The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1824-05-26 00:00:00

4
i

l'i'

i
1

" 1

LAW IXTELLIGENCE.

Nktityra in Raw&

COURT Or WINO% BENCH, TUESDAY, 31.1ky

wit POx D.D. TNT usirren PARISHES OF ST. THOMAS THE
APOSTLE AND MARY ALDER MARV.
In 'his case, which was argued yesterday at great length,
'ilte Loan CHIEF JOSTICE, at the sitting ofthc Court this
niorniog, delivered judgment. This was an application for a pro-
hibition, restraining the Ecclesiastical Court from trying the ex-
istence or non-existence of a custom. Thin was smatter of fact,
and as such ought to he tried at common law. The Court were de-
cidedly of 'minion, that the Ecclesiastical Court were not (slime:env,
and therefore the writ of prohibition must issue.—Rule made ab-
solute.
I.:RLIIINAL INFORMATION AGAINST Till:
BRITISH PRESS.
The peremptory paper vu then read ; the first case called was
THE RING V. JOHN STOKES.
In this case a rule wss obtained last term by the Attorney-Gene-
Lel, tailing upon the publisher of the 171;tish Travrilrr evening
newspaper to show cause why a criminal information should rot be
tiled against him for a libel on the character of George I lictwynd,
Esq. hlember of Parliament for the Borough of Stafford, and a
hlagatrate fur the county of Stafford.
):r. SCARLETT immediately rose and observed, that as this was
a qeeetion of libel arising out of another—that of the King r. C. -1-
ton—with the pennieston of the Court he would request that the
letter, though it stood second, should be taken first.
McCue:AT having acceded to the proposition, the clerk called on
THE RINO V. CARLTON AND OTHERS.
In this case also a rule was obtained last Term by the Attorney-
Gllnmai, calling upon the defendants, the printer, publisher, and
pibmistosof the British Press newspaper, to spew cause why a
criminal information should not be tiled against them for certain
Maass which appeared in this paper in January last, commenting
on the conduct of Mr. Chetwynd,. with respect to the discharge of
as his magisterial duty, Chamnanuf the uarter Sessions, toward
Mr. Abraham Flint, and his brother, Mr. brutes Flint. attorneys,
resident at Uttoxeter, in the county of Stafibrd. The rule was en-
laird mud this term ; it now came on to be argued.
r. SCAILETT this day proceeded to skew cause against the
rule. He should contend, first, that the comments in question
smtaibed nothing which furnished matter for a criminal presecu.
IRO j and, &mildly, that even if they did this rule must be Ms-
charged, as the affidavits upon which the rule sae obtained
did not .support the application to such an extent as to justify
the Court making the rule absolute. The Learned Counsel
then send the affidavits on which the rule was obtained,
and which, in substance, stated the circumstances out of
which the alleged libel had arisen, to be that a person, named
!behind Stafford Cooke, laying claim to the tide of Baron
Stafford. and the estates of Sir George Jerningham, in that neigh-
bourhood, had let to a man named Wilkes, a piece of land then in
the oassession of a pitmen named Picken, a tenant of Sir George
Jemiagbam; that Fiches bearing that Wilkes intended to take pos-
session 'Sibiu' piece of land, in order to present him from so doing,
nailed op the We; that Wilkes and Annie other persons furred
delegate open l that in this act they were assisted by a
person gamed Charles Flint, who was then clerk to an at-
barmy in this neighbourhood, who it was said was professionally
eumioyed fee Wilkes; that Flint was afterwards, with others, in-
dimM at the Quarter Sessions for the county of Stafibrd, of which
Mr. Chetwynd was Chairman ; that being found guilty, Flint was,
undue the authority of an Act of Parliament, passed in the
Wild year of his t Majesty, sentenced by Mr. Chetwynd to
bbimmisoned kept to hard labour for three months, and at the
wed of that time to enter into sureties to keep the peace for twelve
moretbs, Dim himself in bal., and two sureties in ebl. each. The
affidavit Id' 51r. Chetwynd negatived any undue or corrupt maims
in the discharge of his duty towards Flint, and that of the gaoler
-slanied that he had been treated with any marked or peculiar harsh.
uses whilst in confinement, pursuant to his sentence ; and the affi-
davits nenersliy represented the statements in the British Press, on
the frith of December arid the nth of January, the alleged libels, as
inflamed and exaggeratedreprerentations alt lte transactions with re-
spect to Mr. Flint. In reply to these affidavits, Mr. SCAULETT said
he Should read those which had been filed in reply to them; and upon
htering them he thought the t'ourt would been opinion that 31 r. Chet-
wynd NU not entitled ui call on their Isurdships to interpom, by the
stionvarr course of a criminal information, to assist him m vindi-
cating either his character as a man, or his impartiality as a Ma-
istrate. The Learned Gentleman then proceeded to read the fol-
lowing affidavit
• Abraham Flint, of Vito:etre, in the county of Stafford, at-
tOrney at law, maketh oath and saith, that he, this deponent, was
lieSOtor under a coninik.sion of bankrupt against Charles Emery, of
Wo6d-end, In the parish of King's Bromley, in the county of
Setfibrd• dealer and chapman, in and by which commission George
aetwyted, Him. of lirogden-lodge, in the said county, barrister at
yes neimented one of the said commissioners, and under and
by virtue whereof he, the said George Chetwynd, acted as quorum
commissioner in the prosecution of the said commission. And this
deportee: further saith, that in the progma of the said commission
eartain proceedings were had and taken before his Honour the Vice-
Chancel'e• in relation thereto, who thereupon made all order refer-
ring it to the commissioners to take certain accounts therein-men-
tioned, who accordingly made a tepon thereon, but which re.
part was, by an order of his Honour the Vice-Chem:Sloe made
in the matter of the said petition, referred bock to the said eons-
miesioners to view the same. And this deponent further with,
tilad the. onminiesioners suboeqsandy made another report thereon,
awn which, report he, this deponent's client, hada presented
a petition, pitying that such report may be quashed, and that
