The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1822-11-22 00:00:00

Wit KING r. WILLIAMS.

Mr. Scautterr moved For the judgment of the
Court on this Defendant, who it will be recollected
was found guilty on en information, charging him
with having published in the Durham Pape►, of
which he is Proprietor, • libel on the clergy of that
diocese.

Mr. Justice BEST read the notes taken by the
Learned Judge at the trial.
Mr. BIOtIGIIIAM said, he had to apply to their
Lordships first fur an arrest of judgment, and if he
should fail on that ground, for • new trial is this
case. Upon the counts in the indictment the De-
fendant was charged with printing and publishing
a libel of and concerning the religion of the esta-
blished church, and of and concerning the clergy
of the united church of England and Ireland, and
the clergy residing in and near the city of Dutbilio
■nd the suburbs thereof. The Ju►y found for the
Defendant as regarded the established church and
the clergy thereof; but found him guilty of a libel
on the clergy of the city of Durham and the sub.
orbs thereof. Now, it was upon this point that he
had to apply to their Lordships for an arrest of
judgment. The offence of which the Defendant
had been found guilty was different to that de-
scribed in the information. This was his first
ground for arrest of judgment ; his second pound
was, that the offence as set out was too uncertain
for the Court to proceed to judgment on the verdict.
The Learned Counsel then proceeded to contend
that to support this verdict there should have been
• separate averment, as regarded the clergy of
Durham, which there was nut, the words '6, of
and concerning" not being inserted. He, therefore,
contended that the clergy of Durham must be
taken as forming • part of the clergy of the eats.
blished church, and the Jury having founds ver-
dict of not guilty on that count, could not find
it verdict of guilty on a part of it. This opinion,
he contended, was held by the Court in the case of
Lewis a. Walter, argued two or three times before
their Lordships. The Defendant was there charged
with a libel upon the Plaintiff, and upon him in his
character of attorney.
Mr. ScAteLsre remined his Learned Friend that
the Court had not yet given an opinion ou that
Case.

Mr. BROUGHAM uas not aware of that fact, but
he had a case in which the Defendant was charged
with a libel en the Plaintiff. in 'his characters of an
appraiser and carpenter. The libel was found on
the appraiser, but not on the carpenter, and judge
ment in that case was arrested. In the present case
the libel was charged on the clergy of the esta-
blished church, •of which the clergy of Durham
formed a part. and from which they could not • -:
separated ; but allowing the libel could have been
proved against the clergy of the city of Durham, the
description here was too uncertain—" The clergy
of the city of Durham and its suburbs." This de-
scription might embrace all the sectarians of the
city said suburb..
Mr. Jost ice BEST—" Have they ever been Call.
ed • The Clergy ?' "
Mr. BROUGHAM believed they had. at least the
Itt.usan Catholics were so distinguished. There
was ut present a Bishop in Ireland, why load taken
his early degrees in the Catholic church. He must
neat advert to the uncertainty of the description
generally, " residing in and near Durham ;" this
might be within nne toile or two, within ten miles
and twenty, according, to d fferent persons opinions;
but if the description had been of the clergy of
Durham only, he contended this would not have
been sufficient ; ler at the time his Learned Friend
obtained the rule, it was granted by the Court
specifically for a libel on the established chord,.
and he was convinced the Court would not have
granted the rule on other grounds. The Learned
Counsel then proceeded to cite cases to sli.w that
the Court had always held specific dracription n#.
c y. Amongst the cases cited by him, the
King v. the Justices of Suffolk. the King v. the
Magistrates sitting in rotation at Litchfield.street,
the King v. Owen, the King v. Osborne, and the
King e. Orme. in all of which the Court decided
that general description was not sufficient. In the
Cabe of the King v. Orme, in 7tA Modern, page
4UO, and in 3d Solkeld, page 234, it wits stated to
bee libel on the men of the gown, under the stile
"The Ladies of London." The then Itec,nthr of
London declared that lie felt himself pointed at ni
the heel. Here the Court held that men of the
goes was not u sufficient description ; hut that the
record must descend to specification mud description
of individuals.

Mr. Justice Blorimr-‘" &litchi says the %lad
was un divers good subjects of our Lord the Klaji,
to the Jurors uukuown. How could the Jwy say
persons who were unknown to them were libelled P
Mr. BROUGHAM went on to the° '.hr
verdict as taken could not

judgment ought to be arrested.
grounds of his motion for au -
and they embraced. much of
for a new trial. On that ,
world submit to their Lord'shi
lion wss for a libel on the *hr

Wished ihi Jur

fendant guilty Of eisithetinti
.limed uo ileitt of the ground
-MOO pork** tiov
be thought' Vhhit
*admit t de* Nat or pot hi

"`

f 1
.. w

t

to contend, tbtt the
stand. ao.d that the
*red. Thee were the
u arrest of judgment.
*hot he had to urge
ground, howevir; he
PhiiN tbat the inforise. 110
tole ereiig of the eat..
Irt, bad found the De-
I eut.e4iicit 11%etr UN-
P. ;du 'ttait4..alapp
gr.ant the De.
bid Mtflitime mutt.
7744