The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1822-01-10 00:00:00

Lossox,

LAW livrzLLtaENce. -

COVET OF KING'S BENCH, GUILDHALL,
IVRDstADAY, JASUAST 9.
Were the Loan Cum /mica sad Special Juries.
LANE, V. DREFIT •ND STILL.
Mr. M•ILLYATT stated the case for the Plaiotiff,
who is a dry-salter in the City of London. The
Defendants are Custom-house officers. The Plain-
tiff was in possession of a quantity of English verdi-
grise ; the Defendants having called at the Plain-
tiff's warehouse, looked at it, and expressed their
intention of seizing it as French verdigrise. The
Plaintiff assured them that the article was of Eng-
lish manufacture, produced them the bill of' Mewls.
Watson, the persons from whom he bought it, and
offered to go with the officers to their house. He
accordingly accoospanitd them to the counting- .
house of Memos. Watson, who affirmed it to be
English io the presence of the officers, and also
told them from whom they brought it. The officers
notwithstanding seised it, and carried it away to
the Custoin-house. After some time the Commis-
sioners of the Cosmos, having investigated the
matter, were satisfied of the truth of the Plaintiff's
representations, and the verdigrise was restored, but
so deteriorated in titian'', that, faint 7.. per 'sound,
it was, when returned, not worth Store than 3s. per
pound.
Evidence was called to prove these facts. The
'situates slated, that the article was manufactured
and packed so as to resemble French verdigrise, for
which most persons would have mistaken it.
The SOLICITOR-GSMERAL, fur the Defendant.,
said, the question here was, not whether the article
was French or &relish, he admitted that it was
the latter; but the question was, if there was not
probable cruse fur making the seizure ?
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE said there could. •be
no doubt there was probable cause for the seizure,
and he most certify accordingly, agreeably to the
Act of Parliament. The effect of that certificate
the law would settle.
The Jury, under his Lordship's direction, found
a verdict for the Plaintiff—damages 73/. 150.8 d.
LIWIS V. WALTER.
This was an action against the Proprietor of The
Times newspaper fur a libel published in that
paper. The Defendant had pleaded Not Guiliy.
Mr. CHITTY opened the pleadings. •
The SOLICITOR-GENIRAL stated the Plaintiff's
case to the Jury. The Plaintiff was, he said,
an attorney of that Conit, and also Coroner for the
Duchy of Lancaster : the Defendant was proprietor
of The Times newspaper. The libel of which he
had to complain was published in the report of a
trial which took place at the Surrey Assists, and
certain observations of the publisher thereon. Re-
ports of legal proceedings were very beneficial when
made with impartiality and candour, bet all who
were at all conversant wish the proceedings of Courts
of Justice must know that es-paree statements must
often be made by Counsel, but yet nothing could
be more unjust sad cruel than to publish such.
/-inateisserits to the world: -lt off!" happened that
. roe.' of the most unblemished characters were in-
cluded in a criminal charge ; circurostauces were
stated by Counsel. and part of the evidence
gone through, when the Judo interposes before*
single witness has been called fur the Defendent,
or a word said by Ins Counsel in his behalf.
This was most cruel, he might say most illegal ;
but how much snore cruel for the publisher to add
his observations on the case ? Such was the nature
of the present case. It happened that the Plaintiff
was employed by a person named Bingham, in
Hampshire, against whom an execution had bent
lowed, and the Sheriff was in possession of his
pods. The properly was given up afterwards, and
the limos, against whom it was held indicted the
Plaintiff, Mr. Bingham. and soother person for •
conspiracy, which came on for trial as Kingston.-
It happened that the Plaintiff as. not properly
prepared to prove his case, and the cause was there-
fore stopped. His Learned Fnend (Serjeant
Onslow) stated a great number of facts to the Jury.
which were not proved. His Learned Friend was•
justified in stating them. for he spoke from his in-
grunions, yet when he failed in proving them, it
was most unjustifiable to publish them. But this
was not all ; at the conclusion of the report it was
said, " The Jury, under the direction of the Lewis.
ed Judge, were obliged to acquit the Defendants,
to the great regret of a crowded Court : the state-
ment of Counsel and.the evidence, so far as it went,
had made a strong impression of the guilt of the
Defendants." With respect to public libels (said
the Solicitor-Geoerat), though frequently highly
reprehensible, yet they were of a very different cha-
racter from those of a private nature. The spirit
of party paralixed their effect, but against pre-.
vale calumny DO character could bear tip, if it,
might be assailed with impunity by libels of
this kind. The Plaintiff bad brought this action
to give the Defendant an opportunity of justifyiug,
if he were able; bet he had placed no justifica-
tion on the record. If, therefore, lie proved the
publication of the libel by the Drfesulant, the only ..
question would be the amount o 1 dasneges to Ishii h
the Plaintiff was entitled. It could not be said that
by this action any restraint was sought to be put
on the liberty of the pres-. Nu one could be more
friendly than he wa, to that liberty ; but he was..
convinced that those were its best friends who kept
a vigilant eye on its excesses, because Its liberty
could uever be attacked with effect except it fist
made itself odious by its licentiousneor.
Joseph Mattison, from the Stamp Office, put in
the Times piper of the 14th April, 1819.
J. Monolog. the Plaintiff's Solicitor. produced
an examined office copy of the record of acquittal
on the indictment at Kisigston. He proved that
the Plaiutiff was admitted an attorney of the Cuuit
of King's Bench on the sth July, 1813.
Croas-exannutd by Mr. Scrmarr.—He had
mot searched if the Plaintiff had taken out his cet-
tifirate, and knew nothing of it except that the
Plaintiff had told him that his certificate expired
in the November visaing the astrath of July in
which he was indicted.
Mr. SCARLETT theta submitted, that the Plain-
tiff had not proved that he was MI attorney, al set
out in the four fi:st counts of the declaration. By
the 37 Geo. 111. see. 31, no attorney could act
without hoeing tidiest out his certificate, That, in

