The National Register. — London, England, 1823-01-26 00:00:00

ti ~*. .30 BANKRUPTS. tF i' I It 1( ININIP 1.11161. a.. FROM TUESDAY NIGHT'S *C4117.77111. • I 11. Smith, Tooting, Surrey, victualler. -liable's., Mr. Floated. East Picea, Lambeth. J. Williams. ?inner; Hall. Old Broad Strost..merchants. • Sols. Medal. SWII;11 Co. •OA Jewry. J. Chalk. Illschf.iar• arch maker. Sob. Messes. Young MY' CO. St. blil.lreMsl:mrt. 'Poultry. W. and T. liclmy. Heck irke. No .n ttingitoshire, hemp deal ers. Sol. Mr. Ilwks, Grey'. Inn Seu..te. R. Stinson. krlley. Wome e terehite, grocer. Sob. Ninon. • Collett and Co. Chancery lane. S. s a rkocll, Whi s tones. Worcestershire. hop merchant. Sole. Messrs. Car:lale an.: Co.- Gray's Inn. J. t hike, brimol, grocer. Sols. Aleuts. Vizard and Co. Lin . can's lon Fields. J. Wii g ig Northamptonshire, horse dealer. Sol. Mr. Jeye.., Chancery Lane. .1 Srghni. Pdffolk, fa MCI. SAG. Messrs. Dark: and Co. Chanc.ry 1.. no. OIVIrtl*NoS. Feb. 46, H. Clerke anal' F. Gotalty. Liverpool. merchants-- • 14, T. Edmunds. C..141C SO I ::.1. C. &igen-hire, vim:v-44. R. LPlntoe44t. Fuca tlntecr—t 1, W. Nicholson, Kingst..n u stet 11101, wrochent. CERTIFICATE . : to '.c -ranted Feb. J. tover.asslithr=H: Crockett. sea. limldenham. Bucks. grocer—J. Hedington; Jun: York. gore —T. Cireethanr, ACk „port, burecun..G.:French, Whiteemycl Road, provision ...,eat tall===m ll3.lll... .L4W INTELLIGENCE. COVRT OF ICING'S BENCH. MONDAY, JAN. SO. Lreib--eesnmee's eatocreLes OF NATITRE. TIIE 'LINO T. TIIIORIOOS. The Solicitor Central elated, that this was a prosecution for a blasphemees libel, against 'the defendant, one of Carlile's shoran. The loaned gentleman .eeferred to the machinery .by which these publioatiens were covertly sold, is f o r ease of Waddington. Rse. the publication by the defendant took place :Ina similar way. He costonded if eves the defeadant was not the secret agent, yet if acti tg.ia concert with the secret agent, es the screen or sisopatao, he was torten, guilty. Willlaut Sinith, a Bow-street officer. went to a shop, No. G, Water-lane, Fleet-street, on the 30th of August last—Burton and Duke went with him. %.`1 itness went down on the right bend side, Berton and Duke ea the left. The other two officers went to the public-koose nearly opposite the shop—saw the defendant, Tunbridge, at the door, looking up Fleet street.— The witness looked in, and saw as yon enter the dour that 'there is a partition, and you turn into the door to get into the shop, but as to die hank room, or part of the shop where wit ness received the publication, witness spoke to the del - cadent for a eopy of .• The Black Dwarf," which be received from him, price Gd. Winees then ached fur " Palmer's Principles of Nature." Defendant said he did not sell it, but pointing to • dial with the names of books and prices affixed, he said— Yon can get it there." There was a spout from the .door above. The defendant went from behind the cornier, and couple-, mid turtling round to the left behinsl the partition, went into the passa,e behind the partition. Witness saw upon the list before the defendant went out of the shop, the node of Palmer's Principles of Nature," the number and the price.— The dial was against a partition as yen enter .the shop. He .ohen went to the hand, and moved the number seat the book— the book then came down. Witness turned rend to • boy, wise said It won't stood there." Witness saw the affixed vices, au.l put the money in, and thee the book came dews the spout throng!' the partition from a back room, net through the ceiling. Witness pet into the spool two half crowns, which was the price of the book. It was " Palmer's Principles of Nature." W hone then went out of the shop, up the lane too ards .Fleet-stnet—lie looked back, and saw the d. readmit Tunbridge at the door, looking the way witness was going. The produced is the book which witness marked before he parted with it. The name of•Carlile was •oe the door. Cross-esamined by the defendant—lles belonged to Bow street three or four years ; was before a calico drawer; has been in the post.uffice, and then went who