The Sun. — London, England, 1820-11-16 00:00:00

747. ," OY''s 40 014 1 So/e' 95' lxmoalifr —,....___ . . . , - I .,kk,kti; : lid.' ~. • . !..0 -----,_,• , , .-_:.-..-. . • • t. , y - , . IJ - ' ,4, ietet , ;V " .4 0 01 e4 b _ T Ili IT RS D AY, - ‘i,' 0V L" I\ll3 i'-_, It 16, 1 WO. [PRICE SEVENPENCE. Nuuntß, 8806.] rtlt; _ R D '" U-.11,1,1NG-OFPICF.3, Nov. 7. i R:2O. . , l ' - ' COMMISSIONERS for VICTUAL lice,t4'iG Mt; ilf..-1 a E STY'S NA /Y do hrrebq Sive A . " - ''reiot,, at ait Friday, the 17th inst. they will de ready tore:telt. , tlit': .in 74:y4i:it!. (sealed ~p), and &vent fur Si., , Hundred kl , ;4%1 TnATSTONE zr BRA) lit N VS' 1 I ,LO kV RODS, (n , r! "btP/e; - f . " l .Y•eight Incites in length;) to be answ , l'able to °fr ':',. l ' I" .ngt 1e 6 .) . 11.1.4 501) each great Tate, to hr produced with ' ' S pee e , 4 :, - , e 7 ; to 'he deliorred iato his.Majesty'S Victualling ti f s e - ,; -) filf ord, in regular :notably proportions, between. (ki,,l,ecrniter and 1 of Ma: ch' ?text. : Ind .for whfa "IS . I -1 0 1.71 ,I ) ,,, BARREL, KILDERIIN, FIRKIN. LONG .. figenlQ, 4 4% , NK antl Stout HAZEL WOOD HOOPS, may 'm ll t ' tOr t lill St • • • • aforesaid . .fire One Year , h, , e. „, Le use O . a O)C3 .. . '''lli,',, , , if ''' . it or I itce,nber nr.rt ; to he els. answerable 10 ~4, ,c.„:1,1e./..,roilucnol wig: the Tenders. vs Og e li ' t "is of the Contracts may be seen at the Scare- N re. f l 'ill, 2" ' n qer fo r a l ess ~,,,„t i h rt ha n One Hundred Mille of 4. It I t '7 . , l ?o'h s w il l-b e ( 4; q t- fir ,' 7 ,,,, r wilt regard be had to anti 'Pl ita; c 4 1,4 e. -P ,, ce shit/ n ot be inserter' in Jl'oeds at length, t:),, o,e , - 4:Ili ~,t ~, de;.,,,,,.,,i1„ the Board before One* O'Clock `, '. . g a i, 4 P riglo: / , the - 17;h'instant ; noi• unless the P e w'," ith7, b 7 r 's the :Ci: N 'lersome Person 07$ his behalf; attends, --:---._, wh'e nealleit for, LMV INTELLIGENCE. Judge which must drive his wire and family to want anti ln..ggary, he is intimidated and con-. fused, he gives up his defence, anckfalis without ixesistanse;" if a defendant was to be checked I.;y fine in*lie:act of waking his defence, there would be an end to fair and impartial trials. Suppose, for ,instance, there happened to be a corrupt Judge, and there had been some of that description, though fortunately none were to be found at the Present day—suppose such a Judge was disposed to-do what a corrupt Government requieed of him, liow . easy would it be to baffle . and confound a defendant by imposing fines which would reduce his family to ruin . .. The un fortunate rnaii, in such . a case, borne down by the Consideratiowdue to his family, would be hurried an unresifiii; yictiin to exile .or the scaffold. !rite Counsel concluded. Ly slating that the r4tllig4ioll' of the fine was- proof that - the Learned Judge doubted his authority to impw&e. them. Under all the features of the case, the defendant was entitled to a new trial. Pritts had clearly the power to fine for ContempL It was a Court of Record,and . they had the power to fine. As the contempt was agauist the Judge, he was a proper Person to decide whether it was a contemp*s - or not. The Learned Judge concurred In granting - the rule to show cause, because if it should appear there ;vas the least reason to suppose the de fendant had been prevented from obtaining a ver dict of acquittal, it would be just and necessary - he should have a new trial. 'Mr. Justice ll or.aayn-concurred in the opinions of his Learned . Brethren. Judge BEST again observed, that he was happy to know thateVery part of his conduct was open to discussion but here he would disclaim any intmition , to: intimidate the' dgendintt in making his ;ilofer;ce. Mr. Cn:orcit took the ru'e to shave cause. cat ALINAL usiroaNATlONs---,THE SING V. o'natetir. Mr. SOARLETT moved -to file a criminal Woe-. oration against the defendant for sending a chal lenge to a gentleman named likvard, brandishing a stick over him, and postin g him as.a coward on, the Royal Exchange.