The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1825-11-12 00:00:00

COL'ItP OF KING'S BENCH, WEsTmnaTra, Nov. 11.

CRIMINAL INFORMATION.
Mr. SCARTRTT moved for a rule to show caute why a Milting!
information should not issue against five persons, namely, Drys+
dale, the printer of the Reading lifcrenry, Gerrard and Mendip,
the proprietors and editors, Leach, a publican. and Smith, nn at-
torney, for having joined in the publication of a libel on certain
Mao-nitrites of • the county of Berks. lie moved for a rule, on -
affidavits made by the four Magiatrater, Mr. Monk, 111. P..
the Rev. Mr. Stephens, and Mr. Harris. The libel vat
published in the shape of an advertisemeht, published in the
Rending Mercury, and professing to contain a statement, but'
which was, in reality, a mistatement, of the proceedings
took place before these Magistrates at a session held for the pur-
pose of granting licenses. Leach, one of the peons Leach, apinet whom
he moved, wan the occupier of the Four Horse Shoot public-bony,
situated near Heading, just out of the jurisdiction of the foto'. air.
Harris, in his affidavit, stated, that in the month of last July,'
having heard of an assault and disturbance which had taken plate
at this hotter, at a very late hour of the night, he mentioned the'
circumstance to Mr. Stephens (a person entirely distinct from the.'
Bev. Mr. Stephens the aingisttnts, and having no connexion with
him), and told him, that if he cOmmuell to have such a tenant, the •
Magistrates would obliged to refuse licensing his house. Ste-
phens said he had heard of the bad conduct of Leech his tenant,
and had given him notice to quit. Dr. Alitford had been in the
habit of passing the house. and said that he had frequently observed
about it persons of very Indifferent character. At the licensing
day, the 17th September, Dr. Dlitford 'mentioned tbe obstrvatioas,
which he had made to his brother Magistrates. When Leach
came in to have his license renewed, he wss told that the license
would not be renewed. He then staked the reason and was told.
that no reason would he given. Leach then Bald ;hat he would
take advice and apply to them again in a few days. On the Min of
September he came again, accompanied by Mr. Smith, an aunt-.
ney. Mr. Smith demanded of the Magistrates torenew the license..
lie said that they had no power to refuse it; that their discretionary
power was taken away by the Act of Parliament of thefiri Geo. 1V.,-
by which the al agistratea were empowered to tire a publican M. anti
1111. for the first and second offence, and m refuse him only tor the
third offence, after two convictions. The Magistrate asked for the
Act, and having esamined it, returned it, saying, that it had no
relation to this case. Mt. Monk said it was impossible that this
Act could have any application to the business before them, for that
he himself had attempted to introduce a clause limiting the discre-
tionary power of Magistrates in rethaing licences. which was rejected;
The magistrates still refusing to assign any reason for art renewing•
the license, the solicitor then asked if a man wars to be condemn-
ed without a hearing. Mr. Monk said that. " ifthe refusal of the
' magistrates to grant a renewal and not to assign their reason,was to.
be considered as equivalent to condemning a man unheard, that the
law wan so ; we sit here not to make the law, but to adatinistvr
it." The house was afterwards licensed to another tenant, the mi-
-1
gistrates being all of opinion that the premises were well situated
for a public-house. These, Mr. Scarlett said, were the rireani-
stances ea they really occurred, and the mistatement of which con.,
atituted the libel. It was published in the Iteadin,o• Me, cite
which is printed by Drysdale, Gerrard and Mendip being the Lob:
prietors. There can be no crubt of the active part which Sniith
took in this affair, as it was on affidavit that he had Orestes-
ed to expose the magistrates, anti that he fubsequently whined
Leach to send it to another paper for insertion, which was refused
The advertisement professed to be an address to the publicans of
' Heading, signed by Leach. It was addressed to his " brother pub.
licans, gave a most perverted statement of what had occurred bc.•
fore the magistrates, anti In particular entirely misrepresented the
reply which Mr. Monk had given to the question, Whether a 1110,i
was to be condensed without s hearing ;" stating him to hare an.'
awned to this question " yes," absolutely and without any quali-
fication. The tour gentlemen on whose behalf Mr. Scarlett made'
the application distinctly negatived, in their affidavits, all the elle.:
gationa charging them with having acted Illegally, or from partial
and interested motives.
The Court granted the role.

GREEN I'. TUE 110 N. AND ntlt. I untrr sAvir.t.r,

This action was tried at Olouiester, bcflrre Mr. Justice llolrorJ,
and a verdict found for the defendatst.

It was brought to retover damages for a breach of an agreement
to let to the plaintiffs farm, called Primrose 11111. On the IMs
December, 1823, an agreement was made that the plaintiff should
take possession of this firm the ensuing iAdy-day, on giving as-
surance to pay the rent and cultivate the rum in a fit and proper
manner. An inquiry being afterwards made on the part of the de-
fendant, as to the plaintiff a mode of managing the Cann he theta
held, and the result being unsatisfactory, a letter nal written to
him, on the 16th January, stating this fact, and that, in cons..
quence, Mr. Saville would look out for another tenant. At tbet
trial, it was proved for the plaintiff, :hat after this letter ite had cr.-
ecuted a bond; with two good securities, in a penalty of 5001. to pdyt
the rents, and that he hail repeatedly called on Mr. Saville for
purpose of offering it, but that he had never been able to ere Gina.
It appeared 'also. that he had himself, of his own property, as
estate of 150 acres, and, which was let at 30s, an acre, and also elevei
',cum. For the dcfcrce, There was no evidence of plaimirg

I

• i