The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser. — London, England, 1808-12-23 00:00:00

LAW INrEtucExcr. COURT OF KING'S BENCH, GundanALL, Flue. Sittiosgs before Lord ELLENBOKOUGH Ind Special Juries. FAVESICIC and co. v. DCNRET and co. This was a ease which had formerly been mare than once before the Court, and therefore it is un. uecessury again to detail it. The short citctitn- stances of it were these : Messrs. Kenyon and Co. brokers, sold a quantity of coffee to Messrs. Fa venck and Co. without making mention of Messrs. Bennet and Co. the Defendants, as being the prin cipals, but it was afterwards suspected they were. These brokers soon afterwards became bankrupts, end this claim wail consespently brought by the sellers of the goads against Bennet and Co. as their (Kenyon and Co's.) pronoirds in the tram.- action. This side of 22 hogsheads of coffee took place on the lido of June, 181)7, and the hrokere were to have money in a month ; but iil.teati ()I' hej l ps p a id o n the Path July, they received a 1,111, six trays afterwards, for a greater amount than 1114 t which the coffer came to. From this it was in ferred, that they had various transactions with the Defendants. and in this one had acted purely upon their own account, a broker having nought to re ceive payment so any other manner than that brat agreed tipoa.—Verdict for the Def.:oda:its. POISES o. COWLB. This was an action upon A policy of iiivarance upon the freight of the ship Chiswick, to a:id from St. Domingo and Liverpool. By the statement of Counsel it uppeared, that the owners entered into the speculation iu question, with an intention to barter the outward cargo for other goods for a homeward cargo. It happened, however, when only part of the w h o had been exchanged for 55 boles of cotton, the ship was, by the petite of the iiea. lost, before completing her homeward cargo.-- The remaining, part of the outward chrgo was lost, but that part of the homeward cargo taken on board Was saved. it wee argued that the Underwriters were liable for what was so lost of' the oatward cargo. On t h e other hand it was contended that what remained of the outward cargo was only inteoded to he the mews of purchasing the homeward cargo, and the Underwriters haring already performed their Ili potation, by incurring the risk upon the outward voyage, could not hr in law responsible for the loss upici that cargo. under such eircumstoisces. Plaintiff nommited. sautton 0. DOBSZIL. _ This was an action upon a policy of insurance on the ship and cargo of the Neutrality, to and from the Havatitteth and London. This w..s DiniTh vessel, and consequently neutral pre.ions to the 38th of Dee. 1007, when the policy wa, en tered into. The oxiicrs of the cargo hid procured a regular license from Government, which entitled Captain Elliason, a Diane, to navigate his vessel to this country. . . _ The tlefence aomiaait this action was. that Cap tain El!inset' was au alien enemy, a prisons• i n thi s country, and a.; such unt entitled to recover ; but it we contended by the Plaintiffs Counsel, that his having' a license to navigate to this country, also necessarily entitled him to reside here, and there fore lie was WA la Is. leaked epee as an alien eaemy. This ve..sel swam taken II a privateer en her way Koine, when ia great distress, liaut the iinlence of the sea, at a tittle when she was thought likely to be lost. It being thought by Lord Ehutusotonan that the Ii • use to navigate th.l not entitle this foreigner to reside here, it nut btiogbo stated in express words in the license, as set lorth in the declaration, the Plaintiff could not at prefent recover under such a plea. He should, however, reserve the point for future consideration. Plaintiff isousuited. TOR RINK V. MARY LIDDI.P. This was au indictment for perjuiy. which, from the statement of the Attorney-ificik rid. appeared In have taken place upon ncca•ikni of Captain Chamber* ming not a divorce araiii.a his wife. who to daughter of the Ink& i.ord ttodilev, soon' sifter sits uttaitting a verdict apinst the late Captain Caulfield, tor criminal conversation with her. Mrs. Chambers, in defending this dirore., h.gd urged the harsh usage of her husband towards tier, and, in support of her pie,, had called the Defendant as a "rime — os at Doeisre ; -Co.nntotei. This Defendant had been formerly a Servant in the featly and during Ibe time ref her remaining in that situation,had upon various cweesions and to various parsons stated her • real sentiments of her maser, and her abhor rence of ir.. Lanai and cruel nut , e of his wife, whom she si nevi pitictl. It happened, afterwards, that Captain Cliambers chose to raise this servant isotice, and to establish Iwr, as a schoolmistress, iu Haiitingslon, and had -even coniltieended to put his own children midi r her care; and she, in gra titude for such favours (as was alleged), chose to tally to deny her former statements, as well as the facts themselves, when called upon by Mrs. Cham bers to give her testimony. The ATTUIINZT-GENCIAL entered at ennsi dtrable length tato a statement of the facts, which, although somewhat interesting, we deem it tiles pedient to publish, the farther proceedings in this prosecution being quashed, upon its being disco vered that the indictment did not state that the interrogatories put to the Defendant were such as were deemed materiel to the point at issue in the C^rllloolll. In consequence of this discovery, the under the necessity, without hearing • e , to find the Defendant—Not COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Elwin. 