The Sun. — London, England, 1820-11-17 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE. rOURT OF. CHANCERY, Nov. IR. THE .OPERA HOUSE.-WATERS V. TAYLOR. Mt...HEALD said, he had a motion to make on the behalf.of the defendant in this cause. He understood his Learned Friends, the Attorney- Cetieral and. Mr. Hart, were Counsel for the other side. If he made the motiin iu f.leir ab sence he was afraid ,his Lordship would have to hear it twice. He had several other motions si niilarl The Loan CHAscrtunt—" I am not sorry for it, Mr. Heald, as there is not a matrin Eng land that wants a holiday more than I do." , His Lordship then rose at eleven o'clock, the liar not being prepared with motions. cotTnT OF KING'S BENCI - I, Nov In. •The argument in . the case of the King against Sir F. Burdett having beenfixt d for to-day, the Court was crowded at an. early hour.—The So- Licrroa-G ENEILA L was called upon, and he rose to move for judgment upon Messrs. Wooler, Cart .vright, and others, convicted at the late :Warwick Assizes of a conspiracy ; but as the Judge's notes were not in Court, the motion was postponed to a futu;.t day. I'M , : CASE OF Silt FRANCIS BURDETT. Mr. DENMAN said, he was now to support his Learned Friend's (Mr. Scarlett's) argument, to have the rule granted in this case made absolute. It had been maintained on the other side, that the milting of a libel alone was an offence, indepen dent of publication. , The LORD eill JIiSTICE.—" We are not in a case of that kind; here has been a publi- cation." Mr. DENMAN said there had been a publica tion, but there was no evidence in what way that publication took place. In the case of the King v. Bere, Lord Holt, in giving judgment, had re fled upon no antecedent authority, but on the con trary, had been under the necessity of getting rid of all former authorities ; authorities, to say the least of them, equal - to his own. lie had said that Lord Coke's decision in Lamb's case was not law, unless taken with the qualification Moore's Reports. The doctrine that a libel written but not published, was a crimei had no countenance from the whole calendar of crimes as known to the law of England, except in the single case of forgery. But in that case the act of forgery it was which did the wrong ; it was by that act a man was made liable, and the publication there fore made no difference in the offence. If the keeping of libels in a man's.possession were to be accounted criminal, all those who had the works of Gibbon in their possession were guilty, for undoubtedly there were many of his chapters which, if brought before a'. Jury, might be held libellous. But the having and keeping libels was no crime by the law of England, it was the act of publication ; the making of other minds cognizant to their contents which consti tuted the offence. The issuing of general warrants was once held to be part of the law of England, and had some analogy to the present point. The doctrine of tnaliim.r, the writing of libels - a critne had reference to the power of searching for and seizing them in . the maker's own . possession. Lord Coke having got rid of the case of the King against Lamb, had fortified himself with prece dents from the Star Chamber, of persons who -bad - been punished for writing libels only ; and le said, that by consequence such offences were now punishable by indictment. But it appeared in Hubbard, that in the two cases relied upon, publication did take plate ; and instead of being cases of writing alone, were cases of writing .and publishing, and supported his argument. The At torney-General had said, that he did not want to found himself on the Ronan law ; but in fact, there was no English law for it whatever :• and it was remarkable that Lord Chief J ustice. Holt, who bad laid down &tat alarming proposition, had nothing but Roman law to shew for it, and. that equivocal, and when examined found to be against instead of favourable teihis Lordship's argument. The two Star Chamber cases to which he •-had alluded in Hubbard, were Llewellen's case, and Blake against Hatton; they were both cases of letters written and sent. In the time of King .Charles H. Chief Justice Scroggs stated the case of the King v Harrris, as the opinion of all the Judges, that persons who wrote, or printed, or sold books, scandalous to the Government, alight be prosecuted, and the books seized. Such was the doctrine of the twelve Judges in the time of Charles I I. The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE—" The early part of Lord Molt's life was spent in impugning such doctrines." - Mr. DENMAN—" A melancholy example of the instability of human virtue." The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE—" Bath before and afte , r his elevation to the Bench, his opinions were in favour of the liberty of the subject. 