The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1826-07-07 00:00:00

ent eman lodged in hie hotisalry the name of Wheeden.- There
was a proposal trade for building a chapel for the Independent I
.was oat of tile Committee. Mr. Newston Was
to be the preacbee. lie had got several subscriptions rch•
misisl him, but no money WAS collecfed at that time. We
had selected a spot of ground upon which the chapel was to be
bnilt. I received this letter either on the 16th or 17th September.
I communicated he contents to two gentlemen of the Corn.
mince, but not till I hail a communication from them of another
anonymous letter receivod by therm Upon these letters being corn.
municated, the preaching was given up at my house. The pro-
posal for building the chapel wax likewise abandoned, and the
plaintiff's school was destroyed. I know that the son of James
was a scholar of Mr. Newston ; he left the school soon after
the receipt of the letter. In the course of three weeks or a month
afterwards the plaintiff had not above three or four scholars. Ile
has a wife and three children. Ile had a very serious fit of illness
after this occurrence, and was quite deranged, so that on one Sab-
bath evening I was obliged to send my two sons home with him, as
he was unfit to be left by himself.
The Loan CHIEF JUSTICE said he had turned the subject in
his mind respecting the license, and felt it to be important.
Mr. is not at all necessary to produce the
cense.
The Loan CHIEF Justus—The allegation Is, that lie was a
preacher of a congregation of Dissenting Protestants, and the ques-
lion is, whether, in a Court of Law, I can take notice of a person
as a licensed preacher unless he produces his license
Mr. SeARLET T—lle IS subject to penalties if lie preaches with-
out a license.
:dr. GuttwEv said the Act of S 2 Geo. 111.. which altered in
some rerpects the Act of 19 Geo. 111., called the Toleration Act,
did not make the provisions different as to the place of worship
which it was necessary should be certified and registered.
After some further argument upon this point, It was again post-
' 'wined until the S.atutes had been referred to.
Witness was then cross-examined by the ATTOBNEY-G ENE RAI,
—I work at labouring work, and my wife keeps a shop. I pay
ifif. per annum for rent. It is a cottage, where the Congregation
is held. Mr. Newston was to receive any emoluments from the
chapel to be erected, 34 were usually received by Ministers. lie
was Omitted gratuitously at my house. He had been there from
the latter end of March to sonic time in October, 1824, where he
was taken ill.
Wm. Hankey, sm acquainted kith the hand-writing
of the defendant. Thi• letter Is not very unlike it indeed; so that!
should say it was not his hand-writing. I never saw the letter'be-
fore. _ _

ATTORNEY-GENERAL—T.OOk at it again.
Witness—l am prepared to say that that is my opinion, and de-
cidedly.
The Cashier or Mr. lla••kcy examined-1 consider this letter
unlike the defendamrs hand-writing. and I mink it not to be written
by him. 1 have never convene I with Mr. Proctor about it. The
back of the letter is More unlike 1113 writing than the inside. I
verily beliave upon my oath, from the character of the hand-
writing, that it is not his.
The Rev. Mr. Lewis—l am acquainted with the defendant, and
r know his hand-writing. This tenet ivdecidedly not his writing.
I convened with hint on the subject of this letter several months
ago, but I do not recollect what passed. Ile did not tell me eho
wrote it, nor did he ever,show on a copy of it.
The Loan Cierpr JUSTICE asked Mr. Searlett whether be
could go any tardier?
Alr,t4calli-avr-,141i, try Lord; I have no other witnesses.
The LORD CHILI JUSTIcE—Thin the plaintiff 'must 'be
called.
The plaintiff was accordingly called and n.onsuited.