OLD BAILEY, WEDNESDAY, J•IIUARY 9.

These Sessions commenced this day before Chief
Baron RICHARDS, Mr. Justice BURROUGU, thR
LORD MAYOR, the RRCORDItR. &C. &c.

Several ca•es of larceny of the must trifling and
uninteresting description were tried.
In the course of the morning Chief Baron
RICHARD! took occasion to observe upon the ne-
glect of the Magistrates in many cases to transmit
the depositions taken before them to the Court.
It was highly important for the ends of justice,
that they should in all cases he transmitted, for
the testimony of a witness in Court was frequently
at variance with his statement before the Magistrate,
and it was material that any such variation of tes-
timony should be detected.
The Clerk of the Arraigns said that the Magis-
trates had been repeatedly written to upon the sub-
ject, but they still persisted in frequently withhold-
Mg them.
The CHIEF BARON then said such conduct was
highly reprehensible, ■nd ought to he speedily pat
a stop tu. Those who persevered iu thus neglect-
ing to transmit the depositions could not (or
tt ought not," we are not quite certain which was
the expression used) continue to be Magistrates
much longer.
Ibis Marks was convicted of stealing owe potted abutter,
s piece of pork, two pillows, some flimirons, sad other
trilling a►ticles. the property of George Ism, by whose wife
she was employed as a char-woman.
Lawffents Hicks, as infirm and decrepit old was, up.
words at Arty prows of sae, was eoseirmel of steaks, w
pewter pia' pot, the property of Thomas Heat.