'that is the character which Lord Holt has al ways borne." Mr. DENMAN said it must be a painful duty for any Barrister to speak disparagingly of Lord Holt, but it was a consequence .of his living in such times, when even strong and generous minds frequently acted afterwards in some de gree upon the principles which they had be fore opposed. The LOUD CHIEF JUSTICE said, he did not mean to state that Lord liolt's doctrine was not fit to be opposed. Mr. DENmAN—In the case of the King against Carr. Sir George Jefferies, the Recorder, had stated that the Judges having met, had given it as their opinion that no person could expose to knowledge any thing concerning the af fairs of the public without license from the King. That was in 1660, and in fact, at . the Restora tion a licenser was appointed, and it was under such a dispensation that Lord Holt's early life was passed. It was not till King William's time that the law respecting the licensing was stitiered to expire. The right to seize papers, and to enter houses and search for them, continued to be considered as law till 1767, when Lord Cam 'den pronounced against it. On whim occasion, he reviewed the w hole of the case of- the King against here. The whole of that case undoubt edly went on the ground that there was a right to search for and seize papers even in the desk of the party. His Learned Friend, the Attor ney-General, had carried his argument to the ex tent that writing of a libel alone, though kept locked up in a desk, was punishable, which was entirely conformable to the right of seqrching for and seiziug'pa4Jers. The Learned Counsel then quoted Mr. starkey's book, published. in 1813, to shew that the authority of the case of the King against Bere was not now questioned for the first time. Lord Camden said, on the question of the general warrants, that, if the doctrine of that case were true, when a seditious libel had beep pu blished a few weeks, the whole kingdom would have become guilty, and it would be a difficUlt matter amongsf so. many millions of finding one ignocent Juryman. Mr. Denman then refeired to the 4th volume of Blackstone, page 150, the whole of which proceeded on the supposition that a publication had taken place. The LORD CHIEF. usncE.—" In the same page he states, that the punishment for making, printingi or publishing a libel, was a fine." Mr. DENMAN said, that supposing it establish ed that writing 'alone was no offence, he must submit that that was the only act shewn to have been done in the county of Leicester. BUt if the Court should be , of opinion that writing alone was an offence, then he claimed A new trial on that ground, because-the Learned Judge at the trial was of opinion that writing alone was no offence. Mr. Justice BEST said, that his opinion wai, that the mere act of writing memoranda of libel lous matter was no crime, but if written with in tent to publish, it was one step towards crime, and was a misdemeanor. Mr. DENMAN said, he did 'tot recollect his Lordship's stating that at the Assizes ; but upon general principles, he contended, that making a libel was no clime at all, so long as it remained in the maker's possession. If such were the lay► it would lead to all those inconveniences which were objected to general, warrants, now hap pily got rid of. The consequences would be an encouragement to, spies, and an incitement to breaches of confidence and treachery in servants. It would, indeed, lead to consequences 60 mon strous, that no English Court of Justice could for a moment entertain the doctrine. Cases of con spiracy had been referred to, whe,re the offence had . been - committed in different counties. In the case of the King v. Brisac, one overt act was done in Middlesex, and that was sufficient to bring the case within the jurisdiction of that county.-- It was one complete act there committed. But the two acts of writing and publishing were distinct and separate acts, and there was no evidence whatever of Sir Francis Burdett having done any one act in Leicestershire besides writing. Cases of nuisance had also been referred to, and the case of a windmill had been supposed situated in one county producing an act of nuisance in ano ther. But that act was one and entire ; and had no analogy with the present case, where the acts were entirely different. The third point made was, that evidence of publication had been allow ed to go to the Jury ; because the letter had been received open in London, it was to be presumed that it was open in Leicestershire, which would be a publication in Leicestershire. That was a presumption which, in a criminal case, should never be admitted. But he denied that, strictly speaking, there was any evidence whatever of the letter having been delivered open in the county of Leicester. It was contrary to common prac tice and experience that it should have been so, and the evidence which was given on the trial, in his opinion, put it out of all doubt. It was ad mitted at the time that a sealed letter was no pub lication. Mr. Justice BEST denied that had been admit te'd by him. The only evidence was of an open letter. Mr. DENMAN said, he should be sorry to put his memory i❑ competition with his Lordships's. Mr. Justice BEST said, he had a distinct recol lection that