The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1824-02-12 00:00:00

JITDOMENTS.-LIBEL

THE ZING OX THE PROSECUTION OF LORD GEORGE
SEYMOUR s'. JOliN CORRY.
The libel consiated in' charging Lord George Seymour with
borrowing money from inferior officers of the excise. fhe defend.
ant deposed to4hformation from an officer of ►xcise, named IVilley,
to the effect of the libel, and that a seizure of malt in his house was
by the direction of Lion George Seymour. Ile had written a letter
apologising to Lord George Seymour. He had a wife and seven
children. _ _ _

Ale. ATTORNEY-GENERAL addressed the Court upon the ag-
gravation of circulating handbills containing such offensive charges.
Ile was instructed, however, by Lord George Seymour, to leave
it entirely to the Court, and not press very hastily against the
defendant.

The defendant gave a history of his hardships—writing to the
Treasury and getting no answer—having his malt seized upon
anottyroous informations, though the duty had been paid. Lord
George Seymour never answered his letters. Then he wrote those
letters to the Chancellor of the Exchequer which he has ever since
been sorry for. His object hod been to obtain redress, not to slan-
der his Lordship, against whom he had no animosity. The lightest
punishment ea him would be heavy upon his family.
Mr. Justice BAYLEY—The libel was of a very offensive nature.
and published le a very objectionable form. It was a charge of
borrowing'money from so officer who obtained it by frauds on the
revenue. Lord George Scythe/or being one of the Chief Commis-
sioners of Excise, this was a very grave offence. He ought, instead
of writing to Lord George Seymour, to have denied the calumny as
it had been circulated.

The sentence wu imprisonment for one month in the Marshal-
sea, and that he give securities for three years, himself in 40L,
and two sureties in 211. cach.

LIBEL.

nunrantn r. INDIAN OBSERVER.
The ATTOIXEY-UENESIAL referred to what bad taken place
yesterday,. and thee stated that the point to which the Court had
directable Wads" was, the denial of having received a security
brim the Milan for double the sum lent to the Main. The libel
alleged that the house of Palmer and Company, of which Sir IV.
Rumbold was a partner, advanced three hundred and fifty thousand
pounds to the Mum, and received an acknowledgment for 700,0001.
which was presented tp the British Government, to defraud it of
350,000 L This was datlnctly negatived. The only documents to
substantiate their claims were accounts of debts justly due by
the Navin to the ham of Palma and Co. The British Govern-
ment had never become bound to pay Palmer and Co. any debts of
the Nina.
Mr. Justice BEST said there was a difficulty existing in this
are which he could not get over. The alleged libel charged Sir
William with borrowing money of the natives at 12j per cent. and
I then lending It to a native Prince at 25 per cent. This was not
denied ; A do so was a heavy offence, and he could not see how an
individual who had so acted could come to the Court for a criminal

iii . , 0,- --:a. . - - - -- —M -- - - - ::::
that-- -.
- - -7
The ATTOIRRY-GINER4L did Doe know that WaS .••••
nVa bat it was alt the point to which his attention had bees
Mr. Justice Dier said it was a very serious offence, as would be
ad by a reference to transactions 40 years ago. No application
•for ahninal Information could be listened to if the party applying
could not clear himself of offence.
The ATTORIZT-OENERAL said it could be distinctly nega-
dyed, but the whole was a Action; no such sum as 3540,0001. bad
been kid to the Nisam.
The LORD CRISP Jurrter—You had better deny the charge
al taking 251. for what you paid 121. for, as that will remove the
enb difficulty in the breast of may of their Lordships.
It iris bread that it should be mentioned to-morrow.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, u .:ISTXINIITER,
WZDYEEDAT, FEB. 11.

FIRE IN WATLING-STREET.--JUDGMENT.
TIIUITELL V. 111AUMONT.

