The National Register. — London, England, 1821-11-18 00:00:00

LAIV IA TELLIGENCE. COURT OF' CHANCERY. MONDAY, NO%. 12. SCALES V. 11111 LOWE, The Lord Chancellor —" I have read the affidavits in this case, Mr. Ching, and as it respects Joseph Barlowe, the person not committed, I do t•ot see that you lirve given me jurisdiction ; as you have not named hits in the petition, he was not enjoined by the order of the Master of the Rolls from conversing with the infant, and his having done so cannot be considered a contempt of Court. You must present another petition, mming the actual contempt committed by him. When lam asked to send a man to gaol, the actual offence most be expressly stated on the face of the petition, to give the party accused an oppor t itr of answering it." Mr. Ching said, lie would follow the course pointed out by the Court. The Lord Chancellor rose at one o'clock. COURT OF KING'S BENCH. MONDAY, NOV. IY. TIIE KING V. RIDGEWAY. This was an indictment preferred by the Constitutional Society against the defendant, a shopkeeper at Lancaster, for the publication or a libel, namely, Oscine's New Yeat's Address to the Reformers. . The Counsel for the prosecution called several wit nesses, but the principal person examined was a young man, of the name of Miller, who stated, that seeing a bill iis the defendant's window, with the words, "'rile Address 11.1 the Hammers sold here," he went in, and asked if lie could have the New Year's Address to the Reformers?— The defendant said he hail not got the work, but would semi to Loudon tier it. l'he defendant was accordingly requested to get it, and having procured it from London, he afierwm ifs sold it to the witness. This application was said to be made in Mardi last, .and Miller deposed tha the saw a boat d over the defendant's shop, with the following sign—" David Ridgeway, dealer in Tea, Coffee, Tobacco, Snuff, &c." The indictment was tried at the last Lancaster assizes, and the Jury found the defendant guilty. Mr. Brougham now moved for a new trial, chiefly on the ground that there was no evidence to prove the da r n. dant was the publisher of the libel in question. It only Appeared that the person who kept the shop in Lancaster sold the Address to the Reformers, which was not a libel. The wink which was the subject of prosecution, namely, the kew Year's Address to the Reformers, had been sent to identify the defendant as the publiSlier. 'flue witness who had sworn that lee saw the sign board over the shop, with David Ridgeway painted ou it, could not have sworn the ti nth. He had an affidavit that the board was taken down at Cliiistmas preceding. Independent of that cir cumstance, the learned Counsel contended that there was no proof of identity,and submitted that there was ground for a mew trial. $ Court granted a rule to shell cause. Aoollt two o'clock the Judges rose to attend the Privy Council. SWANTON V. FILBY. This was an action brought by Susan Swanton, ■ aer •ant, against the defendant, to recover damages for a lib I. The came was tried before Baron ('farrow, at Ox ford, and a verdict found for the plaintiff, with 501. da mages. The plaintiff had lived nursery-maid in the service of the defendant, who is a magistrate arid clergyman. On quitting his service she applied for a character, and the defendant wrote a letter, stating that her demeanour was niodesty itself, but in fact she WAS vicious and immodest : that she had stolen several things iii the family, and had been in the habit of admitting a man servant to her bed. 'vont night after night. The jury were left to consider whether the defendant, wsiting the letter, had been in fluenced by a malicious and vindictive feeling. Mr. Cross now moved for a new trial on two grounds. First, that at the time the defendant wrote this letter. he haul nut recovered from the effect produced on his mind by the gross misconduct of the plaintiff; and secondly, that it was a verdict against evidence. The Learned Counsel adverted to the evidence, and contended that there was proof of the immoral conduct of the plaintiff, sufficient to justify the defendant in the observations lie haul made. Ilia character, as a clergyman, made it most essential, that lie should express the greatest censure on the improper conduct of the plaintiff in his family.— There was no proof of malice, and under all the circum stances, the question ought to be admitted again to a jury. The Lord Chief Justice was of opinion there ought not to be a new trial. It was most obvious, that letters writ ten by a former master upon the character of a servant ought to he a privileged communication ; and unless it be shrivel that the writer of such a letter proceeded upon a vindictive motive, be was clearly privileged in what lie wrote; but he considered this letter to be written tinder a vindictive feeling. The jury, upon the whole of the evidence, had found a verdict for the plaintiff, and than court could not say they had come to a wrong conclusion. Mr. Justice Bayley, Mr. Justice Holroyd, and Mr. Justice Beat concurred, and the court refused a new trial. Tilt /LING V. ANNE •ARLILE. Mr. Cooper moved for a rule to skew why the verdict should not be set aside, and a new trial had. The Learned Counsel said he moved this on an affidavit, in which, the defendant stated, that on the 24th of July last, she was tried in this court, upon the prosecution of aii association, calling themselves a Society fur the Suppres sion of Vice, for the publication of the Theological Works of Thomas Paine. Her defence consisted of printed and written matter, and she was proceeding with tho same, when ;she was stopped by the judge, saying it could not proceed. 