11.ANkt.NMAISLN P. YRS WINDOW ASSURANCE COMPANY. This wa• an action upon a policy of insurance upon a voyage fruni the port of London to that of Revel. The cause was tried upon admissions of the fallowing facts by both sides:—ln the mouth of October, in the last year, the insurance was ef fecte,l, and the vessel sailed under convoy, and or need off Copenhagen Roads in the mouth of No• v eti.ber. The fleet there received information of hiwt:tities haviag commenced on the part of Russia, and, coniequently, the vessels did not proceed.— L.:lto-ad of going into Copenhagen, the Commander of the (envoy snratnoned the Captains of the tp,nnt• see, 1• n.. I. • t• tied, dmin hi* cam, to bvirion I awl thy ship hi questi tttt t among. the rest; proceeded accordingly. Oa this voyage, she disappeared, and it was ad mitted she was lost. The question arisiog from them facts was, whether this was such a departure from the original voyag«; us to discharge the iu surers of it ?- The diary decided in the negative, and accord ingly found a verdict for the Plaintiff: GUILDHALL JUSTICE 110011, DECEMBER 22. Before Alefernms Sir MATTHEW BLOXHANI Pre siding Magistrate. HAGUI V. wow:omit, At an early hour in the morning, the Room was much crowded, his Royal Highness the Duke of I,ring expected ai a wittiow; emend persons Also attended, in consequence of being in the printing biisinew, and anxious to know the rtsolt of so novel an information. • At half-pita twelve o'clock his Royal flightless arrived and toiik Al seat 14)011 the left hand of Sir AlattLew If 'f his was in information lodged by the Prosecu tor against Mr. George IVoetlfall. printer, Pater noster-row, under the act of Ilia present Majesty, for the better prevention of treasonable, seditious, and curooral puldivatiam, which obligee printers, under a penalty of tot. to register their printing !mbel, to affix their names to all publications printed I.e them respectively, terretain one . copy of each publication MI printed, together with the manuscript, and to write thereon the name of the person b y whom they may be employed, that the same may be produced in evidence before a Magi strate, in support of any information lodged in such case; thi odormatian was not brought upon alleged grounds of any thing of a treasonable, se ditious, or immoral tendency in the matter printed, which was i sort of enigmatical Prospectus to a periodical pamphlet vopoeed to be published, re specting the author of certain ationymons letters which have lately appeared in print under the sig nature of An Englishmax," reflecting on the stet. of the British army, but merely under an allega tion that Mr. Wondiall had printed the Prospectus, and had not affixed his name thereto, as by law required. Mr. Hague stated, that before any evidence was gone into, if Mr. Woodffill would make an affidavit that he was not the printer of the Prospectus in question, he would put an end to the informa tion. Mr. Genets', Counsel for the Defendant, said, that the Prosecutor, in the chsnieter of an in former, had brought his client there to answer his information--he was read/ I. do it ; but he dial not come to make affidavits at the pleasure of uu informer. Mr. Dit.t.os stated, that lie attended us Counsel on the part of his Reyal Highness the Duke of Sussex. He was authorised by him to say, that he disclaimed all knowledge of the publicatiou then under discussion. fits Royal Highness had re ceived a summons, which he was lint hound to sub mit to, a n d which a Magistrate could ant enforce. It was his advice to his Royal Client not to attend ; but lie, from the sense of respect he had for the City of London, and its Magistrates, resoled to du so. It was his advice to his Royal Highness not to undergo an examination. He field in his hand a pamphlet, which contained a most gross and scandalous libel upon his Royal Highness, of which the Prosecutor in thit case was the Author. He olio had in his possession a latter, only re ceived tu% 0 der. ago, by his Royal Highness, from Mr.Higue, of a threstning nature ; and lie felt con viuced, the only view that induced the Prosecutor to wish for his Royal Highness's presence or exami nation, was, that he might have matter for another libellons pamphlet. ['rider this consideration, and that of his Royal Highness not being obliged to at tend, he would ,propose, if it met the consent of the Worthy Iklagistrite, to examine his Royal High ness, by putting a few questions to him to the fol lowing effect : 1 , Whether he had any knowledge, or given any directions. respecting the publication then io dispute, directly or indirectly, or whether he ever haul intercourse with the Defendant respect ing it?" This would answer every thing intended by the Prosecutor, and would not detain his Royal Highness in so disagreeable a place. 