the 'question so referred to the said Commissioners may be re-
:erred tootle at du Masters Of the Coutt of Chancery. And this
dierment further midi, that in the prosecution of the inquiries
tinder such remective orders of his Ilonour the Vice-Chancellor,
numerous meetings took place before the said Commissioners, at
erhich the said George Chetwynd was present as Quorum Commis-
sioner, and which he, this deponent, as 'tokenise, as aforesaid,
together with his brother, Charles Flint, of Uttoseter aforesaid,
then and now soder articles of clerkship to this deponent, attended.
And this deponent further with, that pending such inquiries, and
the proceedings, thereon, disputes and altercations took place be-
viten this deponent and the said George Chetwynd, as the Acting
Ceihrtniesioner, this deponent having questioned the conduct of the
said Commissioner in holding ex-parte meetings under such corn-
ininsiett,mierive to the aforesaid Inquiries, of which no notice had
!pest deponent, and upon. which
.occasion, and in
14. 4. de Mid inquiries, the said George Chetwynd evinced
very strong ang bank fop towards him, this deponent. And
this ileponent trent With, shot having occasion, pending such
ingeity under the 011111111.11111 against the said Char. Emery, to
institute a prosecution evil* George Emery. his brother, for a
nrislichaster, he. tideav=t, applied to a Magistrate, and ob.
mined a warranf to him for the same, and the said
George Emery he May Isom the constables appointed to
tekst bins thermals deponent procured a warrant, to be directed
oorstsblos appointed for that purpose, and this de.
'anent at with to apprehend the said George Emery,
stitch they succeeded alter desperate resistance, and took hint
Liao custody by virtue thereof, he, this deponent, being present
tin horseback, when Ann Emery, the wife of the said George
Emery, made a violent attack upon this deponent, and com
tumid to repeat the same for some time, when this de-
l:mem. to defend himself therefrom, struck the wife of the
said George Emery a alight blow with his whip upon her
hand, to muse her to WI the weapon with which she was
then assailing him, and which blow was made the ground
tar a prumvutia• against this deponent in manner after men-
limed. And deponent further saith, that an Indictment was
preferred at the Assiut against the said George Emery, togs,
W' with divers other persons, and returned a true bill against the
George Emery, Charles Emery. and William Emery, a son eat
lbe said George Emery, and ignored against the other persons in_
eluded thetern ; and the said George Emery, Charles Entery, and,
Wallam Emery, hot having tried their traverse upon the said in-
ilictosent ih due course, this deponent obtained a warrant for their
-apprehension (they tieing then at large), under the hand and seal of
We. Hight Honourable the Lord Chief Justice of the Court of
Ring's Bench, and caused the same to be delivered to— (.011,•;;,
the constable of Rugeley, for due execution, who apprehended the
said George Emery be virtue thereof, at the Talbot Inn, in Huge-
ley, where the said George Chetwend was at the time; and ppm
wluch occasion the said George Chetwynd, as this deponent Mali
barn informed and verily believes, displayed great anger thereon,
Mad teemed and took the add Georg! Emery from and out of the
:teed, of the raid constable ; and afterwards permitted the said
-G.:errge Emery to accompany him, the said George Chetwynd, to
ria dwelling-home. et Morton Lodge, in the county of Stafford, i
and to he and remain there durirg the night under his the said
George Chetwynd's protection, and contrary to such lawful autho.
city. And deponent further saith, that said George Emery was
afterwards tried upon the add indictment and found guilty, and Sell- i
tented to six months' imprisonment in the gaol for the said county of
Stafford; and deponent further with, that the said George Eatery,'
at the same time as this deponent, charged hint and others with
the said misdemeanor, before John Smith, Esq. one of the hlagis- j
trams of the county ; also charged this deponent with an assault
upon his wife, at the time of his apprehension as aforeseid ; and
the said George Emery subsequently preferred an indictment
against this deponent, which came on for trial before the said
George Chetwitid and three other Magistrates, at the Al ielutelme
Quarter Soisions of the Peace, holden at Stafford, in the year 1321,
When the said George Chetwynd presided es Chairman: Anti this
deponent seitli, that the trial of the said traverse was twice enllid
on in due form, by the proper officer of the Court, and the Jury
barren, and this deponent was prepared to proceed with the trial
thereof, and to have proved the notice of trying his traverse dilly
given to the said prosecutor, when upon each oe those eemeions the
said George Clietwynd, as Chairman of the said Quarter Sessions,
directed the trial of the traverse to be put off, without the said pro.
mitts, or any Counsel oo his behalf, appearing, or making tel.
application far that purpose, and without any such application
having been openly made in the said Court, and the trial of the
said maven& came on the first thing on the following niorning,
when the said George Emery, although then undergoing the sett-
tette,: missed upon WM at the Assizes then laet past, and his period
of imprisonment not having then expired, appeared in the said
Court to emulate the petisecution against this deponent, althourh
Counsel appeared ses• hi* behalf ; and upon the triad of the said
traverse live winnow were examined on the part of the mid pro.
eecutor, one of whom was the wife of the raid Geor,se Emery,
anc:her of them the said William Emery his son, one other of
them then or then lately, said for great length of time, a sett:lnt
orgy' said George Emmy, who had been apprehended and indicted
filth the mid George Emery and his sea by this deponent, for the
misdemeanor aforeeaki ; noe other of them, the wife of a men who
mei then or then lately had Its like sooner been a servant of the
lid Omega Nailer!, nod whom mid husband. together with her
ram, bed bees also apprehended end indicted with the said George
Maury and his son, by this &men, fur the tnisdecomner afore-