—TheCourt granted a rule,; to spew cause. COURT OF C HAN( ERY, Nov. 15. The LORD CuANcELLon was this day ugain occnpietitin hearing Counsel, in the cause of " The A'ttorney-General v. the Mayor and Cor poration of .Bristol," until two o'clock, at which time his Lordship rose. VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT, Nov 15. THE 'MARLBOROUGH ESTATES. This case was this day again brought before the Court, on exceptions to the Report of the Master relative to the Petition of Lord Spencer Churchill. After considerable arg ument, the case was order ed to stand at the hea of the paper, for hearing on Wednesday next. he I°. JO) J 0 134 t f° GrO", tQ 6 T 1 I I' s- WITAIII FS' OF IIt.AT3TY. TOOTH POW tre of reci ßALSAMlCininlepeetl byitrtA.T mmix ' 1- en ‘ iitt s it . /-4 - 1 : t las Tertie. It is e ntirely free of those corio(.l/14 o'1114.1;1e" 46rrit.the basis Of Most'Toutlt Powders, and which the 1. , ,Y. 1.4 ''ve so destructive L ... where the T.: et h. are lone ; ; : i ret it'~ s nj tired, it fastens them in the one e a se, an d N r , 3 m"" E namel in the other; it len-roves Tartar, CUIeS ;" , ly and produ ces a healthy redness to the gum s, n sues• to the. Teeth, to the breath a balmy fra '''roo't 4r "t is an infallible pi uservative against Decay, and lAls Ache. Price 25 91. , 1 ,!" tt;DSON'S WALE DIVINE (recommended be the itl"noter),' preserves and braulifies the Hair, and . ' 4 1) 5 1 5 !tits fallen off- from illness, perspiration, chLiii4e o f 1 " fallen cau ti t ' I d -prive the Hair of nuton, P t tiducL e -1c ' Huile Divine, it Inemature decay, uy using •a" - .. , - ``s.with or supplies t h e place of the o utritteeFluid , Sri te h 4; ir grows as formerly. See further elucidation and 1.4 o f its efficacy , it; a Paniphlct entitle d an Essay on, 44 1 r), -- S , enclosed round ' e ach Bottle. Price 35.6 d., 75. od., G oiriva. rum N bY „ 1.4 'Proprietors' : gent, Mr. .VIIC. iess SON rs. „ Per jGat- a and- 1 ,: 4 4, Gerrard-street, Soho-square , L n R I . ", 57, New Bond street•, Mess . rs. Howel l and a u ti r d . 1, v t ett flt rgent-street ; Messts, Bayley and Mew, p tr ' gge. Lheapside land bv most Perfumers, Hair ~-> s, and ltethtcine Veod ' ers in' Town and Country. Judge .13tsri..—" I should be the last person to prevent the defendant from having a new trial. I will leave My brothers, the Learned Judges, to decide the question without the slightest inter ference, and, but for the last observation of the Learned Counsel, I should not have said one word respecting my opinion and conduct ; but the Learned Counsel has supposed I remitted these lines, because I, doubted my authority to impose them. I entertained no such doubt. I never could doubt, and I never will doubt that autho rity, until told by the House of Lords that I did wrong. I will state the facts. The statement made on the part of the defendant was unfair. At -the outset of the cause, the ,defendant set out to provoke me to do that very thing which the Learned Counsel said I ought to have done, namely, to commit him, for the purpose of producing a separation of the Jury and an end of the trial, but in my opinion there would have been no . separation. A. conviction or acquit tal would have taken place. If a conviction had ensued in the absence of the defendant, it would •.!ot have be6i satisfactory, and I therefore en deavoured to avoid falling into the trap laid for me. I had the power of fining, and I preferred it, because it left the defendant the opportunity of defending himself: If I have used the power improperly, I am answerable to a superior tribu nal. I say, if any Judge used that power for the purpose of intimidation, he not tit to sit on the Bench ; but I did not use it for that purpose, Wheu .found an attack .made'on the