSSILL. The defendant, a bookseller, at Birmingham, was brought up to receive judgment, convicted at the War wick assizes of publishing twodeseriptions of libels; one of seditious, and the other df religious tendency. The defendant put in an affidavit in mitigation of punishment, stating that I , e was iporant of the contents of the paniphlet he published. Ile complained of the had state of his health, the loss of 'his wife, and being left with two children. The Court sentenced Wm to be imprisoned in War wick Gaol eight months, and at the expiration of that term fiod securities for hit 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 CoOrt could not send the defendant to the King's Bench, they could only give him the alternative of going to Coldhath Fields Prison. The defendant declined going to Coldbath Fields, and the judgment stood as it was originally delivered. THB KING V. BRANDISH. The defendant appeared to receive sentence, having been found guilty of publishing a seditious libel, which was a plain unegitivoral exhortation to rebellion. The defendant carried the manuscript to the printer, 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 251. each. KING V. 0110111. The defendant was brought up to receive judgment for a libel, namely, a printed address, to seduce the so,. diers ;rola) their allegiance, and excites them to act in opposition to the Government. The Court sentenced the defendant to be imprisoned in Coldbath Fields Prison one year. BATSON V. DONOVAN. 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 parcel by thedefendant's coach 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 plaintiffs 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 under the peculiar circumstances of the ease, the defen. dents were pot liable at common law, there having been a concealment on the part of the plaintiffs as to •the amount of the property lost.—Rule discharged. untiasna-r, stomata,: *O. THE RING V. CARTWRIGHT, WOOLIR, MADDOCK, Ink MOND', AND LEWIS. The defendants appeared in Court to move for a sew trial. to your Lordship, but was determined to discharge - Mr. Denman appeared as Counsel for Edmonds and say duty without considering who might be offended Maddock. at it.' Mr. Hill appeared for Major Cartwright, and Mr. Mr. Evans followed on the same side, and in a speech Wool e r was p repare d t o address the Court himself. re lose with legal knoWledge,ably suppo rted the doctrines I Mr. Denman then said, this was an indictment against alias Learned Gentleman who preceded him. The the five defendants, tried before a Special Jury of the Court, he contended, in the fair exercise of its authority, county of Warwick, and he hail to apply for a Rule to were called upon to put a liberal construction on the shew cause why a verdict against all the defendants should points presented as go round fur a new trial. not be set aside, and a new trial granted. The grounds The Attorney-General, at the conclusion of the on which be made this motion were independent of any thing which took place during the trial of the indictment. *ferments foe a new trial, waived his right to reply, and The ground he proceeded upon was the objection to the rhe Chief Justice intimated that the Court would mode in which the Jury was collected. Four special Ju. defer its judgment. tors and eight common Jurors formed the Jury. The first It is expected the Judges will deliver their opinions in II objection he had to urge arose long before the day of this term. trial. It related the - mode of appointing special Jurors After hearing several motions on points of ramie:, by the Coroner. According to the doctrine in the case of the Court ruse. the King v. Wooler, decided in that Court, their Lord. ' THE NINO V. H. HUNT. ships were of opinion that the Master of the Crown Office without right in nominating and selecting special Jurors Mr. Chitty said he had to bring before the Court the he exereisieg any discretion, but in the case before affidavit of the defendant, made with a view of obtaining some relief under the hardships and restraint he suffered terce ise , d fll i r i V e t r w ei n in u i l ai l l i i i er jitalriyatwiahso struck Crow 0 0:E t c: c hat t el . - in Ilchester Gaol. He did this upon the expectation February, .tar! the indictment tried at the Lent assizes. ' entertained by the defendant that the Court would in- At the moneat of strikieg the special Jnry, objection was ' terfere to procure him that treatment which the circutn- made wool reiterated. When the cause came to trial the stances of his case required. The defendant complailed I defendailts also objected, red cum Stained of partiality in that the order of the Court had been violated. When the Master of the crovin office. That circumstance will he received sentence, the Court stated that the defendant no doubt have great weight with the Court; but the fitst would not be subject to solitary confinement, notwith- distinct ground ot my application fora new trial is, that standing which he had been confined front nine in the the Master, in exercising discretion iu the nomination ni specialcannot sainviuncol li. morning to four in the afternoon, and k e pt in a close Pearson, J the es defendant's be attorney, and Jo y hn la w C —Chatles anna ight, dungents, without the power of seeing his friends. The Esq. both state that they attended an Friday, the 2:oh of defendant was not sensible of any impropriety of coil- February, beilore the Master of the Crown thrice, fur the duct, having never violated the decorum of the prison, poirpoose of striking a special Jury, and a book of the free. but had conducted himself peaceable on every occasion. holders was vendor:col, containing 9,.0) names. Major ' Mr. Justice Best.