said; and the other and last rerneining witness, a labours and a
man in a low situation in life, and of bad character, and who was
at the then next following Sessions tried epon an indictment
for felony before the said George Chetwynd, and which said
several witnesses deposed to this deponent having pushed and
tire struck the wife of the said prosecutor • blow with his
whip upon her hand, in answer to which charge this depo-
nent produced six credible and reimmtahle witnesses totally un.
cune.ected with this deponent, who positively proved that the
wife of the said prosecutor first assaulted this deponent, and that
he struck her a slight blow mem her hand after that assault had
been made and repeated, when the jury, under the summing up
let* the said Ileorge Cheticynd, found a verdict of guilty of the teed
assault; and the said George Chetwynd, as Chairman of the said
Court, sentenced this deponent to six months' imprisonment in the
gaol of the said county of Stafford, and to pay a fine of lOW. And
this deponent further paith, that in passing the said sentence the said
Chairman alluded to the sentence passed upon the said George
Emery, in the aforesaid prosecution by this deponent, and professed
to dish the same measure of punishment to this deponent as that
then inflicted upon him ; and this deponent further with, that the
facts of the said George Emery, his son, and other witnesses, hay.
ing been charged and prosecuted by this deponent, and of the
said tleerge Emery, at that time suffering the sentence inflicted
upon him in pursuance thereof, were well known to the said
theirge Chetwynd, who, in his summing up to the said jury. to-
tally abataineil from making a single comment or observation
thereon, or upon their credit and situation in respect thereof. And
this deponent further irsith, that the said George Emery was so
brought up from the county gaol to conduct the said prosecution,
by the express order and direction of the said George Chetwynd,
as the said George Chetwynd afterwards informed this deponent in
an interview which this deponent subsequently had with the said
George Chetwynd. And this deponent funliereaith, that soon after
the passing of the said sentente upon this deponent, many gentle-
men to whom this deponent was p:rsoually know!, took measures
fur procuring the saute to be remitted or annulled, which coining to
the knowledge (as this deponent believes) of the said George Chet-
wynd, he intimated to them that lie would concur in any applies-
tient for this deponent's liberation ; whereupon two gentlemen, on
the behalf of the said deponent. waited upon this deponent, who
then professed the same disposition to thcm, but stipulated that
the intended memorial for that purpose should be drawn by •
banister to be named by hint' and promised that upon such memorial
being presented, it should have his sanction and support. And
this deponent further saith, that such memorial was accordingly
prepared by the said gentleman so named by the said George
Chetwynd, and contained the following mimeo, namely—` We
are well ttivhre that we must abstain front questioning the propriety
ni the verdict by which the defendant was found guilty of this as-
sault, and we have pleasure in tearing testimony to the impartial
manner in which the case was submitted to the Jury by yourself as
Chaimian of the Quarter Seesiene and we are satisfied that the
judgment which you and the worthy Alaglistrates by whom you
were assisted thought prom to be given upon the occasion, pro-
ceeded from an anemias and conscientious desire ethereally to dis-
charge a very painful duty.' And this deponent further midis, that
upon the said memorial being submitted to the Alag'strates at one
of their usual meetings, for signature, they objected to sign the
same aid, ate presage shove mentioned, and the same was ac-
cordingly struck out and omitted, after which the said Alsigletrates,
and the Reenter pert of the mptetabk inhabit's:l:sof the place, where
this deponent resides, signed a memorial omitting such passage,
amongst the signatures to which (as this deponent believes), there
were those of eight gentlemen in the commission of the peace, and
which memorial, so signed as aforesaid, was transmitted to the
said George Chetwynd, that he might take the necessary steps to
procure the liberation of this deponent from his then imprisonment,
and which said memorial was deliveml to the said George Chet-
wynd on tile Ist day ofleccember.l32l, and that he, this deponent,
thereupon received a letter from the said G. thetwynd's clerk, in.
forming this deponent that he, rheesaid U. Chetwynd had received a
usemorial on the behalf of this deponent, very respectably signed,
and expressing the fears of Al r. Chetwynd that in its then present
finiii it .night possibly be unsuccessful, end recaniinending this de-
ponent to communicate with the gentlemen who (at the histatice of
the said Georgg Chetwyrd as aforeseid) prepared the same, and to
whom he had written fully upon the subject • and deponent further
said', that several communications were had with that gentleman,
In pursuance thereof, in the course of which it was intimated to
this deponent, and which intimatino this deponent verily believes,
and bath no doubt whatever, was made by the direction and at the
instance of the said George Chetwynd, that the success of die said
norm-trial depended materially upon an arrangement being made
by which the proceeding in the said bankruptcy might be
brought to a temination ; and upon thia, deponera, as the
prosecutor of the said George Emery, concurring in any appli-
cation to his Majesty's Secretary of State, for his discharge, and also
upon this deponent mak mg an apology to the said George Chetwynd,
for the publication of his said trial, and for certain observations
made thereon, and also apologising tbr ocher observations made
by this deponent, in a cordidential letter, written by hint to his wife
during his imprisonment, and which letter this deponent believes
was opened by the gaoler, and the contents thereof coinniuniested
to the said George Chetwynd, although the said gaoler had as-
sured this deponent that his corresptnidence with his said wife
should be free (Tom inspection and interruption. And this depo-
nent further smith, that it was also suggested or proposed by the
friend of the said Mr. Chetwynd, that he, this deponent, should
himself present a memorial, acknowledging the impartiality of the
said George Chetwynd, in substance and to the purport and effect
as stated in the before-mentioned memorial, which he, this depo-
nent, positively refused to do, although the said teems Chetwynd
himself personally twice waited upon this deponent for that pur-