Bar, mos! scandak.us And unjust, f told the defendant I could not" permit him to attack the Bar, or any person unconnected with the cause. If he wish ed to defend himself, he must keep to the sub ject before the Court ; and although nothing he could say to me would give me personal offence, it was my duty in my person to protect the forms of law. Immediately after he told me, if I was to prepare his dungeon for him, he would give me the keys. I thought this was language no Judge could endure, unless he suffered himself to be insulted in his office. Mr. GunNE . V here said, the words were, ' l4 Ii LEWIS V. CLEMENT. This was an action of libel against the proprie tor of The Observe?' newspaper ; the libel was contained in a certain paragraph, headed " Shame ful Conduct of an Attorney," and purporting to describe a proceeding which took place in the Insolvent Debtors' Court. Upon the trial, which_ took place at Maidstone in the year 1818, a ver dict was found for the defendant. Subsequently, upon the ground that one of the pleas of justifi cation could not be maintained in law, the ver dict was set aside, and a verdict entered for the plaintiff; and it was referred to the Sheriffs' Court to assess the damages to which the plaintiff should be held entitled. Mr. ADOLPHUS now moved for a Rule to she.w cause why the verdict for 5001., obtained in the Sheriffs' Court, should not be set aside and a new trial granted. The Learned Counsel made this motion upon the ground that Mr. Serjeart ljullock, in trying the cause, had misdirected the Jury ; and also upon the ground. of exces sive damages.—Rule to show cause granted. dui , ,~~o~a strlt; 0 oitd NAbt. By REAL JAY ` N BLAcKI o NG, 4. , ucIiARD TuRER, LNDON.RoAD TIII: KING V. JANE CART.II.E. Mr. HILL moved fora rule to show cause why the judgment in this case should not . be arrested, the defendant having been convicted at Guild hall of a blasphemous libel. The ground was this :—The indictment contained three counts, but the Grand Jury found a true bill as to the first two only, saying nothing as to the third. This was a fatal defect in the indictment, and he cited Ford's case, Yelverton 99. to spew that the indorsement by the Grand Jury was essential to a perfect indictwebt. The Court could not pass judgment, because it was uncertain to which of the counts the finding of the Jury applied. The Court immediately granted a rule to show cause. • `-'1 IMOLVENT DEBTORS' COURT, Nvv. 15. In the Matter of II EN RI ETTA HARRIETT DRAPER, an In s olvent. C. r 00' Pe r°°' s ~q•, ~~ ,c 1 sr e t f ; z dow , igtiburi of erg, nd, -- At 4f ei. As f. f i dOre 4 9 t : • • • , x. P ItIEN be liindCorequest their Servants and Cat tiers to ask for ICHARI) TURNER'S BLACKING Fa>iti, let thy glad trumpet raise r. ,- tiest note.s.to To RN ER ' S praise; . r ;r , ,veeleoso, Till the echoing world Tr-bi:inf. Who Upon our hoots or Owen 811C11 brit:ill lustre (loth diffuse ? Who a . l3laching can prepay ., That such lovely bloom duth bear ; Or such gloss and richness yield, Az 'ltraNtm's of St. George's Fields O'er the wide At 'antic deep, Whet:- the surgeless billows sleep: O'er the distant southern main; On the Continental plain— RNElt's worth and fame resound, For his Blacking sheds around On each polisli'd hoot a ray ()f beauty nought can melt away. Ott I've seen the polish'il gem . Glitter in the diadem: liow ninth brighter are the rays Tulin:Kies brilliant black displays? rapt in wonder, when in view, The lustre of that jetty hue, C all I tilt n forbear to raise , 'cu RN en's worth my song of praise? leroes, bluets, all will fade— ')oarclis' glories sink in shade: but then shall TURNER'S faille be o'er? Not till time shall be no inure? • - E'en While mouldering in the tomb, Fanie Shittl hid his memory blooms .And posterity shall wave s „ l 2 4 2rs af r ade . less laurels o'er his grave. (7 "'till th is brilliant and easy shining orl ; informed „ iso N Gll., 'Towns. x ,urth- Edirrhnigh, and all the Country owns. in "`une and South Wales and England, sell this Blacking in ottles at 6d., Is., and Hid. each. (>1 ( )", N• F irreign Trade supplied. Y all the principal Shopkeepers within the c irculation L,,.. pap er. t sue s . o '' , t re pa r ticu'rrirly invited to recommendrecommend their Servants Iris 'Y the t h "ghly esteemed Liq uid Blacking, heing sanct ioned f Famili es i n t h e Isnigdoin. ''r their stirs may observe, that this Composition , when used ht G i l i t, or Carr Urge H ar n e ss, will produce a brill i a nt, ~ ei .et glossy lu er tie, and at the same time acts as a Pre- Leath . USE TURNER'S BLACKING. y, st ----_____ til e s t i'clay was the First Day of Drawing of P r i z Ilt Loitery, when No. 1483 was dram a a roal c li e r ," 1 8,0001. Consols, and 2000/. Money, It ~- -g a prize of Twenty Thousand Pounds.— Offic,, 4°l(l in 9 Shares by BISII, at -his fortunate by I l i - A 4 ) Cornhill ' and 0, Charing-Cross, and gents i n tlili Country, viz. : - ''' ill artvr LoNDwg 1 Eitchth 1 Eighth I Eighth scAßBnßoucut I Eighth 1 Sixtevlith 3 Sixteenth 1 Sixtreitlh v. 1 Sixte rm h W sntII NGToN• 2 13 . h 15 R also so ld No. IQBB 500 1. an d No. 1567 uu, 1., both d rawn yesterday ' '.--- e v _ 28th /nst ar nt tt i ery finishes Next Tuesday-week, on whiebday am , T 'r - o Prizes 0f‘20,000/. fir." eral other Capitals must be dra,vvn.—. lin via Tickets and Shares are now on Sale. . ry - pi ac regret t o l earn , th a t a serious affray took hp ti ThUrsday aft e rnoon at Sandgate, between w h 4r tY of th e coast blockade and some smugglers , at Wer e attempting to land the cargo of a vessel las t la t Place, in which twelve or thirteen of the t u b" were wounded, and their vessel with 600 s of spi r i ts taken. T h e ll,.. diving-hell ) under the superintendance' of lay ', I ‘"TH, recommenced its operations on Mon- list, for the purpose of continuing the lIQW a-W4ll from the south jetty in Plymouth Dock- Sard. COURT OF KIM:4' • ..r,ENOtit; Nov: 1S: 13LASPUIV0913S LI BF,L._ THE KING , V. TrIOMAS DAVISON. This defendant, it will be recollected, was convicted at Guildhall, before Mr.. Justice BEST and a Special J ury, on the 23d ult., upon an in dictrnent charging him with publishing a blasphe mous libel concerning , . the ChriStian Religion, contained in Mr. Carlile's Republican. • Mr. COOPER, before judcrment was pronounced, • n moved for a rule to sheW cause why the verdict Should not be set aside, and a new trial.granted. The Learned Counsel observed, that it was a singular and novel case, and the circumstances induced him to regret that the task of supporting this application had not fallen to, a person of more experience. On the trial of this prosecu tion, which came on at Guildhall on the 23d of October last, the defendant stated, that being unable to fee Counsel, he was obliged to plead his own cause. He proceeded to read a written defence, and- the observations he made gave of fence to the Learned Judge, who imposed fines upon him.to the amount of five hundred pounds. The defendant being intimidated by ; the appre hension of irretrievable ruin, was disabled_from proceeding with his defence. He omitted . many facts and statements which might have been be neficial to his cause. The Learned Counsel then observed he should make no comments of his own, but discharge the s.;‘..aty reposed in him by reading the defendant's' affidavit of -facts. He accordingly read the affidavit. The defendant deposed, that having stated that it was a noto rious fact that no Gentleman at the Bar would undertake his defence, the Judge fined him twenty pounds. Judge 13E T.----,L do not know what security we have that this affidavit is true. This man avows himself a Deist. Mr. CoopEtt•said, he had never heard it 'de cided that the affidavit of a Deist, who swore according to his belief, was not to be received. Judge BAILEvile swears on a book which he does not believe. - Judge BEsT.