he had referred to the case of the King v. Watson,which was that of a sealed letter, and how he could have referred to that if he had been considering the case of an open letter, he could not imagine. Mr. DENMAN proceeded to observe on the case of the King v. Watson. Mr. Justice ilAyi.Ey--" Did it appear what day the letter reached Brooks ?" Mr. DFNINIAN-- . " Ile was not certain if he re ceivedit on the 23d or 24th of August." Mr. Justice BAYLEY—" Sir Francis Burdett was seen in Leicestershire on the (22d ?" Mr. DENMAN said he was so ; that there was plenty of time for him to have carried the letter himself. It ought to have been shown that he wat never out of the County. Mr. Justice BEST---" The letter was publfished in The British Press on the 25th► of August, so that it must have arrived in town on the 24th." Mr. DENMAN contended; that the written di rection- as to the publication on the envelope, was a strong proof that_the letter was not deli vered to Mr. Bickerstaff in the county of Lei cester. This, he said, would be the first in stance of a party convicted on two presumptions, which had not been shewn to be more probable than twenty other presumptions which might be named. Ilis Learned Friends had found no authority whatever, though so long a period had been employed in the search. The Lotto CJIIEF JUSTICE said, that in 2d Campbell, page 505, where the charge was for composing, writing, and sending, the evidence of sending was putting in the post in Middlesex, and Lord Ellenborough there said that was proof of publication. Mr. DES: MAN referred to the case of the King against Watson, where the same Learned Judge held, that the post-mark was no evidence of publication, as it might be forged ; but,. in that case, his Lordship held that the publication Was where the letter was received, which was in Middlesex. Mr. Justice BEST said, he had not relied upon that case. Mr. llaxmAN said, his argument was, that Sir Francis Burdett should leave been proved to have parted with the letter in Leicestershire; but on that point there was no evidence at all. He again observed on the absence of all authority, and argued, that if it had been law his Learned Friends on the other side, with all their inge nuity and research, must have found one. He hoped he had said enough to satisfy their Lord ships that writing alone was no offence, and that it was quite impossible to assimilate the present to those cases where two distinct acts were ne cessary to make up one crime; and also, that the law required that the criminal act done should be within the jurisdiction of the place, and be in quired into where it occurred. At least he hoped it would appear that there was enough of doubt in this extraordinary and long-discussed case, to make it necessary to have a more satisfactory trial. Mr. PHILLIPS followed ; he said that it was not his intention to go through the argument again, as it related to the civil law. It was 'necessary to refer to it, because Lord Holt had said, that the civil law was transferred to the law of England, and it therefore be came necessary to see if there were no mis take in what was stated to be the civil law. He cited to their Lordships the original text of Justi nian, and referred them to the Commentaries of Oppius and of neeber to shew that the rule of the civil law was, that the writer of a libel would be liable after publication. In the case of the seven Bishops the writing was proved by the acknowledg ment of the Prelates, but Mr. Justice Powell ob served on that occasion, that the writing in Mid dlesex was not proved, from which his Learned Friends on the other side inferred that writing alone without publishing was sufficient. But they forgot that the charge against the Bishops was conspiracy, and the proving of one overt act of conspiracy would be correct with reference to the case before the Court, but it had no refer ence whatever to the present. The argument of hir I.earned Friends, that as at common law the writing a forged note without publication was a crime, SQ the writing of a libel without publica tion was a crime also, was nothing more than an argument from analogy, and if carried to its ut most length would apply to every case where the means were prepared for a crime, but never carried into execution. So that sharpening a dagger with intent to strike, collecting combus tibles with intent to burn ' a house, or mixing poison with intent to administer it, would all be considered as crimes; whereas he would contend that there must be some overt act to demon strate the legal guilt. The moral guilt might consist in intention, but a criminal intent is not under the cognizance of human laws till some act has been done to carry it into exe cutkn. The Learned Counsel, on the authority of a treatise whose name we could not catch, contended that the laws of Edward I. and the whole of the Saxon laws proceeded on the supposition that the libel must be published. As to the venue, he contended that in civil cases the rule had been relaxed, but in criminal proceed