The LORD Curer Juirrics proceeded to give judgment in
enandatism dile important ease this It was an action brought by the
plaintiff, Thomas Thurtell, the defendant. Mr. Beaumont,
as Director of the County -office, on a policy of insurance,
abened by the plaintiff. A very long and careful examination took
pbse an the trim', and a verdict for the plaintiff, with I,POOL cis.
10.1111 b An appheation had afterwards been made for a new trial,
wan two grounds, but refused. A rule bed, however, been sub.
7=dy granted, upon affidavits of fresh evidence in the case.
affidavits stated
.two grounds:—Fiat, that the defendant
had been taken by surprise by evidence given at the trial; and, se-
madly, that he had discovered new facts. He apprehended that
the Court ought to proceed in a cam of this description with great
caution, as nothing could form a more dangerous
_precedent than to
discuss evidence which had satisfied the mind of a Jury. It was
impossible to grant a new trial ea the ground of surprise. The
next ground was more important, end required attentive considera-
tion. The affidavit of the defendant stated that be had new facts
to submit, .and in considering them. the Court was bound to pre.
coed with the utmost caution. Let them examine what they were.
They related—firm, to the origin of the fire in Watling-street; but
this pert rested chiely on the testimoni of Hunt. The other
ground via, that the goods purchased Thurtell, of Todd and
Monition. were not on the premises, ore,' so, that they were after-
wards removed end sold to Messrs. Hargraves. Now, with respect
to the manner of the fire, the same defence had been attempted to
be made on the viol, end this showed that the defendant, in oppo.
eition to what he stated in his affidavit, could not have been taken
by surprise, for this wee the very ground on which he went to trial.
With respect to ;Robinson's •Martt, of which his Lordship read
part, it stated that he mw a room on lire, but no goods in it, and
that be thought there could not be any considerable quantity of
rods on the premises. New, it would be a most dangerous prece-
dent indeed to grant a new trial on such a ground as this, because
those witnesses who might have been brought forward on the trial,
were not brought famed. If such a practice were to prevail, the
Court would be overwhehned with applications for new trials, and
there would be no end to !itegutien. But /het this gentleman
eanteei - - the

tradiocd by Tarley, by Dcit. raid by Enffison, and ecery allega-
tion in his affidavit negathei. The aVicavit of Snowdon was open
to this observation, that thoughit traversed the ease from the be-
ginning to the end, it did out state trout whom he procured the
goods sold ta3liagrave; but he swore positively that he did not act.
count for them to ThurtelL It should not be omitted that it was
sworn that this witness was rot entitled to belief on oath. The
Court then made some otservations on the aspersions cast upon J 1 r.
Beaumont, and said it was bound to protect hint trout any insinu.
' ations. Could the Court say that it would exercise a sound discre-
tion by granting a new trial on this affidavit, unsupported salt was,
and opposed by other testimony, however the parties in this case
' might be covend with guilt? Mr. B. had sworn that he had
I found the invoices shriller, except the per cottage of the pricer.
What did he mean by that ? The Court could not act oo his affi.
davit; he should have produced the invoices themselves. The
Court did not think this part of the case was sufficiently strong to
induce it to grant a new trial. On the trial the Jury thought the
balance of evidence was in favour of the plaintiff; as to the quantity
and value of the goods on the premises. l'pon the whole, there-
fix*, the Court, duly considering and attentively weighing the mi.-
! dence before it, was of opinion there was not sufficient ground for a
new trial. Ile would only add one word more. With respect to
' the indictment that had been preferred, it would only have been
fair on the part of Mr. Beaumont to have informed the Court, that
if a Grand Jury had found one indictment against the plaintiff;
another indictment had been ignored. But that would not have
altered the case in the conaiueration of this Court. His Lordship I
expressed in strong terms his opinion that the civil proceeding
'Mould have tominated before an indit tment had been preferred-.
It had been well observed, that this rase could not be sent before
an unprejudiced Jury after what had taken place. The ground
upon which the Court refused a new trial, his Lordship di•tinctly
stated was, that the testimony on which this motion was mode was ,
met on the other side by a stronger weight of evidence, and that
therefore the rule must be refused.

POLICE.

MARY-LA-BONNE OFFICE.

Yesterday Mr. Joseph Perkies, the Ex-Sherif, ap.
peered on a summons before Mr. GIeFFITH, the Sitting Maps.
trate, to answer why he had nut fulfilled the terms and conditions
of an order of affiliation, made on him sometime during the )ear
1822, for the maintenance of a bastard child of his, chargeable to
the parish of 3lary-la-bonne.
It may be remembered by some of our readers, that Mr. Parkins
was pointed out by a girl named Hannah White, as the father of
her child, and on that recognition being made before the 31agi-
strates, an award of Is, per week was made upon Mr. Parkins, tor
the maintenance *I the child by the parish ; against this Mr. Par-
kins appealed, but the order was confirmed at Inc Sessions, and the
parish officers have been twice under the necessity of citing him
before the Magistrates, to compel him to pay the demand.
Mr. Thorpe, the assistant overseer, said his demand upon the
defendant was only 51. is., for the maintenance of his child by the
parish, from April to October, last year ; the above sum was due
upon the order which had been confirmed at the Sessions.
31r. GRIFFITH having examined the order, asked the defendant
why he had not paid it ?
Mr. Parkins—Why, Mr. Magistrate, the case is this„—l have
offered to pay the money, and have sent it, provided they would
shew me the child. And Ido think, Sir, I have a claim, and •
just one, to see this child, as very likely it may be dead, and I
defrauded of my money.
The Magistrate.-1 don't think that.; but your request seems rea-
sonable ; I dare say you can see the child.
Mr. Parkins-I'a, Sir, my demand is gentlemanly and fair;
and if you give an order, I have no doubt it will be attended to.
Magistrate—We do not give any such orders, but I will ask the
overseer when he has seen the child.

