The National Register. — London, England, 1811-06-30 00:00:00

THE-NATIONAL RECII-STER. The Court objected to his reading it, unless it really tended to mitigate the Defendant's punishment. It was in vain for him to endeavour to shew there was no malice in the publications; de famation imported malice ; and he admittted he publi s h e the libels advisedly and upon inquiry. The Defendant then confined himself to an attempt to do away ari idea, that the latter part of the last libel might be con strued into a ridicule of Mr. Hallett for not breaking the peace. Lord ELLENHOROUGH-It states that Mr. Hallett had pro mised to give his brother-in-law satisfaction; but had cowardly declined to give him a meeting, where he would have received the summary chastisement he merited. I don't commend your disLretion in drawing our attention to that part of the libel. The Defendant said, the libels were on Mr. Hallett's public conduct. Lord ELLENBOROUGH—But still that is part of his conduct ; and you have no right to drag his private conduct to illustrate his public. Mr. PARE supported the prosecution. Had the Defendant relied upon the judicious conduct of his Learned Counsel (Mr. Garrow) at the trial, he should not have pressed this case. But now he felt it his duty to call the attention of the Court to the circumstance that the first libel was pubiished in May, 1809, and t hat it was not till the appearance of the second, in September 1810, that the prosecution was instituted. It was true, that the Defendant did not write the first libel, but he adopted it; and be actually penned the second, from the composition of which Mr. Park should not gather that l►e was that man of education Mr. Garrow described him to be ; for it descended to down right ribaldry, calling the prosecutor a dug-butcher, and trump ing up a story about his wantonly killing a lady's dog. Mr. Park knew nothing about the lady in the King's Bench of whom the Defendant talked. Mr. Justice GROSE, in passing the sentence of the Court, told the Defendant, that the law was open to Mr. Hallett's relation, if she was aggrieved ; and that the defendant had no right to deal justice. between the parties. This being a private libel, the Court sentenced him to 3 months' imprisonment in the Mar ehalsea, and to find security for 3 years, himselt in 5001. and two sureties in 2531. each. WEDNESDAY, JUNE 26. TIIE KING V. NIACDONALD. The ATTORNEY-GENERA L moved the judgment of the Court against John Macdonald, a printcr, in Oxford -street, tor pr i:tt ing and publishing two libels against the Rev. William rreland, Vicar of Froome, Somersetshire.. He was sentenced to three months imprisonment for each offence, and to find sureties for good behaviour for three yearss. sivroanar, JUNE 23. John Roope was brought up for judgment, having been con victed of a libel upon Thomas Pack, Fsfl. late Mayor of Nor wich, vilifying his character, and holding hurl up to public opprobrium and disgrace. l'he libel complained of was con tained in a publication of the defendant's, called Mt. IV Ally Letter, and purported to be a speech of the defendant's, spoken at a Corporate Meeting, convened to return thanks to the then late Mayor (the 'prosecutor).—The defendant put in an affidavit of one of the Magistrates, stating that the Grand Jury, before whom the indictment was preferred, was chiefly composed of persons who had served the office of Mayor and Members of the CorpSration ; that upon the trial the defendant did not state this circumstance, least it should there aggravate the case against him. The Court held that this affidavit was a great aggravation of his offence ; and he was sentenced to three months imprison ment in the King's Bench Prison, and to find security fur his good behaviour fur three years—himself in 3001. and two sure ties 1n 1501. each. Mr. Garney, on behalf of Baron Keinrulph, moved for liberty to inspect certain papers which had been in the posses sion of Mr. Sedley, and which papers, he stated, would com pletely exculpate him from the charge of conspiracy, preferred against him and Mr. Sedley ;—one of the papers alluded to, was some confidential communication with Government, which he did not desire to inspect. Mr. Gorraw, on the other hand, opposed this application, which he contended was a novel one, and not such as the Court could grant, according to the practice. As to this important Government document, which had been alluded to, he believed no such paper ever had any existence, except in the imagination of Mr. ,sodley. The Court refused the rule; but it was on an understanding that the Learned Counsel should have an opportunity of looking into the papers alluded to. Tint KING v. De You oz.