ings it had never been, touched. In support of this proposition he cited Hale and Iluzzkins. He contended that the presumption that Mr. Bickerstaff had been for two or three days in the county of Middlesex before he received the let ter, was as reasonable and probable as that Sir F. Burdett should be presumed to have been in Leicestershire on the 23d and 24th August, be cause he was seen there on the 22d August. But, at, all events, it appeared clearly that publica tion did first take place in the county of Middle sex, and therefore the venue should have been laid in that county. The Learned Counsel, then took a review of the Learned Judge's charge to the Jury, and objected, that he had stated that " the letter might have been seen and read by Bickerstaff in Leicestershire," whereas there was not a tittle of evidence to shew that Bickerstaff was in Leicestershire at -all at the time. The Learned Judge also stated, that it lay with the defendant to prove that the letter was not put.in the post in Leicestershire, when in the nature of things that *as impossible, supposing, what was extremely probable, he had put it in 'the post himself. Ile had also stated, that the defendant " delivered it out for publication at Kirby ;" but there was no proof at all of that. These obser vations must, he contended, have made an undue impression on the minds of the Jury ; and as in a case like the present it was desirable that the administration of justice should not only be pure, but perfectly unsuspected, he thought he was war ranted-in asking of their Lordships that the rule for a new trial should be made absolute. Mr. BLACKBURN followed on the same side, and cited- several authorities in support of the propositions laid down by his Learned Col leagues who preceded him.----At half past three, The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE said, as Mr. Jus tice Holroyd was obliged to leave, they would postpone hearing the remainder of the argument to another day. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL inquired if the ar gument • could he resumed to-morrow ) but on account of the great arrear in the special paper the Court decided that it 'could not then be gone into. THE KING V. WOOD, ROBERTS, AND DAY. The defendants, who had been convicted at the last Chehrisford Assizes of a conspiracy to extort money from J. Roberts, senior, by falsely charging his son, J. Roberts, jun., with an unna tural crime, were brought up for judgment. The LORD CHIEF-JUSTICE having read over his notes . of the trial, Mr. GURNEY, for the Crown, addressed their Lordships. He commented on the aggravated nature of the offence committed by the prisoners, characterizing it as a malignant conspiracy con ducted with the greatest deliberation. The Judges consulted together for a few minutes, after which Mr. Justice BAYLEY sentenced Wood to 20 months' imprisonment in the Chelmsford House of Correction ; and Roberts and ,Day severally to 9 months' imprisonment in the same House of Correction. POLICE INTELLIGENCE. Bow-STREET.—Three young men who gr t , their names, Hill,Green,and Davis,were brag; to the office in the custody of Lewis, a consta ble from Drury-lane Theatre, he having apprehen ed them in the act of distributing a great num b !, of hand-bills, tending to cause a disturbance to the Two Shilling Gallery of that Theatre, etl i throwing great numbers of th e m into the Pit. V i a Bill was headed " God save the Queen, da te „ Thursday, Nov. 16, 1820, proceeding with am address to the audience as follows The auv dience are respectfully informed, that the follow; ing new song, with new music, called God se% the Queen, has been sent to the leader of the band in this Theatre, and should it be reqttes te by the audience, it is presumed it will be l' er t i formed.' " Four verses follow, ending with Ge save the Queen. The prisoners had been examined before Sr, Birnie in the Manaaer's room, he happening t° in the theatre, when Davis refused to give account of himself ; but on his being brought ~, the.office, he acknowledged that he was a t ar penter, and in his defence he said he k•n eit nothing of the other prisoners, Hill and Giee! but happened to sit near them, and assisted they to distribute the bills. Hill and Green said they were printers, 311(1 were apprentices to Mr. Coe of Little Carter' lane, St. Paul's, whose name appeared at the torn of the bills, and who had given them. to pay for. their admission into the theatre for t' purpose of distributing the bills. Ole Mr. William Dunn, the Treasurer of . 0 Theatre, attended and stated, that it was not the power of the Manager to have performed ti e contents of the bill in question, it not having be e . sanctioned by the Lord Chamberlain. if it 1 , performed without authority, the patent attachei, to the theatre would be liable to be annulß' The most trilling alteration in a new piece/ be even an alteration of an old piece, could not a _ performed, without the sanction of the L °l. Chamberlain. The prisoners were not detained in custody , required to find bail, but after signing the ac count they gait) of themselves, &c. they were di"; charged, leaving it to the Manager to proscoi' them, or Mr. Coe, the printer. A MYSTERIOUS OCCURRENCE.