the velvet fancy trade. Defendant—You say you purchased it of me, and I told you where you would get it? Wharfs anewered in the affirmative. Asked for the pamphlet shoat the Dialog.. of Clo„her and the moldier, and also a bunk publialied by Cohlovtt ; purchased it for Piston, wise belong.' to the Bow-street office ; will swear that the mark ow the book it his hand writing ;,percheeed the book because he knew there was a comietion snit before; will not swear that the defeadant sold it him, but that he told him where to get it; does ant know the defendant would have sold it if he bad known him to be a police-ulcer; has read !! Palnier's Principles." page 2t ne , entleat—Did it induce you to feel contempt for the Holy • Scriptures Wateemv—li certainly did. On beiiig. esCa d to espledn, witness aaid be felt a contempt for the book.—(A laugh.) On a further eiplanatioa whites* said it produoed no erect on him whatever. Defendant—Did it cause you to break the public peace ? 1N o. Vie I nid Chief Justice observed, that it was not ecceveery er usorl to read the whole of the information ; the attention of the July would be dii ected to the substance, as it wcu'd mvuny unnecessary time to reed the whole. The lira count in plie into.rnation was here read, se.ling forth that defendant Wag • wicked and evil disposed perste, published the libel in question. The Defendant then "rose and addressed Om Ju• y. He arid the author of the work, for which he was prosecuted. was one of the greatest pliilosopliess of the age in which he lived ; he had Inhumed incesvn;ly to soot oat the pond' of soi.c-sii. tuition, and sow the set I:4 of pliopophic *Wm and divine truth thiongb the e)e .it science and nature. He would show that to yipped thja doctrine of libel the law had been pe• vc , t;sl by Judges and Julies. Mete was nu sientlx.d of orifoisnity in theolre g ierl opinions among men :as well mi , ht you rssi-ein tile tides ui• the turbulence of the ocesu ; as well nodit you eosiige or alter the seasons. as to stein pubqc opinion and public discussion un those milijecte. He tenni to defend every see tesee, and to show that not one of them was at variance with the priuciplea of the cei.aViihed laws of Cie land. if the Ja-y were no: aatiafiisl that there was no di.ect evidence of bin having published this book, he most proceed with a very long defence. Ile mast pat !t to the Jury to say whether the Own liorenen were ...ee f.ont every book of this description. He you'd prove that be was free from every thing that could I • r the col.oir of malice. He would defend the publication po I this ground, that " Palmer's Prioeiplcs" wits a book free frees ev ry - THE 'AI. REGISTER - - lahrreaoe or motive. Ile would show from •eery seatence thatit wag -a !Kok of tie highest moral chancier; sad. ad we, ling to the act passed to relieve the oonseiences of 'Jails rim's, he srld the Legislature bed 'sectioned the denial of the godhead of the Tinily. The act was ezpresely entitled, "An act to relieve these who (tooled or impugned the truth of the Holy Trinity.' Lord Chief Josti e—No-sooh thing ; it it an act parsed only to relieve hu m us peasities incurred under a formes-statute. Di foldout persisted these were thn words of the preamble of the ant in question. This did the Le; t islator: themselves per- . wit the impugning the truth of the Godhead of the Trinity, ; *loch the Attorney C I told the Jury was part and playa of tie land, and that it was a libel so to impugn. He dared the Atte% ney Gene. al to prove any thing immond in the book ; iterwd him to ohject to it ea any other ground thus because it (lid not preach up tithes sod times ; because it did not licence rippreseimi and violation of publio law and jostice, by suproetiog public robbery end pablic enrropi ion. The Lord Chief Justice interrupted the defendant, who averred 1 . .al the Christian retinue could not he libelled, be muse it was in Hoot( libellee., absurd, blasphemous, and against law. Defendant—l will coodoet my defence in my own way. and • not as your Luedilliip may please In dictate to nit. The Defendant wits piviceeded —.What weld the Jury root ict hint of publishing?.