111 r. ‘VteLer, Counsel for the Prosecutor, ob. nerved, that his Leorood Friend, Mr. Dillon. had stilted, that he had advised his Royal High: nets to answer only such questions as were put by his own Counsel. If this advice were not drawn, he for one must protest against at. Wes it ever known in a Court of Justice that a witness should have en opportunity of inhuming his Coun sel what questions he would wish to answer. and not to allow the opposite Counsel the benefit of cross-examination ? He was instructed by his brief to put some questions to his Royal Ilighaess. winch, from his view of the case, would be the means of elucidating it ; he did not go the length to say, that he was obliged to answer every ques tion pot to him, he was at liberty to reject those be did not with to answer. It was the first tune he aver knew a witness come into • Court of Justice attended by Counsel. The Law of England knew no distinction of per sona. They were all equally •amenable to it.— There might be some persona who might think that his Royal iligliness condescended to be angry with Mr. Hague, but he should he 'lorry for a moment to suppose his Royal Highness had any knowledge of this Prospectus. which traduced the female rela five of the Prosecntor, and a merchant in that city, a Director of the East India Company. He wisks.,l it to be ntiderstood that he disclaimed any such idea; bat as every person might not be of his °M aim), he applied to hiss Royal Highness., awn ;nod sense, whether it would not be better to undergo an examination, in the tio:v a lzi, then to follow that mode advised by his Counm I, Mr. Dillon? Mr. Dri.t.os sa".l be was surprised Mr. Wigley MUM lay so mush stress on the advice which he had gives his Royal Highness. when he could not be igsoraot how vilified his Royal Highness had been be Mr. Hague. His kora Highness the Duke of Su4sett °beer% eel, he had so objection to be examined by Mr. Wig ley. The information was then read by the Clerk. Mr. %Via LEY rontio.tp.i ih • . is they were wanted to lie exainine.i. Fiewtited hie r eason for this we,, lomlittee the witliewhes he hod to examine in support of the information, were on. willins witneloe7., as they were all iu :he employ or service or the U►fendunt. The 11'itileases were accordingly ordered oat of Court. M r.W t wait then proceeded to examine hie Wit- Iltilekl. Sarah Weaver, wife of the porter of &New 110. total, deposed she bad ta NMI, of the name of Robert, apprentice to the' Defenihnit ; being shown the Prospectus„ she laid she had never beets it Ire- fore, nor one ►ike it. About a month or ►it *tyke. age she saw a paper in her Itell . ” hand, but she did not see it opened, and did not Lion what the coo- tents of it litre. Richard IVeaver, son of the Hitt Witness, de posed, he had iweia • paper in the hands of his brother. The 1% itite%a had read part of it. but could not say whether it corresponded with the our produced. Mr. GURA EY end Mr. Bot.son here interfered, and argtual that Mr. Wigley must confine himself to the Prospectus or paper before the iVagi,trate, . . . . . • and not give evidence to any other, although it was ; for, notes. he proved that the idyll- field out, before the Court was printed et the office of the !Mewl:nit, the inforitunon moat fall to the ground; particularly al the infonner had made his tioast that lie wouid make two or three thousand pouted* of the Defendant, us -lesr-Mtended to res cover on every copy which he could find. Mr. WIGI.IIII contended he hail a right to get at the fact of its being printed by the Defendant, la ally inside, partie:darly as the witnesses were in the employ of the Defendant. Sir AIATMEW 14LOXVAM was of opinion thst Mr. Wigley must routine the witnesses it. the pa per before him. Richard Weaver was again called, and denied having any knowledge of the Prospectus produced iii the Defendant's shop, or that it was ear printed there. Mr. Wood&ll's foreman, and four of his jour neymen, corroborated the testimony of the last witness. as nut having any knowledge of the Pros pectus produced, or of the writing a direction of a cover, which the Prospectus was alleged to have been inclosed in, directed to Mr.. Hague. NViti. Woodfall was next called, on the part of the proseention, but did not appear ; it was Ktated he wasill. Mr.IVIOLET insisted heshould be fined for non attendance, he being summoned. On the butinnons being examined, it appeared ;t directed hi• should appear before Sir Matthew Woodfall, instead of Bloxham, of colise it was ir regular. !Major awl ellit.ll.l Maxwell were next called, but not appearing. t .