The National Register. — London, England, 1820-12-03 00:00:00

~is%~"~ .p r, ~~ ----- LAW iNTEL.4,IGENCE. COURT OF KlM.is BENCH toONVAT, NOV. 27. cervixes. I WPt)RMATIOW. KIX a P. wircren. Mr. Moore moved for leave to file a re ;mined Infor mation &earns% the defendant, Capt. Winter, tier sending a letter, containitig a written challenge, to NI r. Henry .Hoare. mu of Sir Henry Hoare, of Gaspar Head, in the county of Somerset. It appeared from the statement of Mr. Moore, that the servants or Sir Richard Hoare ael wires and mare laid for hares, autS ie.% ev e ti..u.:Lti riot-steed io a cult rye inhabited by Captain Winter, a couversation ensiled be tween the Captain and the servants, its which the former admitted that he had laid the snares. The servants were then directed to vs) to Mr. Hoare s Solicitor, and having done s e Captain Winter com p'ained that Mr. Henry Hoare had acted unlike a gen tleman in omitting to write to bins before a prosecution was commenced. He also sent a letter, which became the ground of the present application to the Court. Tue Chief Justice asked whether Mr. Moore, in his affidavits had proof of the hand-writing of the defendant Mr. Moore admitted he had not such proof, and the Court cos sideritig that evidence necessary, refused the apelicatiow—Mule refused. JUDGMENT OF THE COURT. THE ILIX• v. SIR PRANCIS lURDETT. The Court this day gave judgment in the important question respecting the legal ciaiin of Sir Francis Bur dett to a new trial. Judge :lest, as junior on the Bench. read the report of the cause. It was a c • I information, as one Readers will remember. filed by the Attorney General against the Hi.itourable Baronet, for writing a letter respecting the transactions at Manchester on the 22d of 4u g ust tug. 'l' le case was tried at the Spring Assizes for Leicester, an t verdict lound for the Crown. Mr. Denman end oche Learned Counsel moved for a new trial . on the ground that there was no proof of a publi cation of the libel in the county of Leicester. Odor objections were made as to the Judge's charge to the jury. 'Fist Learneti Judge, in an amiable expoosiiion, connect, adverted to allelic circumstances which took pface at the trial. He complimented Sir F. Burdett on his eery ab . and eloquent defence made in person, and observed with respect to the publication in Leicester shire, that the Court and Jury had a right to presume a publication took Ike in that county. If the fact was , not su e the defendant had the power, at the trial, of • calling. Mr. Bickersteff to state how the letter came into his possession. That gentlemrn was not Called. and the Jury hail drawn a fair and reasonable inference. It was said there was no proof the letter went liy post. It made no difference, however, whether setit:ity the:post or not. It was clear it Cattle iron) the hand of Sir F. Burdett, and was received by Mr. Bickerstali. Upon probabilities, awl the rule of Use, the Jell 114,1 a riot to infer the letter was delivered by Sir F. Burdett in .he county of Leicester. It was said the Crown enieht hare called upon Mr. Bickerstaff, but how did the Crowu know the letter was ever in the hands of Mr. Bickerstafil It lay with the defendant to prove the venu was not properly laid. If die defendant supposed haul actually occurred, it would not re move the malignity of the libel. The Statute of Geo. 111. made the question of libel not a question of fact; it was the duty of the Judge to direct the Jury— and he would contend that his direction in Me case alluded to was in no way incorrect or partial. The Learned Judge then adverted to the opinion which had been advanced, namely, that the Jury were Judges of the law. It could be miser be supposed that the statute of George the 'Fund did more than give the Jury power to rind a general verdict. The statute did not make the question to libel a question of fact. It was still, in many instances, a eviction of law. The legis lature had left the Jury to hod a general verdict, but the Judge had t h e power of statine toe law, by %A Inch the Jury were to be eoserned. Tne fourth pieta bad been urged, namely, that his charge to the Jury was unjust. lie lamented the necessity be was muter of making any allusion to what had alien from the Learned Counsel, with respect to his conduct. It gave him peon; but he acquioted the Learned Counsel of any Mit% like intention to give offence. No man was more respectful