this case, would hare been the best evidence; bit • a D.n.hire-Irert wall stopped hey the Prieewee. wh.e.
• Wiwi her au the Lice, avid at tire sinus inoweat she felt she
that bort not been produced. :" '' 4 reputrsims'
ueledtbaykzifnions,tizoliacrawid.
oat
teNPrivonier tilsee.neradahaaw;asy,
The not
Justice thought the production of
the certificate not necessary. .They might yet offer token Into monody about tweedy yawls Loam the ape' utters:
proof of his having acted as an attorney. the ad- the robbery was marooned. Witness did sit we the well.
mission slid acting being proved. is preens facie cake is the Prisoner's herd ;it bed not heels risme beard or.
There were et tees' other persons rowed the ('vii doling
evidence that he is an attorney. Mr. Scarlet% might
the wabbley, and ate was positive be was the person who
uft rewards prove the negative. Mop' Ise.
Mr. SCARLETT re-urged that the Plaintiff was Peter Derrell, treadle or Dewonshire•squore, heard the
not proved to be an attorney. wry of" Stop thief" sad uliereiresi 'mend persons roassiow,
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL relied upon the ad- 'the Prisoner foremuat, sod witness secured him; they all Sp.
miwtion. peered to be afire same party. The- Prisoner at the time
Mr. Scsacerr contended he ought to she.. some said, be ardearsen werot.thhe
e pawn,saidthat
imset had joined in ithetl thepusr lath'sln
acting. The objeCtloil just mentioned applied to reticule, he poetised him, whew eiuira tail sm
be darted
uipta
eonrt,
a>i. I
the four first counts ; but he hod a still snore de- the Prisoner in his speed pasted him, whew he was sauce-
tided objection against the two Litt counts; in those diately seized by the officer.
Darrell was again called, and said that he saw uo buy,
Cowing the alleged libellous matter was set out nut
as the speech of Mr. Se i I• 0 I
r.,eau_• _lll/.o*. but as the wh.rri!ie Is j roust
Nbay: sera bad one been rot u•ring.
0 S ILPILIMIT summed up she svidemot to tiro
statements of the Defeedant himself. He referred Jury, who returned „,,dict of—No! Gault,.
his Lordship to the case of Bell v. Byrum, in 13th
East, tried Wore Lord Ellenborough, in which si- __ol
_I , CAUTION. _TO JOK ENS.
dietedff ZirSCalinag 7.P:tele:le I°°b"
"n" 'l's",v"ln.
mi)ar allegation. were made, sod upon srgument insod appendages, the property of
the Court of King's Bench it was decided that Mr. Jobs Cricksley.
those counts could not be suttaitted. It appeared the Prisoner was celebrating Christmas night
The So ttcrroa•Gem Etta L sod Mr. CIIITTY f with the Prosecutor is the douse ref hie master, "r*ltri"l4•l
and there being a scarcity of beds they slept together, ends
contended that the facts were truly set out. placing his watch iii a different situation. 11l the morning
The CHIEF JUSTICE grid, the allegations were, the Pretreat°, missed his watch, and informed She Prisoner
that the Plaiiitill was an attorney and practised ais of his los., when the latter observe,l, he bad so doubt it was
such; the last bad not been proved ; and on the j a joke of Mr. &porkies, hot on the litter being spwastissessi
suthnrity of the case cited (f‘itin which he could he knew +Whine.: the mutter. No fordier notice was taken
Lill the partiesnseLat the dinner-table, when a more 'Maur
not diatiogutsh the present), he thought the two entered
bsqui:lrorlitaannei into, and the watch was fumed IN ase
last counts of the declaration could Dot be sustained. Ehhourine trailesmaa, wrapped Up in brown
Plaiutiff noutuited, paper, as a parcel, which the Prisoner had purchased for
that purpose, Ou his return bow be was token ion,
custody._ _

The Prisoner, in his defence, protested bin immerser of
any criminal intention, and said, that he had kept the
watch for a juke, and merely intended to retain it till be had
excited the amino passion and concern in the mind of the
Punta-num

Several respretable wit gave him a roost excellent
character for honesty.
The ►.earned Judge, in summing up, ohrerved, the only
consideration for the Jury was, whether the watch bad been
taken with a criminal intention.
The Jury without hesitation acquitled the Prisoner.

MIDDLESEX SESSIONS, CLtacsswELL,

WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 9.

CRIN. CON.
Henry Sainsbury woo indicted for IRII3 tilling James 331117.
der. on the di h of November last.

James thunders staled, that on the evening of the day hid
in the indictment he went to his residence No. 17, Bell.yard,
and he found the Defendant in the room with his wife, and
he had some suspicion that he was nut there for nothing.
He asked him what he was doing there, on which the De-
fendant struck him and put him out of the room.
On hie eross-examinstton by Mr WALTORD, he said he
bad never been in ensiody for deserting his wife, but he was
once at Geililliall Police-office int that account.
The CHAIRMAN then ob.erved to the Prosecutor, that at.
cording to his own evidence he haul only suspicion that amt.
was something improper passing between the Defendant and
his wife. He recommended him to go home and take tare of
her, and not to be mispicions in future.
The Proterntor—'. 1 cannot help my suspicion (petting
his hand to his forehead). fur 1 do not know what parses be-
tween my wife sod the Defendant when 1 am from home."
Mr. WALFORD, Coolie (teethe Defendant, said the Charge
of Ida client having any Improper intimacy with the Prose.
mimes wife' was without foundation. The fact was, the
Prosecutor had deserted his wife and six children for rune
rms. The Defendant sod his father were printers, and
they had employed them, and given them a room to live in,
and the Defendant was mending a hole in it when the pro,
rotor came in, flourishing his fists, and ritauting to fight.
and the Ihrendant was obliged to put him out of the room
in his oven defence.

