The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1821-11-14 00:00:00

FASHIONABLE MOPEMENII.

Karl Whitworth, the Dutton@ of Dorset and family, are
arrived at their seat, Knole, Kent, from Backbarst, Susses.
The Duke and Doane of Montrose and family are ex-
pected in town next week for the season, from their seat in
Scotland.

The Duke of Manchester, who was expected in town yes-
terday from his wag, Kimbolton Castle, Huntingdonshire,
will not arrive till next week.
The Earl .f Plymouth is arrived at his house io Gros-
venor-square from ri tour.
Count and Countess Lieven who are arrived in Paris, are
expected in town next week.
Captain Jones, 10th hussars, arrived yesterday at Kirk-
ham's Hotel, Lower Brook•strret. from ■ tour.
Arrivals at Meares Hotel:—The Baron and Burmese
Nicholay and family; and the Prince Cimitile and suite
from the Earl of Normanton's ►eat, in Oxfordshire.
Colonel and Mrs. Marsac have left Mivart's Hotel fur
their seat, Caveraham Park.
The Prince Cariati has left ditto for Belle Yoe, Brighton.
Dr. Yeats is arrived at his house, Queen-street, May Fair,
from Tunbridge Wells.

L4W INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OP CHANCERY, thicoLl's Inx,

tuuDAy, somiscal3.

ODDIE V. THE BISHOP OF NORWICH.

Mr. SIRADWELL stated, that it was the intention
of the Plaintiff to appeal to the House of Lords
from the judginent of his Lordship. He was in-
structed to ask the Court that a rule might be
drawn up for dismissing the bill if the Plaintiff
did not bring his appeal before the expiration of
a month from the hearing of the cause, and that
the costs of the parties should be paid out of the
estates of the testator (the late Mr. Thelluson).
The parties had been at considerable expense in
taking the opinions of Counsel before the com-
mencement of the suit. • He had also to ask that
the parties should be refunded that expense out of
the estates.
The Loan CHANCELLOR—" That would be
against all precedent. I have no power to order
the costs for taking the opinions of Counsel to he
paid out of the estates; lint whoever may be the
Chancellor when the appeal comes on to be heard
in the House of Lords, may find that the funds
have accumulated to such an enormousextent, that
be may grant that the expense of the opinions of
Counsel should be paid out or the funds—but I,
sitting here, have not the jurisdiction."
Mr. SHADRELL said he was afraid if that was
his Lordship's opinion, he never should receive the
costs, as it was not probable that he would live
lorn; enough to witness the hearing of the appeal.
The LORD CHANCELLOR—" All I can say is,
Mr. Shadwell, that I wish yon may live for a
thousand years, and if you do, it is moot probable
that you may he at thy hearing of the appeal.—
Take the order, with the exception of that part
which relates to the costs of the opinions of
Counsel."