in los demeanour to the J tidies than the Honourable Baronet (the defeudant) its toe cause. and happy he should have felt to have stated to the Jury any pints in his favour ; but looking to his rank in society, and the nature of the libel, he felt it could not be done. The extent of the liberty of the press enabled a man to instruct his fellow•citizens upon the lens and govern ment, but defamation and iliflanimatuty addresses to the disafleted was plug beyond the liberty of the press, as established in any coulary. Whether his opinions wets well loundcd or trot, he could not say, but he had only been actuated by a desire to do his duty with the firm ness the times demand. livery public Magistrate was bound to administer justice with impartiality, and to the best of his jiii:gurent. He sow uo reason to disturb the verdict. Mr. Justice Heroyd said, he was of opinion that the rule for a new trial ought not to be granted. Mr. Justice Bayley, in several particulars of the case, agreed with the rest of the Jordeess; there was, however, a difficulty lie had felt (ruin first to I..st Out one of the points. He alluded to the direction of the Leartied Judge %vitt( respect to the publication in Leicesteratore. No cousideration he hail been able to Jove was. sufficient to overcome his OhiCC:1011 to that direction; and he said hr Should not discharge his if be did nut express his opinion, and give the ((modem the full benefit of it. 'the jury had no right to presume the publ,CatrOlt was in Leicestershire without a prima facia case. Without the evidence of Mr. Bickerstaff the Jury must have been in the dark upon that question. Had a bill of Indictment been presented to a Grand Jury, he was col, vinc,d Eery cout,l not have ctrund the bill without pro ,f that tow letter was eh:rinsed in Leicester. 16, THE NATIONAL REGISTER. shire. On the whole he was of opinion there was no evidence of publication to go to the Jury ; and if mere was not, it ottelit not In nave gone to the Jury. The Learned Jud,;e, in a most luminous judgment, concluded by sayntg, it there was any doubt of the poevcr 01 the kiiy to decide upon the publication, the verdict might not to static!. TheChiei Justice expressed his opinion, that the rule oburttied Farr nF v trial must be discharged. The pre sumption drawn by the Jury was properly drawn.— Hat ing comiderecl the question again and again on all the ol t iectioas, he was of opinion that the premise= warranted him in saying the paper was written in Lei cestershire. • Tom was nu ground to disturb the verdict. Rule discharged. - - - - - The Solicitor General said, as• the defendant had not been put to the expellee of attending the Court from day to day to melee judgment, and was i c morant of the decision this day, it was not the intention of the Attorney General to pray the J udgment of the Coon before next Term. THE ZING V. WOOLER, CARTWRIGHT, 11ADOX AND OTHERS. In this a rule to shew cause why there should not be a new trial, was obtained by Mr. DCIIIII3II, but it ap. peared the rule had not been drawn up, and the Court allowed it to vtand over to the first day of next Tenn. SEDITIOUS LIBEL: THE LING V. GIigATHEAD LEWIS. The Solicitor-General prayed the judgment of the Court on the defendant, convicted of publishing a sedi tious libel concerning the Manchester Meeting, which appeared in the Coventry paper, of which the defendant is Editor. Mr. Justice Best read the report of the trial, which came on at the Summer Assizes for the County of Warwick. The libel was calculated to excite persons to rebellion, by stating that the Manchester Yeomanry Cavalry mete murderers. It also reflected grossly on the King for havim; approved of their conduct. The defendant, in his affidavit in mitigation of punishment, complained that he was the victim of a conspiracy, inasmuch as the Jury had been packed by the Master of the Crown Office. The libel he described to be taken from a work pub lished in London, which the Attorney-General hail not thought proper to notice. The defendant, fil ler his attida s it had been read, addressed the Court, and allndind to the conduct of Hunt and others, when they received judg ment, observed, that he had heard those persons appeared before the Ju lges with the feeling men would have who had pert rated a meritorious service. Ile was under the saute feeling, believing he had done no wrong. The Solicitor-General, on behalf of the