Mrs. Sarah R a deposed, that she knew both the De-
fendant sod the Prosecutor; she was la the room of the wtfe
of the latter when he came in, the Defendant was mending a
hole in the floor of the room, he was ou his hers, at the time.
The Prosecutor, on entering the room, pet hie fist in the De'
resident's face, and was coming towards the witness, saciske
was so much alarmed, the Prosecutor being quite drunk,
that she begged of the Defendant to put him out of the
room, which he did in a very gentle coalmen. The Prose-
eolor's children worked fur Ike Defendant and his father,
and their wages went to pay the rent of the moo. The
Prosecutor bad Hut paid any rest for the. fur four )eurs. ur
In any way contributed td their support.
The CMAIIIM•11 summed up the cal./ewe.
The Jury brought In n weed et of—Not Owllly.

The remaiuder of the day sae occupied is bearing petty
.melt cases el so interest.

POLICE.

1111141110111-110IISE.

A boy about ten years of mge was twooglit before the Lord
Mayor and Alderman MMus H n beadle of a prairie la the
City, fur t►e purpose of beige bound to a shoemaker, oho
was trilby/ to take him out of the wurkbosae, and leads Mot
the trade.

Alderman Aikilas asked whether the boy could real cr
wiiie! •

The beadle answered in the negative.

Alderman Arkias•grd the Lori! Mayor expreireil theirso
prole that a chili, of sorb tender pair. and • Oboist die 'suit
duettist notion of the advantages of educating+, rhoolgi b.
brought before them for the 'impose of being farteneJ il•nug •
to a trade which would have the effect of rogiAnlng thn
body, without the possibility of enlarging the mini. Duos
Alagtatratee agreed in the deft...initiation not to give their
reaction to any measure of the kind, auJ told the t•erdir be
mum look elsewhere fur authority to act upon andrr auc!i
coeginistenree.

Title decision evidently disconcerted some of the °Gars
et lee pariab wbu were present.

QUZIII-NUARE.
ROBBERY IN PARLIAMENT-STREET.

names Smith arid Jamie drown, two young fi flows Lc.
longing to • itespende gang of thieves, were brought by :Ur.
Davenport, roeslabte of St. Margaret's, Weattuiriorr, t.e.
fore liar 'Magistrate., charged with stealing in Ike .hnp of
Str. J. Scott, draper, earner of Bridge.streer, Parliamei.7-
sireet, en Tuesday night. Davenport stated that one, if
not both of ate Prisoners were eu•eeerued in • robbery at
Mr. Potter's, a musician, io James-street, Weatmi•sicr,
and. stealing two SagrolOts, about a forialgit ago; one t.f
their companions was taken, but the Prisooers then made
their reap*.
Mr. Scott stated that on Tuesday flight, abont eight o'clock,
he heard a noose at his shop window, sod maw the Prison. rt,
as be infused hie head, move limited* t►e corner of the steer:.
He immediately left his shop, and having walked sums ilia.
t , be turned back and concealed himself at a neigh.
boar's hoarse, from which ►e bad a view of his shop. He
1411011 afterwards saw the Prisoners go rip to hii shop slaw*
again, and after many efforts they broke in a piece of wood
which had been placed in the frame of • rase of glass wh;r.i
was broke. dons( the day, and with a hook stick, th•-v
drew • valuable silk shawl through t►e aperture, and ran Lti.
He raised an alarm by crying r Stop thief r and both rhe
Prisoners e ere *reared in Bridge.street, and under the coat
of Smith the shawl was foesid.
The Magistrate (E. White, Esq.) ordered the Prisoners r•.
be fully committed for trial, and the Prosecutor to eater Into
reengoisanees to prosecute.
Mr. Scott begged scrawlier, pratorentiag. He conceived
that the robbery was *wing: its is great degree, to his awn
holt, (rem out baying the window waded.
The Magistrate informed Mr./keit, Abet Le most iosiet
nylon the Prseotters, who were tdd *rendre*, b-ing prosecut-
ed. It was whit he owed to the yabLe and to himrlr;