---Ilow can you believe the affi davit of a man who swears by the Holy Evan gelist, and at ,the same time avows he does not believe it Mr; COOPER was, however, directed to go on with the affidavit, which further stated, that the defendant was fined .401.' for stating that the higher orders of society were sceptics, and the Bishops infidels. Having enumerated the other fines imposed, it concluded by saying the 'Learn ed Judge, in his charge to the Jury, remitted 1 the fines on the ground that the object for which he imposed the fines was accomplished. The Learned Counsel contended that the injury don. the plaintiff was,not lessened by the remission of the fines. The injury was clone; And the Jury acting upon the impression which the defendant had no power to remove, found him guilty. It was a question still to be determined, whether a Judge had power to fine for contempt. The re medy in case of obstruction of the jurisdiction of the Court was of another description. The offender might be committed. The defendant had only made a statement of causes w''hich brought the Deist info disrepute with Christians. He merely attributed an excess of opinion upon religious points, and ho - w a Judge could fine for such a statement he was at a loss to imagine. He (Mr. C.) could scarcely take up any book writ ten by religious authors in which he did not fiud censure cast upon the upper orders of society for the examples they held forth. He was not aware of any authority for fining a person who mentioned such things in his defence. Lord El lenborough, that venerable Constitutional Judge, at the trial of Isaac Eaton, endeavoured to re strain that defendant, and finding his defence a repetition of the offence with which he was charg ed, he repeated his order to desist from the line of argument taken ; but lecollecting himself, he said On mature consideration, I am inclined to think the ends of justice will be better serval by allowing the defendant to begin again and read his paper. The matter is too gross to in jure for one moment the cause of Christianity. Mr. Eaton, ge on again reading your defence, if you desire to proceed." The Lord Chief Justice of the present day, in the trial Of.Carlile, never thought proper to impose a fine. In the case of the King v. Wedderburne, no fine was imposed ; in short, the proceeding in the present case was unsupported by the usual practice of Judges. He could prove that a more dangerous proceed ing never existed. " Suppose (said the Learned Counsel) a man presents himself to make his de fence, who has a wife and children. A good man will feel nothing operate more forcibly on his mind than the consideration of his wife and children, and if when he- undertakes his defence he meets with a heavy fine imposed by the your Lordship has the dungeon' ready, allow' me to furnish you with the keys." Judge BEST continued. I told him, if he in sulted my situation, or attacked. the established religion of the Country, under which I was a Minister of Justice, I should impose the punish ment I did impose. Immediately after, he made that -which I .considered an attack on the Christian Religion. I thought it my duty then to fine him 401. I told him to make his ob servations on the case, and not to go out of the way to attack persons out of Court. Ile very soon after attacked the Nobility, by calling them " Blacklegs," and the Bishops " Infidels." I then fined him 40/., and told him peremptorily the fines must be paid. At the time I in flicted these fines, I begged the defendant to state all that was material to his defence. I would hear it, I told him, - with patience, provided he did not offer insult to the religion under which I sat there. - If he did not do that which he ought not to do, God forbid the defendant should not have a patient, hearing ; but I