• Mr. Wroutv stated, as those witness* did.not attend, he would take the liberty of puttissto d few questions to his Royal Highness the Dote of hushes:. - . - His Hoyal Highness answered he was ready to answer auy questions he thought proper to put to him. Mr. %%riots's- gala he thought it would be per fectly unuecemar7 to swear his Royal Highness. The Duke of Stissek observed' he understood Ue was in a Criminal Court, and he did not wish any privilege the law did not allow him ; and as it dkd ; not allow person* to give testimony in a Criminal" Court, mccept on oath, he wished to be qualißed accordingly. 1' • . • The oath was accordingly admit attreid a iißer which Mr. ‘VieLks , put the following 4i/toting's Q. Has your Royal Highness, id,angi 4,l3flverati don with Mr. Womlfall, heard hiio.agkrlowietigi that he was the printer of the Prospectus now bey' fore the Court ?—A. 1 never saw him before this dad•. Q. Was a manuscript of it ever shown to you ? —A. No. Q. Wkis there ever a printed ropy of it sent to you ?—A. It is impossible for me to speak from re collection. The direction on the back of the corer was then 'hewn to his Royal Highness, the writing on which he declared lie was unacquainted with. Mr. W lOLLY decl gto ask any further ques . Lion,. 111 r.. GURNEY said he begged the liberty of put ting one question to his Royal Highness. Q.—Did your Royal Highness ever procsire the Prove-A:tits to be printed ?—A. Certainly not. Sir MAT/III:W SLUMMY! eXpfellea his sorrow and disapprobation at the unnecessary trouble his Revel Highness had been put to. His Royal Highness asked if his presence ntig'it be &veined with. Bring answered in the atfirdia tive, be said he had come there out of respect to the City of London. There was a summons served on him, the right of which he protested against . ; he believed it had been smuggled by some means, 24 Alderman Shaw had denied having any know.. ledge of its being issued ; he had nothing further to say—but, having come there out of respect to the City of London, this time, hr hoped the Court would not consider it a mark of disrespect when he declared he would not come again. HIS Royal Highness thea bowed to the Magistrate. and 'ell the Court. Sir MATIVEW BLOXHANI then observed, that in disposiug of the matter before him, he was of opi nion there had been no evidence to prove that Mr. Woricifall was either the author, rioter, or puli lisiisr of the Prospectus. lie, thvrefore, of mums dismissed the information. There were three other informations between the same parties ; the bearing of which are adjaurised k until the 19th of Jannary, 1809. A vessel from Oporto, for Hull, i• on shore near 11.$1>t week three men, named Ja.-tes Creiham. Philip Mason, end Janes num alias Rzekiel were apprehisoded at Le:thorn, mar Richmond, ou suspicion of havin robbea Mr. Ittces /AMON, agent to the lead nines, near Wench. lead, un the .2.ith ult. as stated in our paper, yeiterila. The two tonne.% on the oiaLli of Mr. It. hare been committed to Northallerton gaol for the robbery. The latter is lodged its the huuhe ul rorr,srl in:: tinder the errant act. hitt •`• 4 "*.ir r t I'REEM4SONRr 411.7 I At the ,Assizes for the county of Tyrone. held at o+oo. an action was brought by Alexander &eon; Esti. u Barrister at Lew, against a Mr. William F. Graham, of Dublin, and which was tried hefore Judge. Daly *nth' Special Jury. The declaration was opened by I:movienor I'. MACKLIN, who &mated, that the Plaintiff brought Ins action against the Defendant Sir tlefienetirei, Mid the publication of three several li'velo—the first, a resolution, dated tld April. IW)7, of the Grand Lodge of Freemasons in Ireland, statine;„ that Alexander Sento had live', expelled the Uraud Lap and Masonry in general—the second, cautioning the brethren against receiving or sanc tioning Certificates sigued A. Seoul, dated since l't ALly, 1806, US he bad not held any office under the (fraud Lodge since that period—and the third, .being the Resolutions ofthe Grand Lodge of Eng land, dated London, September 2, lao7, stating that the Crand Lodge of England would not on any account receive or acknowledge nay Certifi cate issued by or under the hand of the said 'Alex ander Setun, dated any time subsequent to the 6th of June, 180(i, nor should any person, by virtue of such Crtifirate, be thereby received into any Lodge nutter the Grand Lodge of England. The Plaintiff laid his damages at Y.OOOI. and the Di:- readmit pleaded the ;ieneral The ease was stated ou the part of the Plaintiff. Ivy Counellor RottErrbw, who, at great length, expatiuwd un the injury doue to the character sod., property of the Plaintiff, by