'flic deponent was stopped at the following passage :—" The defendant ought to have been tried under the Statute Law, snaking it penal to revile and scoff at the Holy Scriptures; List her prosecutors were too vindictive to take that course. They knew the object of the statute was only to disqualify the party convicted hum holding civil or military °dices. They therefore indicted this defendant 011 what may be called the Corn -111011 Law, which is nothing but cuminon abuse. The Learned Judge, however, said, let it ile read, I will not stop it; 4nt,;,atter gi% ing that permission, lie again in sisted that the deponent should recite to strike out the objectionable matter. The deponent refused to alter it, and gave in the following declaration This is my de fence, and if the Coast deride an Englishwoman has nu right toil...chic that wLtu.h she conaidcrs es,eitlial to het THE NATIONAL REGISTER defence, I most abide by the consequence.'--The de. fendant was not allowed to proceed, and therefore had out the right of making her defence.' Mr. Justice Bayley.—lf mischief is insinuated into young minds, punishment will not remedy the evil. Is it not better to mop the reading of improper matter ? Mr. Cooper.—l contend, my Lord, all a judge can do lis to say, caution you against repeating offensive state ments, and if he persists, the judge may inflict punish ment. Here the defence is stopped altogether, anti I contend the defendant is entitled to a new trial. The Lord Chief Justice.—The struggle in the present case is, whether a person charged with the publication of a blasphemous libel, shall be allowed to state openly in time hearing of the jury, as much matter of the same kind as any friend to the accnsed may think proper to prepare, and a Court of Justice be made a theatre for blasphemy. —" It appears that a passage of this kind having been found in the written paper, which time defendant, from her sex, should have abstained from reading. It was dis graceful to a Court of Justice to hear it. Mr. Justice Bayley and Mr. Justice Holroyd were of the same opinion. Mr: Justice Best said, after stating time facts of the case, lie should take no further part in the question. — Rule refused. WEONZSDAY, NOV. 11. The Grand July this dr') came tutu Court, and Mr. Jus tice Bayley charged them in the usual terms; they then retired to consider the business before theta, KIIE KING V. SUSAN WRIGHT. OM the motion of Mr. Adolphus the defendant was brought up to plead to an indietmeni preferred by the Society for the suppression of vice, charging her with publishing u blasphe mous and seditious libel. The defendant pleaded nut guilty. Jsmits V. WILD AND RIIODESON. This was an action tried before Mr. Justice Park, at Lan caster. The plaintili• sought to recover damages for false imprisonment. The deem ants were tw•o magistrates. It appeared they committed the plaintiff for re•ezamina t ion, on the 12th of September, 1111 a charge of cutting down heft standing on the road side. They continued to re-commit him from time to time, mail the end of December, refusing to commit hint fully, and he was prevented from applying to he admitted to bail. 'r oe plaintiff at last made applica tion to the Lord Chief Justice, for an order to he fully coal• milted, abut lie might he bailed. lie was consequently brought up before Mr. Justice Bayley, and admitted to bail. At the assizes, the bill .if indictment was thrown out by the Grand Jury, and the plaintiff brought his actior Both magistrates were included in the defence, but at the trial the evidence applied only to one. It 0144' affected Mr. Wild, and Mr. Judge Ptak held that the plaintiff must be nonsuited.—Both defendants being found mi the record, it was necessary the evidence should affect both. Mr. Denman moved this day fora new trial. lie contended that the evidence was sul6cient to convict Mr. Wild, and therefore he ought to have been found guilty. The di reetion of the learned Judge to nonsuit the plaintiff was wrong mid consequently there ought to be a new trial. The Court h-tritied a rule to stew cause. CRIMINAL. INFORMATION.—THE, KING V. WILLIAMS. Mr. Searlea moved to Me a cambia information against Mr. AIIIIIINWe %Illinois, printer and proprietor of a news paper, published in the City of Durham, for a gross libel out the established clergy.—The learned counsel said he should read the libel, and the Court no doubt would feel disposed to grant the motion. It was dated Saturday, Aug. the Bth, 1821, and the subject was the death of the Queen.