—This case being called on for Special Argument. Mr. Gurrow observed, that it had been already ar ' s ued in tke Exchequer Chamber, and the Judgment of that Court was now pending. He therefore wi,hed the case to stand over until that Judgment should be pronounced. Lord ELLENIVIROUGH sold, he should communicate the Judgment of that Court in the course of the Term. The case was accordingly postponed. COURT OF COMMON PLEAS. TOZSDAY N , JUNE 2S. WARDEN V. BAILEY. Mr. Serjeant Frere moved the Court, on a former day, for $ rule to show cause why a nonsuit in this case should not be set aside. It was an action brought by a Serjeant in the Bedford Militia, to recover damages for false imprisonment. A nonsuit was entered at the trial, on the ground that the Judge had no jurisdiction over the military proceedings against the plaintiff, who had been confined previous to being brought to a Court- Martial. The facts, as state'l, were as follaw :—Mr. Whit bread, who is Colonel of the Bedford Militia, had established a military school for the insrruction of the soldiers ; they were to read and write, and pay eightpence a week. The plaintiff, who was described to be incapable of writing out his returns as a Serjeant, was arrested for refusing to attend the school, and confined several weeks, previous to being brought before a Court-Martial, by which he was acquitted. A conditional rule having been obtained., Serjeants Salon and Blosset this day op posed it, and contended, on a variety of cases, that the nu so=t could not be removed, nor a new trial granted. Mr. Serjeant Lens was heard at length in support of the rule, but the Court refused, in consequence of the lateness of the hour, to hear Mr. Serjeant Frere on the same side. Judge MANSFIELD observed, " 1 take it for granted, by the length of these proceedings, that what has been suggested by the Court is not practicable. Nothing can be more unkind than a dispute here between Officers and soldiers, and this leads us to think it is not the imprisonment that is the foundation of this dispute, us two actions (one has been brought against Mr. Whitbread) could not have been brought for one imprisonment, and no disputes can be so unpleasant as those which tend to re duce discipline. Without that no army or military force can be of use. Disputes of this sort tend to produce the most mis chievous consequences, and every body who is a friend to the army and the country would not wish to hear any of this. Victory appears to be what the parries want in this case. Sup pose the order was for the plaintiff to go one day in the week ' to read and write, at eight-pence a week, we cannot believe this was felt as a grievance by the men, so ignorant as they were ; it would be advantageous to them. They might read and write, and eight-pence a week is money next to nothing in value. These considerations make me think, and every motion able man, that the object of these actions is partly to gratify the prevailing passions which agitate both ponies. The Colonel must think that it was a desirable thing to instruct these men, and in the opinion of Officers it is useful: but some men% ere found not to obey the order of any Officer, useful or not. I should wish you to come to an accommodation, if not justice must take place." Mr. Serjeant Lens said the plaintiff could not take any other steps. Mr. Serjeant Sellon observed, that he would communicate the observation made by his Lordship to the f.illicers. Serjeant Frere—" The injury we complain of is not the school, but the imprisonment width we suffer; and we say, that before the strong hand of power is exercised over the subject, the par ties should be governed by law." Judge Mw NsF I e en.—" Every order should be according to law. I cannot say that the order for merely learning to read and write can be a great grievance. If it did not break in upon military duty it is of great use: to a suklier when he is not a mili tary man. There is another point in the case as much to be lamented as the orders, namely, seditious expressions uttered by a man who disobeys an order. The expressions may not be made mutinous, yet they may he improper to use to an Officer. Mutiny is any word or thing that excites disobedience to as Officer." The Court then rose, and the argument will, of course, be re sumed, unless the proceedings are ebanduned by both parties. WEDNESDAY, JUNE 26. BP OMB "iCK V. TAYLOR. Mr. Taylor, of the Opera House, in the year 1798, borrowed of the plaintiff the sum of 600 L and accepted bills for the py rnent, and as a further security, gave the plaintiff several silver tickets of admission to the Opera. It was also covenanted toat in case the produce of these tickets amounted to more than the money borrowed with the interest, the surplus. should be pau.: W