Mr. Thorpe-1 saw the infant not two hours since.
Magistrate—ls it the same child that was produced here?
Mr. Thorpe—lt is the same child, born in our parish, the
mother being Hannah White, who has given up Mr. Parkins as
the father, and which was the subject of appeal.
Mr. Parkins—Well, well! 1 should like to see the child; it
may not be the same that was hero formerly. I think it necessary
to state I have not seen it since.
. .

Illagistratu—Well, Sir, you perceive the man swears to having
seen the child, and that is sufficient; we have proof it is alive;
and indeed this demand is only for some months during last year.
You assuredly cannot want any more.
Mr. Thorpe--If your Worship pleases to give an order, calling
on me to produce the child, I will do so ; but I beg leave to state,
I will not produce the child to the defendant without a Megistrate'a
order.

Mr. Parkins—Do you see this, Sir, the trick ? and as I require
to see the child, give him an order to produce it.
Magistrate—We cannot give any such order; you are very well
aware of that.

111;.i'azki;s—Well, Sir, I must pay the money; but I really
am surprised that you, sitting there, should see ore do so, without
letting me hare the satisfaction I require.
He then paid 81.45., and is. costs, and bowing, retired with his
clerk and a young gentleman,
HA'fTON-GARDEN.

On Tuesday Thomas Readitsg, apprenane to Meows. Du Garde
and Simpson, jewellers, 24, KW lioa-auset, Clerkenwell, and
Richard !Jollier, a setter of pearl, and diamonds. were Waugh, np
for final examination • the former with having robbed his
mates of considerable quantities*/ and du loiter with bar.
ehaggiu
Mg received it, knowing at to be stolen. wrisempal ..,,,a
ed on their former examination we the senfessimeof the
tire, on being taken into custody of having sold an Monier,
the last ear, fourteen ounces of gold, at His. pm em (it le&nr::::Lh
Us.) This confession being made in cotnequence of Mr.
siterv
ing to bim, if he had anything to say, it was bets as
before 64 was locked up . and oa searching Holler's lodgings, a
piece of gold wu found there, which a boy named Baxter, in
Heins. Dugarde and Simpson's employment, believed to be
lone which he had seen in the workshop with Reading, and which
Reading marked with a file.
Mr. H ttended for the prosecutor; and Mr. How.
virgins, accompanied by Mr. Law, the banister, for the pd.
sours.
The office was crowded to excess by master and working jewel-
len, to bur the result of the case, which had excited much WNW
in the trade ; it being contended by Messrs. Dugarde and
son, that Moldier, as a pearl-letter, had no °canine Meth=
found on his premises in his trade.
The examination lasted during the principal part of the by,
Mr. Law argued at great length against admitting das says.
sion of Reading, ite it was made under a kid of threat ca ponds.;
and cited the practice of the criminal Courts of Juedeak antis*
cases : he also contended, that allowing hie confusion so he adenis-
sible, still Mollie? could not be implicated as an accessary, as the
identity of the piece of gold was not positively sworn to.
Mr. Sergeant Swits.on °burred that though there may be va-
rious degrees of strength of expression, which would produce a dif-
ference of opinion as to what constituted a threat or promise ; still,
he conceived, there were abundant facts before him to send the case
to a Jury, and, accordingly, he fully committed the prisoners
Thos. Warren, a journeyman, in the employment of Mesas. ,'
Dugarde and Simpson, who was separately chargedon suspicion of 1
having robbed them, was discharged.

•
cite7thr —"..="7 swore oitinicTe ZebeiteiXeribeess oTnialiSicted 012 tEe trial hi
Med It)tbaas who hem the evidence of Rams, the Imam, wheintore that be found a
I tax, the chomeihit of the considerable quantity MI pada. y burnt, on the premises. The
tames lose famed, end if Court could not Oita • 'alimony 114: LW, nature,
'Witt-Ihr "Lt`"•'• as *I% the Vertiond might
cei to call es the vs, and
whigull• see cmay L. : was, that the Coup would, con-
veners@ lease eased of the War too bne be inallicient ground
I dram hair Realise "Plait • 3.41. • •to t'e statement. his Lord-
Ie meldBll'. " sb
yktll.l it. credit couldd Wong to
thing hem t say be .mold not. examined, and there-
to, as me cite immure te fore kis tadmeny uneented as nothing. The evidence at at-
t--.ides, lama ae committee other party, Jobelisrl O, might be equally unworthy. of be-
am le mom and lief; hot that
_cleme.ileeld' brew nab* whatever of lien, but
moo km CUM. Mao OS die goydo net beteg on the ;Molise%
.