—The article stated that general 'respect had been paid throughout the kingdom on the death oilier late Majesty, with the ex ception of the Lpiscopal City of Durham, ss Inch, not% ith standin4 it load aux chin clies, did not sound one bell to an nounce the departure of the spirit of an injured Queen. — Dad the gemlemen stopped there, no application perhaps would have been made to the court, but be went on to libel the clergy. The writer knew not where the order for keeping the bells silent came from, but it was a demonstra tion of the unchristian spirit pervading the clergy. which made the establi.lied church rot object of derision, and the public consider the beneficed clergy as usurpers of those pos sessions with which they are endou ed. There was a sensi ble decline of spiritual feeliii,, which led the clergy to lend theinselses to temporal maims ity. It aas impossible the present state of thiits could last ; sooner or later the whole fabric would fall. Upon an occasion like the death of the Queen, the defembtet bout tienight it right to make an attack tilt the established clergy tit England, and particularly that of Dui ham. Was it to be endured that the great hotly of the established choir Is were to be treated with so little les pect.-1( attacks like this could he permitted, it would he impossible that the reverend body could eser expert to rind the respect doe to their sacred rotations. The Lord Chief Jostice.—Take ri rule to slaw cause. Tll2 KING V. R. IIIORBIIILL, EsQ. Mr. C. Phillips inured to tit • a criminal information against a reatleinan of the name of thou Mall, one of 1111! klajesWs Justices ufthe Peace for the County of Derby, for proendiug to admit William Dcittlrbank, jun., to hail, on a charge of murder, and screeniog that person from justice.— The facts must be in the ieecrilet lion of on, readers. A duel nits fought between Mr. llrittlebank, and a gentleman named Cuddie, upon the determination of the latter to pay his address, s to the sister of Mr. Drittlebank. Mr. Cuddiz was w tried iii the contest. acid soon after died. The con stable then neat in search of Mr. Drittlebank, the coroner haviog found a serdit t of murder, as he was told the object of his search teas in hi. futhei's house, and the officer under stood that the business WIIS arranged by the magistrate, Mr. Thornhill, taking bail in WWI. for his appearance. When the trial came on at the assizes, the accused did not appear. De had lett the country. The affidavits further stated, that no recognizance was actually entered into fur the appear. ante of the accused, and it nits suggested that long intimacy and fi ienchhip existed 11-111eell Mr. Thornhill and the Brit - I lehank fancily, which had induced the former to screen Mr. Wm. ittlebank from the ronwilueuce of a charge of wilful murder. Judge B iyky asked whether any of the affidavits stated that Mr. Brit I lehuti k wn Well aitii Mr. Thin saliill. Mr. Phillip. answered in the negative. They were turd he was in the huu•r with the in.igiati ate. The Lord ChicfJ❑*ric e Said, e.ea wont in the affidavit might be true, and yet the gentleman against whom Mr. Phillips moved be utterly iminrant of the transaction. Judge 11.tyley.—This Cnuit ran never giant a rule far a criminal infurniLittou, wiles they have 'itch legal evidence as would today a grand jar:,. The Court finder all the c eum,tances, were of opinion Mr. Milli!). Moran! pitolliec the alllll3 vii ul tlie magistrates ckrk, ho,e tratimony might tlams a light upon the -übjeel. Mt. Phillips 'aid, lie should fulluo t he , Lli4.gebiioll of their M- Lordships; nod the Coal Intimated that they would hem him open' on the subject. ORAL ACT. Mr. Andrews obtained a aft taidiew cease why a man damus should out issue, commanding the magistrates of Mary le bone police-office to return to this court the proceeding. against several persons piosecoted tinder the coal act.-- The object is to prove the points of law argued before the Judges. THURSDAY, NOT. 16. JUDO/SMITS. The Solicitor General moved the judgment of the Cnort on Henry Collins, tried before Mr. Justice Burrough, at the lam Sussex Assizes. fouud guilty of an assault mu Daniel Sparshott„ Mr. Justice Best read the notes of the learned Judge taken at the trial, from which it appeared the assault was violent and unprovoked. The defendant (who was formerly Lieutenant In his Ma jesty's ship Severn, of which the plaintiff is Purser), in his defeuce, alleged that the first assault was committed by the who rode his horse against him, as he was riding the beach at Sussex. He produced certificates of good con duct as an officer fur I I years. The Solicitor General, in aggravation, descanted on the unprovoked brutality of au assault committed oh a person iu the situation of the prosecutor, advanced in years, and Heady blind. Mr. Justice Bayley, pronnarwed the sentence of the Court, which was, that the defendant 1w imprisoned for three calendar months in the King's Bench prison, and afterwards enter into recoguiz4nces to be of good behaviour for five years, himself in 1001. and two sureties in 501. each. THE KING V. GEORGE BEIM The defendant was found guilty at the London billings after Hilary Term, last, under an information filed by the Attorney General, for publishing a scandalous and seditious libel on the King. The libel was published in The Repub lican. The