The LORD CHANCELLOR will hear Bankrupt
Petitions the first day after Tenn, and on every
day afterwards until the first seal—after which he
will hear Appeals.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, WESTSIINIYIR,
TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 13.
SWANTON N. WARBLE.
This was an action for defamation tried before
Mr. Baron GAaaow at Oxford, when the Jury
found a verdict for the Plaintiff, with 50/. damages.
The Defendant was a Clergyman, in whose family
the Plaintiff had resided for three years as nursery
maid. The cause of action was a letter written by
the Defendant after the Plaintiff bad rolitted his
service, in answer to it letter of inquiry as to the
character of the Plaintiff. It was asked if the
Plaintiff were " sober, honest, and modest." The
Defendant in his reply accused her in very strong
language of being not only unchaste but dishonest.
Mr. CROSS was partly heard yesterday on en
application for a rule to slew cause why a new
trial should not be had on two grounds : first, that
no malice was proved to exist in the mind of the
Defendant at the period of his writing the letter in
question; and secondly. that the verdict was against
the balance of evidence. Mr. Cross was heard in
continuation to-day. He argued that on an exami-
nation of the evidence it appeared there was aufT-
Ilr establish the truth of the
letter of the Defendant, yet
client in making the corn-
my other person must have
be true from the information
from his servants, and if he
he was privileged in making
He admitted that the letter
very strong terms, but there was
nothing in it hut what his client, feeling just in-
dignation at having been so long deceived in the
character of the Plaintiff, and desirous that she
should not again deceive others, would very natu.
rally explain.
The evidence of the other servants went to spew
that the Plaintiff had been in the habit during the
last six' months of her service of going into the
footman's bed-room after the rest of the family
had retired for the night, and of taking coffee and
sugar to treat him with in the nursery. The young
man himself was examined, and his evidence cer-
tainly rebutted the idea of the Plaintiff's want of
chastity.
The Loan CHIEF JUSTICE thought that in this
case the rule for a new trial ought not to be granted.
He should be very sorry if this decision should be
thought to break down the very wholesome rule of
law, that the communication of the master, as to
the character of the se.vant„ should be considered
as privileged. It was important for the best inter-
ests of society that such communications should
he free; but the communication should be pure
from all malicious motives. If the Learned Judge,
upon reading the letter, did not upon the face of' it
see some improper motive, he ought undoubtedly
to tell the Jury to acquit the Defendant, as the
communication was privileged ; but, looking at the
terms of the letter, he (the Lord Chief Justice) could
not but see some improper motive, and that ques-
tion was therefore left to the Jury. As to the credit
of the witnesses, that was matter for the Jury to
judge of; and as the Learned Judge who tried
the cause had not expressed any dissatisfaction with
the verdict, it was not customary for the Court to
grant new trials on the balancing of testimony.
Mr. Justice Bev Lee thought the point, upon
the general issue, was, whether at the time of writ-
ing the letter there was malice in the mind of the
Defendant. He was justified in temperately en;
swering the queries which—bad been put to him ;
but there appeared in his letter • degree of heat
and intemperance, Heil that was properly left to
the Jury on the general issue. On the truth of the
facts there was contradictory evidence, and the Jury
were the proper judges of that.
Mr. Justice HOLROYD and Mr. Justice BEST
concurred; the latter Learned Judge observed,
that as a Clergyman it was very natural the De-
fendant should feel considerable indignation, hut '
if lie attacked the character of another, that would
be no defence in a Court of Law, though it was a
defence of his character as a man and a Clergymen.
Rule refused.
THE NARY ANN cAREILR.
This was an indictment at the instance of the
Society for the Suppression of Vice. tiled before
file.lasstice Best, at the sittings -after last Term,.
.at against the Ihrendbfp (a sister of W.

"__~rY

Cathie), for publishing a seditious end blasphe-
mous libel, entitled, Appendix to the Theologies!
Works of Thomas Paine. The Jury found the
Defendant Guilty.
Mr. COOPER now moved the Court for a rule to
chew Cause why a new trial should not be bad, en
the ground that the Defendant had been inter-
rupted and finally prevented from reading her de•
fence by the Learned Judge at the trial. He
moved this on the affidavit of the Defendant, which
stated that her defence, which was a written one,
was interrupted by the Learned Judge at the pas-
t/age which stated, that " the common law was no-
thing but a common abuse."
Tne Lotto Cuter Jurrice—i, Is that proper
language to be used in a Court of law ?"
Mr. COOPER--" If your Lordship asks my per-
sonal opinion, I should say it was not proper."—
The Learned Counsel went on to state that he was

only reading. from the affidavit of his client, and
had at present read only a small part of it. It went
on to state that the defence was stopped altogether.
Mr. Justice BEST—" Bat you who were in
Court, Mr. Cooper, know that it tors not so."
Mr. COOPER—" I beg your Lordship's pardon,
I was not in Court, I war at breakfast at an adja-
cent coffee-1i0n...."

Mr. Justice BEST—" I beg your pardon."
Mr. COOPER begged tie Court to understand
that he spoke entirely from the affidavit of his
client : from that it appeared that other parts of
her defence. were objected to, and she was told to
retire and correct it ; hut not thinking it necessary
to do so, the Learned Judge charged the Jury, who
found her guilty.
Mr. Justice BEST said, as the Learned Counsel
was not present on the trial, he would put him
and the Court in possessiou of the real facto of the
case. When the cause was called on, the Defend-
ant. who appeared to defend herself in person,
objected to any member of the Society for the
Suppression of Vice bring on the Jury ; on
which the Jury were questioned, and none being
of the Suciety, were sworn, and the cause
went on. The Defendant put in a written
defence, which was read by the Officer of the
Court. lie (Mr. Justice Beat) had taken no note
of it; but speaking from recollection, he thought
that he had objected to some part of the defence
previous to the passage which stated the common
law to be a common abuse. On coming to that
passage ho addressed the Defendant and said,
" Ma'am, I can't permit that to be read." She
►eplied, " Then I can make no defence." He re-
joined, " I hope you can, and I recommend you to
retire with some friend." She said that she had
no friend in Court, and he replied that any of the
Gentlemen at the Bar would be happy to assist her.
Notwithstanding she had said she had no friend, he
found she had one who defended her in the next cause.
The Jury then interposed, and solicited her to be
advised, as she was injuring her cause by a refusal,
and she then withdrew with a friend who was in
Court with her ; but instead of having altered one
word of her defence, she delivered a paper, which
stated, " This is my defence ; and if Englishmen
under trial are not to be heard in their defence,