pose, in the said gaol. And this deponent further saith, that ha
also refused to make such application on the behalf of the 21
George Emery, or to make the tequired apology (or the publica-
tion of his said trial and letter aforesaid; the said George Chet.
wynd, after detaining the said Alcmenel for the space of 914 days,
in the expectation, as this deponent believes, that he, this depo-
nent might be induced to accede to such aforesaid toms, at length
transmitted the said Memorial to the Right lion. Lord Sidniouth,
his Majesty's then Secretary of State, with • letter bons Mae the
said George Chetwynd, stating in substance that he, the said
George Chetwynd, was not dissatisfied either with the verdict or
sentence, and emitting any recommendation for the discharge of
this deponent, and which letter this deponent verily believes and
hath no doubt whatever, the said George Chetwynd wrote to the
said Secretary of State, with an intention and expectation that the
same should and would prevent the prayer of the said Alemorial
front being complied with, and that he was induced to write such
letter, by the 'satiation in tie said Alemotial of the required state.
ment of his impartiality upon the trial of this deponent, and by
the refusal of this deponent to comply with the demands and re.
9uisites affiresaid ; for this deponent saith, that in a subsequent
interview which he, this deponent, had with the said George Chet-
wynd, of his promise made to the friends of this deponent in the
first instance, as aforesaid, to support the prayer of the said Me-
morial, and declaring that his said letter to the said Secretary of
State was inconsistent therewith, and did not contain any reams-
mendatioo on the behalf of this deponent, but was calculated to
have a directly contrary effect, the said George Chetwynd said, that
the saidmemorialwas not that which was prepared by the gentle-
man he had named for that purpose; alluding, as deponent believes
tothealterntion beforedepoisedtoby this deponent. And thisdeponent
further saith,that the said Oeo. Chetwynd, by letter dated the 7th day
of January, 1022, informed this deponent that he had received
Lord Sidenouth's reply to his application, and that hie Lordship
said he could not find in It any circumstances sufficient to justify
him in recommending this deponent to the King at present as a ht
object for a free pardon, and saying in his (Alr. Chetwynd's) opi-
nion, the memorial, however respectably signed, was not likely to
obtain this deponent's object. And this deponent further with,
' that, upon the refusal of this deponent to make such application
for the said George Emery as aforesaid, the said George Emery was
shirty afterwards liberated from imprisonment, and the remainder
of his sentence remitted ; and that the said George Chetwynd in-
, fanned this deponent that such remission and discharge was ob.
tained upon the application of himself and IVilliant Drift. &rye
and the Chaplain of the said geol, which said William Dyed is
brother to Ale Thomas Dyott, the attorney, who had been con-
' caned against this deptment'• clients in the matters of the said
bankruptcy, and in the affairs of the said Emeries. And this depth
'went further said; that front the said 7th day of January. 18'22.
1 to the 2.64 h day of the same month, application was made
.by the
said George Chetwynd himself personally to this deponent in gaol,
and otherwise to induce this deponent to present a memorial to
him, the said Chetwynd, or to the Magistrates generally,
recognizing the impartiality of the Court upon the trial of this de..
pencil', when he this deponent did as lie had done upon the for-
Mee orassion, refuel to slake any such application, declaring he
would undergo the said sentence. And this deponent further snide
that after the ire of his raid interviews with the said George Chet-
wend, this deponent did not, see did any of his friends toll's know.
ledge or belief, make any farther or other application or solicitation
' to the said George theta ynd for his further interference in the be-
half of this deponent, or to make any other or further application
on his behalf • on the contrary, deponent saith he had wholly
' abandoned all idea thereof, and hail cease) to look for any retnissien
' of his said 'sentence, and was wholly unacquainted with any inten.
tient, on the part of the said George Chetwynd, to make any further
mother application on his behalf until the first day of tehmary,
when the said George Chetwrid again waited upon this depo•
nent et the said gaol, and informed this deponent, to his great
surprise. that lie had written to the Secretary of State for his
discharge. And this deponent smith, that he was, on the evening
of the said Ist day of February, discharged from the said gaol.
And this deponent further with, that be hath been interned. and
verily believes et tole true, that previous to the said Ist day of Fe.
'weary, namely, at the quarter samisens holden at Stafford, in and
for the said county of Steffen', in the previous month of January,
at which the said George Chetwynd also presided as chairman, two
respectable young men, of :he names of } rederiek Barra and Alfred
Bares, were tried upon an indictment for an assault, the 'casting
' features of which case wire similar to that of this deponent, save
I anti except that the moult in that case was ors violent and serious
nature. and charged to have been committed by the said defend-
ants, with lire-arms in their hands, and with threats of making use
thereof. and the witnesses examined on their behalf were connected
wish the said defendants, one of them being his father end others
of them his menial termini; whereas the assault charged in the
eau of this deponent was of • slight and trivial nature, and the
witnesses on his behalf totally unconnected with him, when the
Jury in that case also found the said defendants guilty, and the
sentence of the said Court of quarter sessions WAN_ that they shottld
each of them pays fine of Of. and be discharged. And this de-
ponent further midi, that he bath also been informed, and believes
it to he true, that the said coma the said Frederick and Alfred
Barrie and the sentence passed upon that oeusion, led to it discus-
shin, Imuroest the Meg's:retest then assembled, of the ease of this
deponent, and of the jtisdee of the sentence viand liven this di -
ponent as compared with that of the said Frederick and Alfred
Rarer; and that ft was thereupon resolved that an application
shad a he forthwith made for the discharge of this deponent, arid
the remission of the remainder of the sentence messed upon him 11
aforesaid. Arid this dcrentm verily sad upon his #3th believes,