defendant was shopman to Richard Cathie of Fleetwitreet. On the application of Mr. Cooper, the Court postponed giving judgment till this day we. k, on the ground that t►eir were two affidavits to be read In mitigation of punishment, which had been sworn before the tungiarnte instead of before a commissioner of this court, which according to the rule of the court, they ought to be. TIIE SING V. MARY ♦NN CARLILE. Mr. Gurney moved the judgment of the Court on this de fendant, convicted at the sittings after last Term, at Guild hall, for publishing a blasphemous libel against the christibn Mr. Justice Best having read the notes of the trial— Mr. Henry Cooper then addressed the Court. Hassid he had a few observations to oder in mitigation of punishment. Nut one word should drop from him which might have a ten dency to revile the holy seriptareF. No man had more res pect for the established religion than himself. He was anxious first to remind the Court, that the family to which the defendant belonged, laboured under much odinm, :tad it was almost impossible to separate prejudice from the ease of the defendant. He never could condemn the religious opi nion of any one. He was only the adversary of that moral monster, Hypocrisy. A tolerant religion could never jus tify severe punishments in cases of irreligion. The difficulty was to oppose superstition. Religion, he was persuaded, might be ably defended by its profesrers, without legal sere. lily. He could tell the Court, in mitigation of punishment, that some of the greatest divines had deprecated there pro secutions. Dr. Porteus was one ; Dr. Watson and Dr. Lordlier had also expressed disapprobation of severe pro ceedings in cases of this sort. He had no affidavits to ode,, and lie trusted lie had said nothing to injure his client. She nos a female, unable to bear punishment, and the Court niu,t clowiler that she was under the cuntroul of her brother. Mr. Gurney said, that the defendant was acting u; siu cerity of feeling lie did nit believe—sorihd interest, and con tempt of the established religion of the country, were mixed together. Not only the defendant, but her brother stud family had gone on setting the law at defiance, amid the Court had to decide, by the punishment they were called upon to inflict, whether such contempt of the law wits to go on to the disgrace of this ;;rest metropolis? Mr. Marriott followed Mr. Gurney iu support of time pro secution, and Mr. Justice Ilay, ley, delivering the judgment of the Ciotti on the defendant, said—" Mary Ann Carl tie, yogi are to re ceive the sentence of this Com t, after having been found guilty by a Jury of your country of puhlishing a libel w bleb impeaches the Old and New Testament. In this country every ;Hawn is Witted to form for himself any Isiligious opi nion. In the cause of a ♦ery discreet and able udder.', made by the gentleinon who conducts your cause, he I am happy to hear considers your opinions Its erroneous, s u rd 1 believe every person 110 gives the subject n careful exami nation will come to the same conclusion. I say this because it has happened to my•elt to investigate and examine, and the result is a conviction oil my mind of the authenticity of hilly scriptures. The Court does not think a libel of this kind caleulate.l to 0%41 turn religion-111.y believe religion to be so lirmly rooted in the heart of man that nothing exit shake it. Persons whim sue able to examine will not have their faith shaken i limit haw many prl sults are there Si too niny have their pit:l(.4l4s destroyed and their minds poisoned/ The Court acts on the principle of protecting these persons who are incapable of protecting themselves, It appears you are of a family on which, unfortuoutely, the judgment of this Court has been passed, yet nothing seems to deter them, the contrary punishment seems an encouragement. The Court, taken; tutu roosiderat' all the eilcutostant es, doll' order and adjudge, that you pay to the Crown a floe of 5001. be imprisoned iii D:11 ch. star gaol one year, and at tlw expi ration of that lime Kis e sureties for seven years, )ourselt nil 10001. nod too *III4IIV, ill 1001. each; and that you be im prisoned until the time is paid and security given. 'f he defendant was then taken out of Court in custody, CRIMINAL INFORMATION. Mr. F. i'ollock applied on behalf of the Mayor, Alder men and liargesw. of Bel nick-ulosii•Twerol, to tile a crouti • nal iiihorneation ajoilat seveii persons, who had riotously dis turbed the prateedingl of the Guild of that town, and a'ts:•ullyd the tuwu clerk. The Court granted u tole to 'thew Cause. Tim KING V. DAVID GRAVE% DAVY AND S. A. SNOWDEN. The defendants, oho en: ried on business at Pl) 1111 l uala Dock as merchants, and became bankrupt , . weir hataglat up to receive judgment, having suffered judgment byldcht- 11 in a prosecution for perjury. They were charged o ails mewing falsely, in order to sue out a wait and finest one %Van. Davey, to whom 11141 were ii.o,•loed to a large amount upon a bond. After the proceeding hail born rend, *loc h occupied the Douai a colisiderable fame, lime defrodaul plot iu allidavdi, Mid Ncle us diced to be ba ought up again au- W. - _ - MO