I caul help ►t : I must abide by your dec'sion."—
He (Mr. Justice Best) was most anxious to have
heard her; but when lie found that she was de.

fended in the next cause by a Gentleman at the
bar, he was convinced this was adopted as a means
of doing that herself which no Gentleman at the
bar could have been found to do fur her, and of
uttering on the sanctuary of justice that blasphe-
mous and seditious language which could be tole-
reted uo where else.
Mr. Coops, said, what the Learned Judge had
stated, concurred with the affidavit of his Client.
There were some additional fact:, hut no contra-
diction that he could perceive. He was not re-
tained in the present cause at the trial. In the
next case lie was regularly retained, and he should
have felt himself disgraced if he had refused his
assistance.; for be the crime ever so enormous of
which person a might be accused, it was fitting that
they should have every facility of defence afforded.
If there were any persons who could confound the
action with the dramatis persona, and mingle toge-
ther the Barrister and Client—for such persons he
had the most sovereign contempt. The effect of
the Learned .Judge's interruption, though he
doubted not it was well meant, was to stop the de.
fence altogether.
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE asked if the affidavit
stated that there was other matter which was con-
tained in the defence, and which might have been
submitted to the Jury ?
Mr. Coopea said his argument wasthat only one
objectionable part having occurred, though much
had been read, the presumption was, that the un-
objectionable parts were predominant, and there-
fore that the defence ought not to have been
stopped altogether. In the case of the King v.
Davisou there were objectionable passages, but the
defence was not stopped altogether ; and had the
course then pursued been followed here, it would
have been more advantageous to the cause of
justice.
Mr. Justice BAYLET—" The mischief might
then have been infused into the minila of the by-
standers, and no fine afterwards to be imposed
could prevent its injurious operation.
Mr. COOPER said that the doctrine would lead
to this consequence, that a Judge might tell a
Barrister to revise or reconsider his speech.
The Loan CHIEF JUSTICE—"No such conse-
quences would follow."
Mr..lustice BAYLEY said he would not suppose
an improbable if not an impossible case; he would
suppose that a Barrister had spoken from a written
speech, and there should occur in it • passage of
unqueqionable impropriety, the Judge would see
that it was not delivered in the heat of the moment,
but that it was the deliberate result of study and
reflection, would not the Judge be warranted to
presume the paper contained other otTenssve mat-
ter, and would he not be bound to ask a pledge
from the Barrister that it did not ?
Mr. Coopea apprehended that the Judge should
caution the Barrister, and lie must proceed at the
risk of being stopped. He apprehended that, in
the present case, the 'Learned Judge should have.,
let the defence go on, cautionio'g Defendant,
that if she offended in like manner again it was at
-her peril, and then, under the authority of !be
King e. Davison, she might have been punished;