—.a book of criticism—that was not against law—cont•ining onanswerable nrgomenta--that was not Rattiest law. Denying the Div isity of the Christie' religion was sot against law. Lora Chieflustice--Yea it is, I tell you so. - The defrodant then read the book, and coationed reading till one o'clock. The Lord Chief Justice said, the object of the defe-alant's reeding was to defame the Ch. Maui religion, which it was his ditty to prevent. One of the Jury also observed, that se the evident object cf the defendant in reading the libel was to defame the Christian reiigioe. their winds were sufficieuily made up. The defendant persisted in gniag on with the reading, con tendincit was the essential groond of his defence, and that it was impossible be could here a fair trial, if the Jury refused to LOH Rine out. The Lon: Chief Justice said, that unless the defendant re frained from the course of defence which he had adopted, after what bad fallen Lem the Juty, his duly would be to order him to stand committed. The Jury, without hesitation, prononneed the defendant— guilty. The Lori Chief Justice ordered him immediately to be taken out of Court in custody. The defendant, iu the bands of the tipstsff, exclaimed, " The Jury hare not beard my defence—l hare not had a fair vita— lise Jury bare been packed." O'BRIEN e. COOTTS. This was an action to recover leas aostaimed bresob of contract. The plaintiff bad Imported a qnantity et whiskey from Canada, and sent his broker to the defendant, inviting him to become the purchaner. It was agreed that the defendant was to have it fer 21. lid, per gallons The plaintiff, however, after the contract, required an additional price for part of the whiskey, which was above proof, and the defendant resisted that demand, on the ground that he bad agreed to give no more than Its. 9d. fur the whole. The plaintiff's broker did not prove any contract for more than**. Dd. arid the Jury found a verdict for the defendant TUESDA v , JAN. 21. 'BREACH OF PROMISE. OF MARRIAGIL. m'ent.r.stas 0. Lurie. - Mr. Adolphus slated, that this was an action for breach of promise of iwirriage, brought by a widow lady against the de fendant, Captain of a West India ship. She went out to De wirers in defendant's ship fluor to her marriage with Capta ft *Pherson. lo January. 1801, Capt. Ladle came home, I slating that Captain M.Pitersen bad gives defendant 5001. to purchase for her. 'I he defendant coating bone from Demerara, vase to the house where she iesided and took op his residence, p-ofesting benosrable suit to the plaintiff, whom be intended to marry. • letter 'would ba put in, promising in the most so l em n moaner, to awry her on hat return. The defendant is 40 years ef age, the plaintiff, a widow. protiably nide• than him, but that was so topic of defence is sn..wer to the action. He wide• stood the defence attempted to be set up would be, that this paper, which would be put in. was intended as a de mise c" the premises which M-. Louie bed purchased for Mrs. M.Phereon, in which be had filled op • blank left with a nro -1063 or marriage. where no such thing was meant or intended. Ile should chow that, In. the purpose of bayssaing this poor woman, a wa-rant of attortey la I been fictiiionsly filled up by the defendant, and • dirtrewput open her thereunon, with *he prosecWing this awinn.—This was view of presenting lace` um • case or all others. which would excite the indilnatlop of a British Jury. }' • was convinced the verdict of this day would be such as would relieve the plaintiff from That oppressive injury she complained of, and give the defendant au cause to it ienspli. The learned Counsel called witnesses, who proved the plaietlirs Mr. Scarlet addressed the Jury for the defendant. His Icaroed :tired lied net endeavoured to excite their feelings in tbs opening, but no doubt would in reply. Now there was no objection to her enjoying the thing she liked best as often as slue I leased. (A Ittugl . o He did not think any man would give a 'Weigand pounds to marry a woman *lio had already buried two busbends, bit more especially when a man had already bad as mach el bcr as be liVetl. It ass quite dramatic the account cf the tender scene between the Captain and the plaintiff, as given by the married daughter.