The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1807-06-02 00:00:00

such publications; and it is thereby enas!ted, that
any person doing so, shall forfeit the penalty of 51.
The Plaintiff, George Burnet, was a bookseller,
binder, and stationer, in the Strand, near Temple
Bar, and dealt in newspapers. He had supplied
the Defenuant with papers for upwards of two years,
previous to the year 1792, being no less than 15
years ago, but bad never till now insisted upon
making good his claim.
It was argued by Mr. Serjeant Barr, on the
part of the Plaintiff, that the alleged illegality of
the claim was a scandalous defence, set up by the
D.'s -Luna, toe the put pose of avoiding the pay-
=eat of a Bill, justly due ; and that it there was
any illegality in the transaction, he (the Defendant),
WAS in a manner party to it. At all events, the
Plaintiff was ioti led to recover the sum of 41. 17s.
which was stated in the relative account in such a
mantle' as to leave it undetermined whether it was
due fur newspapers or not. As the Plaintiff was a
stationer, might it not be reasonably interred, that
this sum was tun stationery goods; The Defendant
had beer indulged. year after year, and now came
far the first time to set aside that security which he
had granted. mi.:xi- the idea !hit it was an illegal
transaction; bu helort he could e.stirei get rid of
hi► bill, it was necessary for him to prove that the
wl:ole sum therein comprehended was claimed fur
an illegal consideration Besides, at this distance
of time, it could not be ascertained by the account
rendered, whether the major part of it had not been
contrafted previous to the passing of the At. lie-
sides the above mentiumed sum, these was also an
article in the ::count, charging for a single news-
paper sold to the Defendant, the sum of four-pence,
which was at that time the price of such periodical
publications ; and also for a stamp, the sum of six-
pence. the plea of illegality could not be alleged
against these charges.
Two Witnesses only were stalled, the one a Mr.
Owen, to prove the hand-eriting.upon the bill; and
the other a Mrs. TeniFle, the Deteudant's daugh-
ter, who proved ;he daily delivery of the news-
papers, fetching them away about won.
This trafe, she said, continued for two years and
upwards. and her lather had nu other dealings with
Mr. Burnet. .

Lord Chief• Justice MA►srtet.D, in addressing the
Jury, observed, that it seemed impossible to aecover
Money upon this ball, on account of the it egality of
the transaction. The cucumstance of the elaintiti
not havia7, broustit his aelion at an ember period
betwixt the year 1792 and 13(, cast a degree of
suspi.ion upon his motites sad conduft. 11. ere
was emu: lice w.ratever, din mg that tlaqt,
the Plaintiff ever conceived, that lie had a icl,;al
demand of even one milling against the l).i:r.stant.
—h appeared, from the tvioeuce of Mr. 2-lore's
claaghter. that the whole ern3nd must Ise itleg.o,
her tsdher never having had any dealings with the
Plainuff, except the lead.ng ul thew papers. •Up.;n
the whole, it must have been a strange trade, aud
pretty lucrative one, as the i'Sainutf must have !seen
clorrgiog at the rate of two-pence lot the reading
of each paper, which was in those days half the
price of theni It was, is caees of smuggling,
the lime as to the present caw, the law tortssus
etspapers to be le: out to hire, as being injurious
to the sale of newspapers, and was► c;urntly to the
Revenge ; and, in the same manner, the law pro•
hibirs smuggling, as injariesa to the Reveutze. 11
a man Units an attinn against another tot payment
of smuggled !;•sods, although the transaction.. as
betwixt the settee and buyer, be jest enough. yet
the former cannot recover a farthing frpin the larva.
The law will not permit a man to recover moor, for
goods he has got by committing a crime. L. the
present instance. the Bill being founded tycn an
legal transaetion, was perfeetly to:J. If the Plaintiff
could show that any of the papers so furnished to
the Defendant. had been suppii.4 to him previous
to the pairing of the Aet, then he floats' legally
have a tight to recover to that extent. It was there-
lore th.. Planted 'a own fault that be had not
brought evidence upon that point. As the
matter. however, at present stood, his Lotd-
sbip could not see any means by which they
could disting wish what part of the Plaiatiff is
account was legal, and what illegal. The proof
now adduced 'hewed that nothing but Papers was
the fininamion of the claim. At all events, the
Plaintiff ought to hue brought his salon against
Mr. More within a reasonable time, so that the
patient .r items of his claim might have been more
easily ascertained. He thought that the Defendant
WAi extremely well justified in misting the demand
at such a distance of time.—Verdict for the De-
fendant.