prosecution, said he had but little to observe. The defendant had stated that he took the libel from a pamphlet. He could only say, the Attorney-General and himself had niter heard of that pamphlet. The Solicitor-General the', read the strong part of hie libel, and contended tlia it was calculated to produce the grettest mischief Mr. JtIS:ICC, Bayley, addressing the defendant said— " Yon ate to receive the judgment of this Court, con vi-ted of publishing a 1'66 by .1 Jury selected in the ordi nary mode. Itbel is one of the most mischievous tenth-icy. It is most unjust. An unfortunate event had taken pi Ice at M mchestur, in consequence of which lives mete lost. libel in question imputes to toe troops that tney were murderers, and if they had been to be tried for the crime of murder, I ark you, judging of your own case, to say, whether every man is not. tootled to have a fair trial beim,. an unbiassed Jury? The Learned Jud,4e coiraluded by passiug, sentence on the defendant, namely, to pay a fine of 501 be imprisoned two years in Warwick gaol, and find sureties for five years, himself in and two in tool. each. Ater sentence, Mr. 'Lewis asked if it was usual for persons in his situation to be imprisoned in solitary cells. Mr. Justice Bayley said the Court ntf!e no order for suck conlinetneui. 'rue de:end.ilit was 1,-ken out or Court. Tit:WAY, NOV. 26. ALASNItEDY.-Tilt KIND I. DAVISON. Mr. Gunn.; 11,0%,:ii fur the jud e osent (A the Court on the defendant, cuitvicted of publishing a blaspilL:ntotts hoe!. Ur. Justice Bayley delivered the judgment of the Court, and after ‘ithertinis to thepurity of the Scriptures which the libel had vilified, it was necessary, he said, that society should Le protected against all attacks of this sun, which struck at the root of human happiness. 'lnc defendant was soitenccd to be imprisoned two yeas in the waol of Oakilam (Itutlandshire), and to find sureties for his good behaviour for five years, himself in 501. and two others in 201. each. THE KING V. HVIEPHEY. The defendant an officer in the Alottmouth militia, appeared on the motion of Mr. Campbell, to receive judgment for an assault on a geotlemalt nawed also an officer, and a magistrate. The assanlt and abuse oeturred in the town ut Alwnuauth , and the defendant some time after wrote an apology, attributing his utia. conduct to the drink he had taken. 'foe prosecutor was, however, again insulted, and the Court, under all the circumstances, sentenced the defendant to two months' imprisonment, and to find sqllicient sureties for hu future good behaviour. LEWIS a. ct.eueNT. Mr. Marryat skewed cause a6aiiise a rale obtained by Mr. Adolphus, for sending this cause fur re-inquiry- It way ati action fora libel published by defendant, who sutlend judgment by default. Tim c:amages being as sessed, Inc Jury gave a verdict hn 5001. Me. Adia,twi , witCll lie obtained the en:anion:a rule muted, at the groom' of his in nun, tliJi evidence hid been rec. ived by the Learned Sera:wilt who presided at the Sli: rdi 'a Court, which ougiit not to have been re. ceit ed. S_cutielly, that documents were kept iruin the Jury which ought to have bran received. Thirdly, that the damages were excessive. MI the objections were met by Mr. Marryat, who contended that the plaintiff had sustained a pecuniary loss by the libel, which itrOl. did nut cunipemats. After Mr. Adolphus and Mr. Platt had been heard an reply, the Court threw out a hint, that the parties might come to arr accommodation without the decision of the Court. Proposals w.:re consequently made between Counsel. but they could come to ma agreement. and the Court decided by granting a new win of inquiry, on condition that the damages be paid into Court, to await the final result. THE LINO V. HENRY HUNT. Mr. Scarlett skewed cause against a Rule obtained by Mr. Chitty for a writ of Ilabeas Corpus, calling on the gaoler or shtriff of Ilchester gaol, to thew cause why the defendant should not have fu:l liberty in that pri son, without being shut up in a cell, and why he should not be allowed to see his friends, and those friends have free access to the prison at reasonable hours. This ap plication was made on the alii lank of Mr. Hunt, and Mr. Scarlett said he had several long nffidavits made by magi:trews and others,. which fully answered all that Mr. Hunt alleged. Mr. Chitty then rose and observed, that the affidavits were lone, and he was