—lle should prove 'hat that WitgeSS had frequently seen them in bed together—a privilege. Le should likewise prove, enjoyed by sundry other Captains, and even Lieutenants. Several witnesses gave evidence of' indecorous conduct on nett of the plaintiff; hut the promise of marriage being proved, the July found a verdict for the plaintiff—damages 6001. TURNIAILL V. KITCHENER. This action was brought by the plaintiff, a iceman, to recover damages for an assault isosumitteJ by the defendant, his epplain. The plrintiff, it appeared. was employed as • sailor on.bitara ■ collier, name the Not. hi Jame , b ,longia% to Sunderland.—ln October, 1821. the ves.sel was on her way to the Port of Lou don, and the plaintiff was ordered to brave the lead for sound ings. Whilst in the discharge of that duty the defendant celled him upon the deck, and on pretence that be did net per form the operation of throwing the lead in • seaniati-like style, beat him with • rope. until his back was discoloured by bruises. The weak was aggravated by the state of dranken •ess in whirl the defendant thought fit to exercise his violence. The defence was, that the plaintiff bad grossly neglected bis duty, to the great danger of the vessel. The Jury, umber all Ow circumstances, found a verdict for the plaintiff—Damages 101. WEDNESDAY. JAN. MILLER W. CALDWELL. Mr. Rotoh dated, that this was an action brought by a poet sailor against the owner of the ship New Liverpoe!. Having performed two voyages, on the third the vessel was taken by a French privateer, in consequence of which be was ridded his wages, as defendant agreed for, at Si. per month. It nnfor tunntely happened the defends** was in America when the plaintiff was in England. This occasioned a lapse of some year. in bringing this action. At length meeting Me Caldwell in England, the defendant agreed to pay him half his wages. Mr. Larder, the male, went with the plaintiff to the defendant's lodgings, in Buryistreet, St. James's, to identify Miller as one of the seamen of the New Livery/ad The plaintiff delivered his account, giving the defendant credit fur money received, which reduced the amount to 471. The plaintiff was under the oeeessity of arresiiil defendant, who as a British mer chant, and a man of fortune, had pleaded the statute of limi tation. The question would now be, whether the defendant bad edmitted - the debt within six years. His settling with Larder, the snide. who had sued him, the Learned Coonsel contended, world amount to an admission of wages doe to the plaintiff fur the services arising out of the sane voyages. Mr. Larder, the mate, proved the case as stated by the Counsel. The Lord Chief Justice in his charge to the Jury, observe* that it was a bard role for mariners ; bat the law bad recog nised it—that if the slip was lost, the mariner oould nut recover for that ♦oyage. This clod, however, was for antecedent voyages actually performed. If the Jury believed Larder, here we s acknowledgment that the wages due to the plaintiff remained susaiiiiied. The Jury found fur the QIAAAM V. 11110C[. This action was brought to recover the amount of a taylises bill for clothes, made and delivered according to the order of the defendant. Mr. Scarlett stated the circumstances of the case. The de fendant and several others basing set up an opposition coach, which they named the Mrtarchrsirr littlepeitifeet. it was consi dered necessary to start with becoming Ida, and aderdingly the plaintiff received an order from the defendant to Rieke scarlet liveries, with buff belts, &o. The clothes were stop plied, and worn by the coachman, guard, and others, and nothing remained hat payment of the pleintirs bill. Mr. Sear lett said he should prove the order was given by the defendant, end he entitled to a verdict. Witnesses were called to prove the plaintiff's case. Mr. Marryatt, for the defendant, said this was an attempt to make big client pay debts incurred by