thus stating to the public his expulsion from so aueient and respect bile a Society, and the natural ignominy and dis grace that would attach to his character, if the Jury did not in damages prove to the country and to the society the falsehood of such a charge, and which only could be done by their verdict. The Learned Counsel also stated, tiut by this action the right of the Plaintiff would be proved to the situation of the Deputy Grand Secretaryship to the Freemasons of 11.1a1111, and thereby instruct the Meinliers of the Order where they ought to apply for such Masonic documents es they had occasion for, the Defendant hevieg assumed upon himself the situation, and thereb► claiming the fees that were attached to the °Bice, and also in that right publishing and circulating the libels on which the present action was founded. The Plaintiff then proved the publication sod circula thin of the alleged libria, and, alter the examination of several witnesses, closed hist:dal& The Learned JUDGE then intimated his *pinion that the Plaintiff should be non-suited—and the Plaintiff having stated his determination to appear & andgot,iiub mit, but leave the quest i on to a .fury of his cinntg, the I)efendant's Counsel declared, diet out of respect to the Court, they would not state eny ease, nor call any evidence. The Jol,llllt, after a most able and eloquent charge, and haring gone into every Taiwan& of the evidence, directed the Jury to tied foe the Defend ant. • The Jury retired, and, alter 14011101 eonsideration, brought id a verdict for the Defenda n t, w ith Gd. costs, thereby allowing the right of the Crawl Lodge, mid the justness and propriety of publeth jilzi the expulsion of its Meusbersr aid clearly as... certaising the Defendant to be its proper Officer. • ' ' COMMON PLEAS, DUBLIN. • WIIMIXAMOMM &STOW, Esq. Barrister a Low, e. • WILLIAM FRANCIS GVAIRAM, Esq. Thieves a motion on the part of the Plaintiff, to set aside the verthet had for the Defendant, at the last Aliktio at Oinagh. On the report of the Right Hon. JUdge Daily, who tned the action, it appear ed that the Pla i ntiff had declared, in the situation of D.IG.-"Secretary to the G. Lodge of Fe.o masons in Ireland, for the publication of libels, stated to be circulated and published by the De feclent, to the following effect--among other., 1. Grand Lodge of Ireland, Thursday, April el. 1807: Rewilved, That Alexander Setou be ex pelled this Grand Lodge, and Masonry iu general." And that by evidence given on the' part of the Plaiiitiff, the action was brought more to try his right to the office of Deputy Grand Secretary to the Grand Lodge of Irtlawl, than anything else. The other libels alleged to be published, were the subs sequent acts of the Grand Lodge of England and Ireland, confirming such expulsion of Mr. Setou.— The Leerutd Judge, in his report, which iris eery full, and reliance{ the entire of the evidence iven by the Planner, stated his opinion, that the Plinio iff ought to have been nonsuited ; but the Plaintiff having directed his agent to appear, and net heving done in, he had directed the Jury to and for the Defendant. the Plaintiff's evidence ant supporting his declaration. The Court, on heatieg the Luna.. eel Judge'a report, did not conceive it necessary to call on the Defendant's Counsel ; and after hearing, for a considerable length of time, Counsel for the Plaintill, Lord Norbert' was pleased to declare his opinion an follows : Tirat the action, on the pert of the Plaintiff; was a mere contest for office, a scramble for emolument. and appeared so by tl e declaration and evidence that the Plaintiff'. refusal to be nonsuited was an indiscretion; that if the publication weie unnecessary, Obi ACCordin to the duty of the Defendant, that then it would Le a different case, and that it eneht to be left to the Jury; that the nght to the office was the matter it. wait} a', and that the Court had not sty r;ht to in terfere ; that the Plaintiff stated the Society to be of a very great laegth of staudiust. beite"; uptrerde of weevil sears old, that it therefore had it ri 'tit to act as it thought proper; but it appeared that the sever:ll publications were dietributed, aid sent to the different Lodges of Freemasons in Ireland, a* informatees to thet body. by the Defendant, Mr. Graham, who was then the officer of the Or:. der; sod that pot:inig in the Cline Icssto be left to the Jam, but whether the Dgfesidatit did. in di rected lyre the Order, in his sittat;enoted that it ate peered he only communicated the publications to the Order in that light ' • that the Society was rests. e hated by it. own laws, aad that the Plaintiff might Lave rev(); • d to it f.r relief, if he had thought proper ; that tlw Plaintiff had set tip the iustitu eau and Nee laws of it, and on them grounded his case; mini that if ilw Court Iwheveci Lim, they 1 t 1, .4 I : I.i 41 ii i t • , • - • t ) IC r t- s r.‘