—What is the cruelty he complains Cartwright asked the Mason- of t h e Crown Office, w olio , oft—ln shutting him up from :sine in the uto 000 ill g to was the rule he followed in striking a Jury. Toe. Master four in the afternoon, without the power to see his said, he had been in die habit of opening the hook, and family. He states also that his life is in danger. taking the names as the) occurred. That was his mode. Chief Justice.—We are anxious to pm the matter in of selection; boot for some time he hail selected from the lust according to his own judgment. That being so, the such a course that an i nvest i gat i on ma y ta k e pl ace , f o r question is, Whether the :eli.ster of the Carton thrice is to • the purpose o f ascerta i n i ng w h et h er t h e d e f en d ant h as exercise his jnolgment and discretion in the selection of ' just cause of complaint. Ottly point out what the Cour t . perso n to .one on Juries a Molt the Valilellit'll oleo can do. Ili.beas Corpus will not answer your purlieu.. mot , the „ t na ss i ts say t h ey pm es i e d against ti l e pro- ' We have not power to alter the Order of Sessions. ceeding.—lt is of importance Cleat the aiaster of the Mr. Chitty then observed, he would move for a rule ' t •euivio Office should IMO select. ti . i IV! ~..gialmoire give to shew cause why the def e nd an t s h ou ld not h e allowal trim 111.11 power, it wouthi give I • comiamable op,ortira ilie same indulgence prisoners received in cases of Ind. • nit; of exercising partiality. The Court would ii. .me Allis demeanour. amortise, that On the list of Vi a, nit ks ,no fieeloool•fers Chief Justioe.—V ery well, take that rule to slew aol'"' I'll's; to ' 2 Ol O O rrst•tr% 4.,-; n. . :,„,,e ./ 1 .5 i , 4 ,: g 1 4 ..; I cause. We must h ear t h e ot h er si d e . 'I a l :ea rule callor3 L''l"" " 4 , ''' I. '' ''''`ii " 9 Ils' . I","" .1 ." wr i er ~ t ". g.1 " 41 I on the Gaoler o r M ag i strate . w hi c h you p l ease. that ~, 1;,•....111ii, Ilit' $ Wl'. 11; %. 1111 l .1 t rat t . Lau d s tle se- 1 14'1 t• 1 , 4 l . % a 11) 111%61111•C..... %I.'. I) . • .. I ‘lhilerVk' I, Mr. Chitty accordingly , ~:. ; rule to 'hew cause. 1;1, 11. 0 ~) ,e, e t i ; oMit to thea,•• ot .441MIIII'M h:. comet I THE Kt' u v. I.' WIS. give .4 er Jetiar% tv.ot. Vile , el . , 1 - 111 . a 1 1.1:6d men, lint le' 1 The Solicitor General irray - fl t h e '; , i ln.ttre.it of the ii...! In "'III" 11 1. ' pr. i . .! •lel '• ' ' ' l ' l .'" of '!G ' Court 0.1 the defettolaou, convictto - et ric e Is , .avekk r ." t 'F'' . :! .. 1 1 ":::: : / e l o :.' : 3 ," ..o . :',':, 1 ::' ''',. l. l ' %" 1 " 1: ) ,„ k :„ e 1 1 ,, 1 .7:; 74 ., assizes of publishing a libel. Mr. Lewi s addresser! the Co••nr, and twitu.sitcl t'• • "- - ‘`''t '""' roue: ..,o. g i " ' ") I** .. ' 11%. " I. I.• • ." L '' •' Al.l 4.C.10 , 1 at ors illSelt! • ilte I1:1 0 11 . 1. 0.• al 10 he taken judgment might stand over mull Thorsda on t!. • ground that he was an another - 'namely, 61..! way IllUbt co/malt:is I as ith low .1..ul ilop.stikalil), • cause, in whic ha motion 'namely, Jurors should be taken without discrimination. was to be made for a new trial. . There was nothing Or the Act of Parliament which said The Solicitor • General did not oppose the application, the Master should use discrimination. It s o happened n o and the jud gment was i put OH to Thursday. this case that au less than fourteen persons, uowtueted as a special Juten, bad bees es the Grand Jury which fouud the Bill. Mr. Denman *en stated, that only four special Jurors appeared on the trial. Mr. Woolen, on the swearing of . the Jury, chagrined the array ; _but the Lord Chief Baron refused to allow a trial as to the competency a the Jurors so selected, on the ground that a specr.: Jur" cot !d not be challenged. Mr. Demean stated also, as ground for a new trial, that the Sheriff had improperly summoned on. of the Jury, a Mr. Samuel Beech, who could net 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 t h e points stated by Mr. Denman. They answered in the affirmative; and Mr. Wooler, in addition, moved in person for a new trial, on the ground that the list of special Jurors was altered. Mr. Beech, who had stood originally twelve on the list, afterwards appeared to stand fourteen on the paper. The Chief Justice observed, that the lest statement wes not sufficient to induce the Court to grant a new trial. With respect to other matters stated, the Court was