thought it was my duty to do what I did, and I never had any doubt of my power to fine, for in law and justice it was right. I had the apology of the defendant for remitting the fines. I did not wisli that perpetual imprisonment should follow the aci after the object for 'which the fines were imposed had been accomplished." The CHIEF jusTicE, after some consideration with Judges Bailey awl Llolroyd, said, " I have not the sti;,-,htest,doubt or the power of a Judge sitting at Nisi Prius to fine for contempt of Court in his presence, nor have any doubt it was com petent for a Judge in some cases to remit the tine, and ltow*'v xipainful it may be to impose fines on a defendant, yet if he cannot restrain him from conducting his defence without defaming morals and religion, he has the power to impose fines. The ropriety of the act Ido not call in question. It is stated to have had the effect of intimidation, bytt we cannot judge of that unless we have before us the indictment on which the defendant took his trial, the - evidence given against him, and other circumstances. For the purpose of having all the facts before us, and of giving full consideration to the question, we are disposed to allow the party a Rule to shew cause, in order that the discussion may come on (luring the present Term. I thought it right to say thus much and no more on the present occasion. Judge BAILEY stated that a Judge at Nis, This was a singular case, the Insolvent being a• married woman in custody at the suit of a Mr. Vincent, an attorney, for costs due to him. The insolvent was formerly married to a Mr. Sharp, who was a glass and china-seller, and who died in January 181-9, upon which she took out letters of administration to his effects, and was sued by Mr. Vincent as such, which. action she defended, and pleaded plene admi, nistra-oit, and - for the costs of which suit she is now in custody. In March 1819, an execution. was put into her house, when Mr. Draper, who resided in her house, purchased the things, and paid - 4001. far thorn. In June she married Mr. Draper, and about three weeks after was arrest• ed and sent to prison. She was opposed by Mr. A notenus, on behalf of Mr. Vincent, and sup ported by Messrs. POLLOCK and HEATIIi MT: AnoLenus opposed her on two grounds, first, for having omitted to state in her schedule some free hold property which her former husband was in his life time possessed of, and which, whilst a widow, she was entitled to dower, and which would re-i vert to her in case she survived her present husband, an , : also for having put the plaintiff to frivolous and vexatious expense, by pleading a false plea ; the latter ground was abandoned, the proceed ings not being in Court,• and the schedule was amended on the former, when she was declared entitled. In the Matter of JOHN BOTIIAM, an Insolvent... The :insolvent in this case was opposed by Mr. BARILY, for Mr. James How ; by MessrS. ADOLTHUS and TURTON, for Messrs.-Baker; and by Mr. Ttlt-TON, for Messrs. Hogg, Webb, and Brown ; and supported by Mr.Potr.ocx. Mr. finny first opposed upon the ground., that this man had been discharged under the In solvent Act about two years ago, and then con tended that the onus of proof lay with him to brin , himself under the 43d Section of the-Act. • INfr. PoLLOcK contended, that the. Insolvent was within the meaning of the Act, his present insolvency arising from his having given fresh security for debts he ()Mated to insert in his for mer schedule. The CUIEF COMMISSIONER remarked that the Insolvent's petition did not bring him within the 43d Section. Mr. BA RRY said, he • had no less than seven creditors in attendance; who the Insolvent had omitted now to state in his schedule, amounting to upwards of 3001. - and alt contracted within the dismissedlast 1.8 Cu m o on r l. t hs the Insoivent's petition. .4 0 CP VP 0 0. 4 Monf.' • ~ fit'o!l o .11 0 - 1 1 Ora4°