• ,

AMU-_

I

It

but she sweats that there was cothiag objectionable
in the remainder of her defence.
Mr. Justice BATI.IIT—" Did she communicate
...
that to the Judge ?"
Mr. Cot:lye's—is That I know Death* of." . .
The Loan Cuter JUSTICE—nit, bee Rfeilst•se
i
only of what is objectionable." . . .
Mr. CooPER." She says /Abe thinks there was
nothing objectionable, and that. I thisik•engeiept,, •
as she could have had no other criterittp ,I, see
fer to."
The LORD CHIEF Susie 4 La lrhi. orlo or;
t.bc*
perhaps, of some perrolia.
...
were not objectionable ; ..thi pours
which the Learned Judge huff tea 7 OtgAivil 44"
Mr. CoupEß din submitted flint she had oily
...
her own opieiou to refer to. • •
.
. .
The LORD CHIEF JURTIEE—" Go on, Sir; but
I would not have you imagine we have quite lost
our common understancliags," I
Mr. CoOPI,,R—" I beg tour Lordships would
not imagine that I have a suspicion flirt yea
have not only common, but very extraophitary ne-
deretanclitig."—The Learned Counsel proceeded I.
observe that, although the Learned Judge had told t;
the Defendant that any of the, Gentlemen at the ~
Bar would assist her, no on in fact volunteer. K %
and in the state of proscription in which the. Ile-.
fondant was placed, it was nut very likely that nay
. • i -,
one would. .. ~
1 I
Mr. Jurtice BEST said, lie trusted Mr. Cooper
ad formed a very improper estimate of the Her,. • .'
Mr. PLATT rose and said, lie thought it proper
.1 t
to state that lie went and offered his asistanise.
Mr. COOPER was sorry to have made the mistake.
and in conclusion submitted, that on the affidrnt
which he bad read, his client was entitled to asset?, •
trial. ..,
Mr. Jostiee BATLFT—" She does not say 4hat .
the defence is prepared by herself." •
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE—" Or that she knew ' ^sr'
its contents ?" A
Mr. COOPER said his affidavit did not state that 1. .
fact.
Mr. Mr. Justice BAILEY—" It is no uncharitable.
constractioo, then, to suppose her ignorant oktris
contents." " i 4-
. ' •
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE said, the yieldler' t
here was, whether a person should be suffered to i i
otter in a Court of Justice as much offensive matter • !
(of the same kind as that fur which they viere !r. '.+
brought there), as any officious friend should cheese .‘
to prepare for them. The matter here was nut tier-
tonally offensive, but was such as it would hr is di*.
grace to a Court of Justice to hear. The Defend-
ant did not, on her return iuto Court, any the de-
fence did not contain any thing of the kind which
the Learned Judge had thought improper, neither
did her affidavit now state it. She insisted on the _ ,
right to have the whole of her defence read. The
question is, should such • paper be read ? The au- . li.
ewer of the Court could be but one. It would he ,
•
a great disgrace to the law and to the Court if a • •
person in his defence of such publications as the
Defendant was indicted for should be allowed to , •
utter as much blasphemy and sedition as lie chose. r•- 1 '
Ile was clearly of opinion that what was dime on 1 • •
the present °cession was proper. It had heee As, ,t ••
that the party might be sued, but that did ~‘,. pi,- -
vent the mischief, which wu, the public utterance Tsr...
of such mischievous matter.
Mr. Justice BATLET hoped the time would 'sever
arrive when a Defendant should he prevented from•
uttering all that was proper for their defence, but
it was absolutely necessary that they should be can.
fined within the hounds of decency.
Mr. Justice HOLROTO concurred in opiitioil with
Iris Learned Brothers.
Mr. Justice Besse said lie had thought it right tie
state to the Court the facts, and having done that; •
he should take no further part.
Mr. MARRVATT said it might be satisfactory to
the Learned Judge, who stated from memory what
occurred at the trial, that the account given agieed
exactly with the note of it which he had takers oil
his brief at the time.—Rule refused.

1 4

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS,
TUESDAY, NOVEMSUL 13.
OILMAN O. ELTON.
. •
This was an action of 'rover tried ;t the sittings
at Guildhall, to recover the value of (*stain geisce
seized by the Defendant in a distress For relit; in
which a verdict was taken for the Plaintiff, subiret
to the decision of the Court on a cusp, which ass
afterwards turned into a special case fur argument.
and now came ou to be beard before their Lordships.
Before the case was gone into, Mr. Serkarit
Limes, who was for the Defendant, said, %frit pos-
sibly there might be no occasion fur going thrower,
with it, as the Plaintiff had died sluice the cow.
mencetnent of the action. •
Mr. Serjeant MARIAALI., who was for the Plair-
tiff, acid it was quite common in every day's
fife to have the opinion of the Court OA a ca.r
where either of the parties died between the seedict
and the judgment.
The circumstances of the pre /writ von were these :
In 1819, Mr. Gilman, the Plaintiff'. who was A •
bombazeen manufacturer at Norwich. scut a quan-
tity of goods to a person named Milner who was
his factor •in London. Ile forwarded with the
goods a regular invoice, and drew 'upon Miler,
a bill for SOO/. on account, which olio regularly
accepted, and sent hack to him in the cinerary.
The Plaintiff got the bill discounted at his booker
at Norwich, but before it because due Millie died.
and •on becoming doe it was presented-of his lair
warehouse by the banker's agents in Lorulou fur pay.
meat, but nay sent back dishonoured arid prote.ic.l.
The Plaintiff then demanded that his good., whicil
he had placed in the haods of Moine, us his factor,
should• be returned to him, which, however, was
refuted by the Plaintiff; who had distrained upon
thim fur the rent of the premises where they were
deposited, which had been let by how be
The question therefore for their lordships-to Aicestlr
was, whether goods betongiug to u third $ %stole
6 tile hands of a factor were subject to distress for
rent. •
Mr. Serjeant MARSHALL, for the Platt said
-s

down • position, th,t goods delivered troCti.ixti--
son, exercising publicly • trade •r bro.iiieitrio-br
by Gina carried, wroogid, or managed is the way of
,his trade, bare not liable tsclistreeeter,r-tit. -111
sitOpOh tof this ititsition:lia cit,r4 a %sort oriniber of •
casts, and contended tint the object of thit exety-
viissaii
tiou aping the general it& of .1 Airat 11 I

..31114. •
.4011‘ r

• .
14,) 1
t
• .4_1.7

• •
•

.` ,

♦1

.S___ N 2.

"Mi;l