dis posed to grant a rule to thew cause. Mr. Denman accordiogb took a rule to stew MAC RIOT AND ASSAULT. — THE 1110 N. MiIIDDLILCONS, PER RU RUT? ANDREWS, POSITIR, AND easeful. OTHERS. The Solicitor General prayed the judgment of the Court on the delenthints, nineteen in number, convicted at the Bridgewater assizes of a conspiracy to commit a riot, and burn the effigy of one Barostupfe, an assessor of taxes, and to injure a Mr.. Howard, the surveyor. On. of the Churchwardens of the place and the constable of the Hundred were among the rioters. Mr. Justice Bayley delivered the judgmeut of the Court. The leaders of the riot were ordered to pay a tine of 1001. each to the King, to be imprisoned three mouths in die House of Correction, Coldbatb Fields, and find sureties for good behaviour. The rest were sentenced to small fines of 31. and short imprisonment, and to find sureties fur their future good conduct. /MOAT, NOT. ti. FRAUD COMMITTED BY AN ARMY AGENT. THE XING N. BURN. The defendant appeared, on the motion of Mr. Gurney, to receive the judgment of Me Court, convicted in Mi chaelmas Term before the Lord Chief Justice, of fraudu lently and corruptly negotiating for the sale of a commis sion in the loth Light Dragoons, coutrory to the statute of the 49th or Geo. 111. This case was of considerable importance. In 1 4 18 the defendant was convicted of a similar offence, by which he obtained 4001. from a gentleman, as part purchase mo ney for a commission in the army. He then pleaded ignorance of the statute, and praying the mercy of the Court, was sentenced merely to return the 4001. which he bad improperly received. In the mine year the defendant opened au 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 a cornetcy in a cavaliy regiment. The defendant informed him he had the rho posal of one in the 16th Light Dragoons, fur which he must pay him the sum of 1,200 guineas. Mr. Loraine paid 9001. as a deposit, and promised to pay the reniainder so soon as the necessary lousiness was transacted in the office of the Commander in Chief. The only authority the defendant had fur receiving the money MA4 a letter front Mr. Hodson, a Cornet in the 16th Light Dragoons. The defendant had applied by letter to that officer, asking him I if he was inclined to resign his commission f He received a letter in answer, staling, " that Mr. Hudson, if lie could get 1,200 guineas fur his ccmorission, might be i.iduced to quit the sword." On the trial it was proved that the defendant, altboalla he agreed with Mr. Loraine to receive 1,200 guineas fur the cornetcy, was to pay Mr. Hudson no more than 10.410. thereby pocketing 2601. contrary to law. In conse , ;uence of his refusal to return the money, he was 1 Itlicted .irr the offence, and found G.rilty. The defendant read from • paper a statement in mili gallon of punishment ' but as it contained improper de famatory matter, the Court refused to hear it. Mr. Gurney addressed the Court fur the prosecution, and expressed surprise that the defendant, instead of strewing contrition, had conducted 14111541 f 4,11. 1 1 unparal leled impudence in charging the witnesses on the to , ' with perjury. Mr. Jostiee Bayley delivered the judgment of 'he Court, by which the defendant was sentenced to he imprimm if one year in the douse of Cormetion, Coldbatii Field,. li!NO V. ISA 4C SENLIALL. 11r. Willi:tones prayed the judgment of toe Court on the . defendant, who was found „pithy at the autttetAct assizes a a violent assault on fareier, stained ktetoirds.m. fief. Mr. Moore had been heard in titstiga tom of psi niAttuent, the Court sentenced the defendant to pay a elite ef 1001. to the King, and find sureties to keep the peace for three years, uintself in 301 h. and two to I jul. each. Ancient Srpulchle.—‘V ithin a slim: tiii , taricc 0: S.-min in the depertment of Ci.trolitle, io Fr.nice„ the remaitis of a small city, called Brion, ar e still to he seen. The existence of the place is to be traced to the earliest ages. It was destroyed by the English, (Miler 1 1:"! celebrated 'fallmit. M. fi e Ilto ir t ;i i .. 1 Knigin or St. Innis, w..is tim or.:ie, tm lie • iiisenvercti a write marble tomb, of gigs de dimer.s: s. 'rite basso relievo, whiett represents sot. in in c , is e - z..iciiti7 , l in t!. • iiitest style. The liAttres kw , serscd wo iilerf I ex ! iressitin. Theatitletic bowls, the •••id whicio seem ,it exist in Ciis rays Ai. de rsintstaign, proves the whole to be J work of LO •ta 4enitts. The Chit, inscription 1'.14 st.ihmed :tine. the followittg is all tliat de Itonstatan has Ibeen aisle. to collect at present:— I rabts Germ N VI DEBALLENTEM MORS DVCIS 7 7 e interim of tit^ h contains z Iniriai id ire .1,4 , 1 a .;e2t tn . Money', isclii.ted 1.1.0 be a sosterce. Ai, de stains •• tlic tool:, iircsvrt t . ) .lu. Sc.ll . 1..„. Rirs.:. IL as considered a preenn.s ststo7.7 , the Arts and Sciences. Bets as present are even on the battle to te fought in January next between Spring and Oliver. They are well matched, but of the two, Spring rather eemb to be the favourite. ,~_; ~ ~~1 4 ,4 iiii .~• . . . I