ethers. The clothes were not furnished on credit given to the defendant, hut to the men belonging to the eoach. Independent of that fact, which he should prove, it would appear that the defendant had nothing to do with the coach, having quitted the concern alto. gefuer. The Learned Counsel called the servants belonging to the coach, who stated that they gave orders for the clothes. It also appeared that the defendant was not a partner in the coo. cern. Mr. Bowled, in reply, contended that the defendant, who bad given the order, was liable to pay the plaintiff's demand, whether he remained one of the conch concern or not. The Jury, after receiving she Juage's charge, retired fruit the boa, and hating been out • short time, returned a verdict for the defendant. 401. 13$. 104. THURSDAY, JAN. 3. This being the first day of Term, the Judges took their seats with their usual formality. The report of the conduct and state of the prisoners is the Penitentiary, Mil'bank, was presented and read by the eauet of the Court. - _ BRANSCOMB V. BRIDGES. The Solicitor General moved to set aside the verdict in this case, and eater a Donsuit. It was en action to recover damages for en excessive distress levied on lady Braneconeb's goods.—Tbe Jury found a verdict for the plaintiff. The witnesses for the plaintiff made a tender of the vent doe from Lady Branscombeand the Solicitor General contended that the form of action was wrong. After the tender the Sheriff's officer lied no right to distrain, and the action ought to have been for a trespass. The Court were of opinion that the verdict could not be disturbed. vie D. GORTON R. LORD amity. Mr. Scarlett moved to set aside the verdict for the plaintiff, and to enter a nunsoit. This was an action on the warranty of • horse, warranted to go safe is harness. The plaintiff had seen the horse in the Park, rode by Sir Simeon Steward, and bring siruck with the animal, made some 'inquiry, with a view to purchase it to run in harness. Sir S. Steward wrote to Lord Newry, to whom the horse belonged, and informed the plaintif f that the horse would run well in harness ; the noble plaintiff then purchased the horse of the defendant's groom, and some lime after returned him, on the ground that be would not run in harness, according to the terms of the warranty. The Jury found a verdict fur the plaintiff. Mr. Scarlett now contended, in support of his motion, that the communication from Sir Simeon Steward did not amount to a warranty on the part of Lord Newry, but a mere representation that the horse, whilst in his possession, had been used in harness. The Court granted • rule to show cause. WAYTE P. CARE. This was an action to recover damages for negligent driving on the part of Lady Carr'a eciaolunan, by which the plaintiff and his wife were overturned in their chaise. Mr. Gurney moved to set aside the verdict given for the defendant, Oil the ground that the weight of evidence proved negligence, for which Lady Can was answerable. The mis chief fur which the plaintiff sought a compensation happened in the Regent's Circus, Piccadilly. Mr. Way te, a tradesman in that street, was driving up Regent-street, and crossing the Circus. There was a hackney coach at the same time driving Ciotti the stand, and he drove his chaise before it. Lady Carr's carriage came on him by surprise on the near side of the hackney coach, and overturned him. Mr. Gurney ►tated on this occasion that a special rule in driving was this :—Due carriage crossing another ought to Isms on the off side, and by omission on the part of the defendant's coachman to ob that rule, the accident happened. Mr. Justice Bayley—lt may happen that a man is obliged to stop no the near side. Mr. Gar bey—that was not the case here. The coachman bad not to stop, and might have gone on the of side. All the indifferent spectators of the accident gave evidence that it was the fault of the coachman. The Court, after hearing all the arguments of Mr. C in support of his emotion, were of opinion that the question had been properly left to the Jury, awl that they ought nut to dis turb the verdict. l _J . '4 ~ ~;~