—Some time ag o beautiful girl of 16, the only daughter of a la ti l residing at Earner's-terrace, Chelsea, was.mis! e j froth her home, and no trace could be obtaine r , of her for some days. At length it was ascAi i , tamed, that in her walks, .which she was in t i . e r habit of taking in tlib King's road, with brother, she had several times met an e lder l l o man, of gentlemanly appearance, who entered il' er conversation With her, and that on the day of 11 j elopement, she was seen to get into a chaise 0 ,0 four with him, and drive rapidly away: It was 0- tt ascertained from her little brother, that the 01 represented himself to be a Peer. In c onsf: quence, an inquiry was made amongst the Lord s ' e but no Nobleman could be found answering tu 4 description of the seducer. An application IC a then made by a Major M. and another Gentle man, to Mr. BIR.NIE; and the Magistrate oilie r : ed Salmon, the Officer, to use ever y poSSal effort trace the f ug iti ves . I n a f ew days was ascertained -that the seducer was Sir C. a Baronet and M. P., who is upwards ° J , sixty • years of age, and that he had conveYe„, the unhappy girl to• Scotland. Having made ti"" discovery the parties again requested the adv ic , e . of Mr. Birnie, and at his recommendation a wt'i r of Habeas Corpus was procured, commanding S' W. C. to give up (he body of the young La d i f she being a minor, and a messenger was inv"' . diately sent off to Scotland armed with this Ira!: date. From s information received yesterday the is no doubt that the young Lady will be speed'' ly restored to her family.—( Luker.) ,MARLBOROUGH-STREET.--The i rows finished with fining Mrs. Elizabet i l i r l D i i n c a lc- t e is : l of Castle-street. Itappeared by the testiroopl of the officers on duty, that fire-arms Yve r , e tired repeatedly from the door of defendant s house, and on the approach of the constables t"`" . door ,was made fast,' and two men amused the; selves with firing from the parlour window. l' house was illuminated and some Ladies in full dre g amused themselves by making conges to the cou: cers, or to borrow one of their expressions, zralt!; ing with their heads. ,The Magistrate ordeT e the Lady to pay a fine of 205., agreeably to i re Act of Parliament, which makes it offence the house-keeper to suffer such to be done. Th e Defendant at first refused to submit to the fin e f t , and then offered. to pay half of it o' n'The score fine poverty-, but on being informed there could In ri g mitigation, she, went home to fetch it. CortoNrst's INQUEST.-011 Tuesday night Inquest was held at the house of James Clarl' e? the White Lion o James's-street, Covent-garde7 before Mr. HiGos, Coroner, on the body of Jo e Dawson, who was killed in Drury-lane, by wheel of a waggon passing over his body. Ve t diet—" Accidental Death." BRH. Yeeterday, in New Boswell I -cou T rt, Lincoln's.:nn-fields , t Lady of Bo3ce (.;onibe, Esq„ of a son. • ARR I ED. MARRIAGE IN HIGH -LIFE.—Mr. F. West, only son o.f lion. Mr. IVest,.and grandson to the late Earl De La O raf c ; the hvmeneal al ar, on Tuesday, the beautiful Mid somplished Lady Georgiana Stanhope, youngest daughte r dr, the late, and sister to the present Earl of Chesterfield. ' 3O . West is heir to the greatest part the very extensive mains of Chirk Castle, in Wales, which have been so and are still in dispute. A On the l4th instant, at Marylthonne new Church, Eu i '; 4 . o l Rankin, Esq. late of Madras, to Rebecca, eldest daugbi c ' Mr. .lames. Parnell, of Doncaster. On Tuesday evening, the MED I4th instant, at Jesus C 07,0 Lodge, Cambridge, in his 7Gt II year, the very Rev. ac t Pearce, D.D. Dean of the Cathedral Church of Ely, 1 0- of Jesus College, &c. LONDON: Printed by J. 13. CARSTAIRS, of No. 2A, C ( ":1. Ormond-street, Qneen-square; and published by 14 ;-.0 1 StIiIPPS, of No. 7, South Molton-street, at -rgs j et Office, No. 112. Strand ; where Adrettisements, Or 1 ..titre., (post-paitil must be addressed, ~ L ~ li r ATE hURGE Lltd f o i4 wl ) , , beg L e %glue ni r a n , e i ts 1c:16 c : 0 1114 kt [ 4 t ,, i, whn I :tej, l t ue ttl e i l l; (I,4;es(Jt t I t "t 4 "1.9„ 11N 4, 1 ",td ?re ;it `'Y then rst satisl ehonse. tin 11 7 I LL 111)itof 1•:, 4 , 1 e ex try sia k e tt • •,. A I , llto i. ‘ ( MV 11):Z , )f 1 1 4 4 ' . e tteery It he sei ty Heil to, t i ti t t • s k eet he • u m fr o t:,,,,l sr 'ttß I . l, 4 , e niet t ; ' , wit„•` I : to hart lll U:4l d t I re "11111 Nru . ahi e Pri of 1 1 40 (1 li• . 14 st I 'ryas • L lr oker s " IA e l in t] le t : c (1 a laJ t u sal tit N(i x fur l)11 1• 71‘ : rer I /‘ I.LE. I‘ 911 1erw" . IS ) it r.s ti c; o ) 4' , Pitt tia q ) ,° l O 11 1 ‘ 1 ,s• to 1 t i t "zit to (at: 1 ‘1 , ,r I FA. - r t l.l e k ., ac ,tire. Per 7. ; At Es, )?‘ " 1, 1,," if.,l °- "ill Fi "e s i r _ , , " 1 01. i t. pi 1 t , ,L'4l la ke t'4llll' lii , Tll TA. , 1~ ~`