that the said George Chetwynd, In pursurthce thereof, Ind to pre-
vent further discussion, which would have increased thepuhlic and
general dissatisfaction, which this deponent believes lad been ex-
pressed at the verdict and sentence against this deponent, ap-
plied for and procured his discharge as aforesaid. ,knd this de-
ponent further saith, upon the facts hereinbefore stated, he
submits that the said alleged assault, of which he, riis deponent,
was so found guilty as aforesaid, was not attended withcircumstances
of eon sid zrable aggravation or any circumstances of aggravation what.
ever, nordid the same, he, this deponent, submits, call be considerable
or a:iy severity of punishment : and deponent with, he positively de-
nies that he, this deponent, first assaulted the said Ann Emery ; on
the contrnry, ho this deponent only inflicted one blow upon the
hand, fur the purpose of disarming her of a large wick with which
she was assailing deponent ; and he, this deponem,verily believes
the said Ann Emery would havedone him, deponent, some serious
' injury, had she not been prevented by other persons who were pre-
sent and disarmed her of is pitchfork, which she had seised for the
purpose of renewing her attack upon deponent, as was proved upon
said trials and this deponent further faith, he submits that the pu.
nislament so inflicted upon Rita, this deponent, was greedy dispro-
portional to the offence of viffich he had been under the circum.
stances as aforesaid found lcuiky, and that there was no similarity
or likeness in the said offence and the offence fur which the said
George Emery had been convicted on the prosecution of this de-
nonent, or in their respective conditions in life, which would justify
the inflicting upon this deponent a sentence of imprisonment foe
the same length of time for which the said George Emery was so
sentenced, and much mare inflicting upon this deponent, in addi-
tion to such imprisonment, a fine of one hundred pounds : and this
deponent further that although such sentence was not an-
nulled by Lord Sidmouth under the circumstances aforesaid, yet
the same was abrogated, and the tine wholly remitted by or through
his successor or other competent authorities, not, as this deponent
verily believes, from any interference of the said George Chetwynd
from motives of compassion for this deponent or his family', but
from other motives, arising from the causes hereinbefore mentioned,
he the said George Chetwynd having only submitted, as this de-
ponent believes, In consequence of the opinion expressed by the
magistracy upon occasion of the aforesaid trial and sentence of the
said Allred and Frederick Barra. ABRAHAM FLINT.
" Sworn at Uttoxeter, the 27th day of
April 1824, before me,
Wu. WARNER, by Cornmision."
During the reading of that part, of this affidavit in which the
conduct of Mr. Chetwynd, on the trial of Mr. Abraham Flint was
mentioned,
Mr. Justice BATLEY asked whether the libel complained of Mr.
Chetwynd's conduct on that trial ?
:111'. SCAR LETT—Yes, my Lord, there is an allusion to his
partial conduct on that trial.
Mr. Justice BATLEY—Then, certainly, he must answer all
about that trial