desirous of tiring the Court the trouble of reading them at that late hour, (it bring six o'clock); he should therefore apply to have the rule enlarged till next Term. Mr. Scarlett said, he could have no objoetion to that. The Chief Justice said, the Court would not have enlarged the rule on the application of those who had to answer Mr. hunt's affidavit ' because Mr. limit might have been kept without that he had a right to have, but as ti•e proposition came front the defendant's Counsel, the Court would not refuse —The rule was accordingly enlarged. The business as usual on the last day of Tenn, con tinued to a late hour. N/DNESDIY, XOY, gg• BIGGS P. SAWYBR. This action was brouaht by the plaintiff, an attorney at Reading, ag ainst the defendant, the Sheriff of Berks , or rather theUnder-Sheriff, Mr. Payne, to recover da mazes sustained by his not tasking out a warrant fur the arrest of a person named Field, residing at Old Wind sor. The laver being indebted to the plaintiff 231. an officer was sent to tile Under-Sheriff, at Maidenhead, to get a Capi is ad Satisfaciend duly made out, but neither the Under-Sheriff nor his clerk were in the way. Mr Payne was gone out hunting; and the offi , :er being obliged to return without it, the opportunity was lost of arresting Field, who was not afterwards to be found. MORN V. /OHNSON. This was an action against the drawer of" a bill of exchange for 8631. accepted of by a person of the name of Solomon. The defendant was the captain of a ship; and at the island of Jamaica he drew upon his owners. The bill was accepted on the occasion, and indorsed io the plaintiff. The signatures of the drawer and acceptor were proved ; am!, there being no v lid defence, the Jury found a verdict tor the plaintiff fur the amount of the hill, with interest, haing 9051. Apprehension of Forgers.—The police of Bir mingham have succeeded in detecting and taking the principals connected with a gang of utterers of forged bank notes. In consequence of the appre hension in London of John Bingley, a publican, of Great Charles -street, and George Peacock, a plater. of Cheapside, Birmingham, upon whom were found 1,150 forged notes, a warrant was issued to search the house of William Dutton, of Colmore-street, where a number of notes, nearly destroyed by fire, were found by the police officers: this man %%ea taken into custody, and,in consequence of something that transpired while the officers were awaiting his return home, Mr. Adkins and assistants proceeded to the house of William Batkin, a copper-plate printer, residing in Freeman -street, whom, with his wife, they immediately apprehended, and upon searching his house a plate was found for working 101. and 51. and two plates for working 11. notes, is well as a large quantity of notes in various stages cf larwiirdness. It is supposed this gang and its con nexions have carried on their nefarious trade exten sively fur the last four or five years; the notes are said to have been all worked by Batkin, the signa tures affixed by Dutton, and the whole disposed of by Bingley and Peacock to common utterers. The two former are now in prison, but they have not yet underpne a public examination. BERKaEY HUNT.—A fine stag was turned out ' at half-past ten on Monday morning, in the neigh. bourbood of Ilarrow-on-the-Hill. After many turn ings and windings, the animal entered the metropolis, dogs and huntsmen en mile. Thu novelty of the sight drew forth a inotley multitude of purseers in full ery. It crossed Russell-square. and ran up the steps of a gentleman's house in Montague-street, where it was captured, breathless, but uninjured. DUMLIN.—Law Lord Chan• cellor has appointed ltodcrie Connor, Esq. Barris ter at Law, a Master in Chancery in the place of Stuart King, Esq. who has resigned. M. Justice Milne has retired from his situation on the King's Bench, with the salary of a retired Judge, to which ' lie was entitled by his ,judittial standing. Mr. her. want Burton will be the new Judge. Mr. Wank.. lour and Mr. Torrens are mentioned tor the vacant lieCuaDER'S REPORT....-011 Thu r:•ilay the Recorder . made a tern t to Ins Majesty al tilC cAptial cuuvtuts under sentence of death in Ncwitate, when Joseph Itllntgets Change Edward.. Tilolll4ll Webb, Sarah Price ! Jahn Newman, John Madden, Thomas Harris, and 11101046 Fuller Bartlett. were ordered for execution au Incid.ty aut. The others were rcspiteil 4 ...Mr.