Arroaser-OzweanL--Tot to that extent, I hope,
my LorJ.
Mr. Sr* TTTTT —I think you are bound to answer to that
extent. lilt. Chetwynd, in his affidavit, made a merit of his ap-
p!itattion to the Home Secretary of State on behalf of Mr. Abraham
Flint. I will now shew from this affidavit the exact degree of
merit to which Isle. Chetwynd can lay claim. Your honlshipa
have heard that the witnesses who were examined on the part of
the pr.nerution against Mr. Flint, were venom connected with
Emery, and that some of them were men of bad character, while
the witnesses examined for the defence were persons of good cha-
racter, and totally unconnected with Mr. Flint, and that Mr.
Chetwynd, in passing sentence on 31r. Flint, alluded to the im-
prisonment to which Emery had been sentenced, observing. that
Isle. Flint should be dealt with io the same manner in which the
Judge of Assize had dealt with Emery.
Mr. Justice BAYLEY—If a person, Mr. Scarlett, be in custody
under the sentence of a Court, and be a necessary witness on a
trial, is it not usual to bring him by order into Court to give
evidence 7_ _ _

Mr. SCARLETT—It is, my Lord; but I am not aware of any
law which gives a Magistrate the power to Issue such an order. I
do not mention the fact that Emery was brought into Court as a
matter of blame against Mr. Chetwynd, because he might have
been mistaken as to his authority to do so, but I mention it to
prove that Mr. Chetwynd had great Influence over the gaoler of
Stafford. _ _ _ _ . .

On concluding this alfidrvit, Mr. SCARLETT submitted to the
Court, that whatever might be the insinuations of the alleged libel,
a justification most satisfactory was given by that affidavit, in
which, if false, Mr. Abraham Flint was exposM to the peril of pro-
secution. If it was true, Mr. Chetwynd was certainly not entitled
to the summary interposition of the Court for the vindication of
either his integrity or his impartiality. lie next came to the affi-
davit of Mr. Charles Flint, and he would say that no man who was
acquainted with the ordinary proceedings of life could know the
particulars of his case, without the strongest feelings of disgust at
the treatment he hid sustained. The Learned Hentleman then pro-
ceeded with the affidavit of Mr. Charles Flint, which we defer till
to-morrow, as it was not read through. On coming to that part in
which Mr. Flint's sufferings at the treadmill were stated,
Mr. SCAR LETT exclaimed —" Thus was this gentleman treated,
whose Counsel had not thought it necessary to call witnesses in his
defence, though afterwards they had called them for explanation as
to his education and habits of life—who was then an articled clerk
to his brother. and who sometimes attended to his brother's busi-
ness ; this man of peace, who had never committed an assault in
his life—who was present at the alleged riot on professional business,
who was in fact called there by W' in a case demergency al his
legal adviser. Yet all these facts could not induce Mr. Chetwynd
either to mitigate his sentence or to mitigate his treatment. But it
appeared that Mr. Flint's name vu called out by the mob sad It
was said a word from him would have checked them. He now
swears he did endeavour to cheek than. Yet it was thought fair
I play to send them all to sulfa an equality of punishment. In
point of fact the inequality was veg_great."
I The Loan JUSTICE—% as the sentence three months
or one month? _ _

.......
Mr. SCARLETT—Three moths, my Lord, while those who
were afterwards convicted of a rescue were sentenced only to two
months. _ _

Some time afterwards, as Mr. Scarlett proccedt4i
Mr. Justice BAyLET asked whether it appeartod that Mr. Flint
had made a communication of his vestment which had reached
the can of those by whom the paragraph or libel was written ?
Mr. SCARLETT—The libel is founded on the publication of his
trial and his petition to the House of Commons.
Mr. Justice DAYLEY—Does theinition state these facts?
The AsronwET.OEstiaar.—The petition was long after.
wards.
Mr. Justice ISAYLEY—My motive in putting the question is
this : I wish to know whether the manner in which he was treated

in {gaol 14.7coTtinUnicaiedtOil;person who wrote the libel.
Alt. Sergeant WILDE said, the facts as set forth in the alleged
libel were stated in the report in the country paper, which was
copied into the British Press.
Mr. Justice BATLEY—There is great caution in keeping out of
our view what the libel Is.

Mr. SCAILETT—I will read it by-and-bye, my Lord. The
libel Is a mere statement copied from the provincial paper, with
some comments.

Mr. Justice BATLEY—I will tell you fairly, Mr. Scarlett, what
I have in view. I wish to know whether the person by whom the
libel was written, might be presumed, in consequence of a com-
munication of the fans now stated, to have written under a feeling
of irritation, sympathy, or exasperation, arising from the supposed
hardship suffered by Flint.
Mr. SCARLETT-1 cannot say my Lord, whether 31r. Flint
made such a communication. All I can say is, that if I was aware
of these facts respecting the punishment of an Englishman, • gen-
denten, and a man of education, I should think myself justified if
I could, without offence to the laws, gire tree utterance to my
feelings; nay, even if I did offend the Magistrate, I should hope
at least that the occasion would excuse me if I avowed in strong
language the same feelings of compassion and sense of indignation
which this Newspaper very languidly exwases.
The loan CU I ler JUSTICE deferred die remainder of the argu-
ment till to-morrow (this day), as he was obliged to attend his du-
ties in another place, and his Learned Brothers rather desired that
the further proceedings in this case should stand over.
llis Lordship then withdrew. Some cases of no interest were
afterwards argued before the junior Judges.
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, TUZSDAT, MAT ?A.

DYE* r. BOIrLZT.

This was an argument upon a special cue.
Mr. Sergeant lIOIANIWET was heard for the defendant. It was
an action of replevy. The point reserved was, whether the payment
of interest on a mortgage of an estate was a satisfaction for the
rent.
The Cie ter Jusvicv gave judgment. If an estate were assigned
to him, that estate would he still liable to any mortgage upon it. In
this case, the interest paid was a discharge for the rent, and judg-
inert limit therefore be in favour of the plaintiff:
Mr. Justice PARK and Mr. Justice lit:linen:nu were of the
same opinion.

111011 COURT OF ADMIRALTY, TUESDAY, MAY 25.

ALLEGED CRrELTY.
THOMPSON V. ALMON.

This was a suit instituted against the defendant, who is Captain
of the Agincourt, free trader to India, for cruelty practised towards
the platntitf.

The libel motions several articles, to the following effect :-
Ist, That the said John Thompson was hired at Ilencoden to
serve as cook on board the above vessel during its homeward voy.
age; and the 24 article affirms that he did duly perform his duty,
excepting during the time that he was confined to his cabin by the
effects of the defendant's cruelty. The &I article sets forth, that on
the 20th of July, DM, the said John Thompson did give to his
mate some rice to wash, and that observing he was washing it in
dirty water, he remonstrated with him, and that the mate there.
upon struck him, which blow the said John Thompson did return ;
nil that the mate then went and made complaint to the defendant,
who came out of his cabin with a drawn sahm in his hand, and
after abusive language towards him, struck him down ; that
upon his rising front the ground he again struck him violently, and
kicked him repeatedly, and that he thereby did inflict on hint a se.
flocs injury. The 4th article alleges that the Captain on the same
day caused two de:ten lashes to be Inflicted upon his bare back, and
that he afterwards told hint that the next time he would have hint
flogged till he could ace his back bone. The bth article set forth,
that the effect of the above stated treatment was to confine him to
his cabin fur many days, and that he had not to this day, in conse-
quence, recovered the use of his left arm. The 6th article states,
that on recovering he was sent before the mast, and compelled to
work as a common seaman during the retnainder of the ()image.
The 7th article estbnates the damage sustair.ed by the said John
Thompson at 34101.

- . -
To this libel the tlefendant.had put in an allegatien stating that
Thom/lion had acted mutinously during the homeward voyage ;

that be had deseted the v.ssel at the Isle of France, and that his
conduct rendered necessary the punishment infiieta on him, and
which it is denied was excessive.
To this allegation the plaintiff had answered, denying the charge
of meeting, and explaining the alleged desertion by stating, that
he went on shore at the Isle of France, where he staid till night-
fall, when he was taken into custody by a gendarmerie, for being
found in the open air after eight o'clock in the evening, according
to the law of that Island as respected seamen, and that it was in
consequence of such confinement that he did not return to his
ship.
On the case. as thus stated, eight witnesses have been examined
for the plaintiff, and seven for the defendant, whose depositions were
this morning read.
The witnesses for Thompson were passengers who were proceed-
ing homeward by Captain Milton's vessel , ami . g whom were,
Colonel Pereirn, Lieutenant Turner, and 3lr. Atkinson, a sur-
geon, all of whom ate in the service of the East India Company,
and whose evidence fully sustains the charges made in the libel.
The evidence for the Captain consists of the seamen who belonged
to the voyage, whose testimony goes to the effect of charging
Thompson with mutinous conduct ; and further alleges, that he
did not sustain any injury from ,the flogging, but that he, imme-
diately after it was over, laughed, and said it was a mere nothing,
and that he could stand fifty tames as much.
Interrogatories had been put to the seamen by the plaintiff's
Counsel, by which it appeared that they had admitted that the
Captain was very passionate, that lie would occasionally get fresh,
and that lie was apt to be very violent on those occasions. Fur-
titer, that a considerable portion of the crew had left the vessel
on its arrival in India, thereby voluntarily forfeiting their wages,
on account of the severity of the Captain towards them.
Th reading of the depositions occupied the Court the entire
morning, and the case was left for argument on the next
Court day.