The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1824-01-20 00:00:00

he animadverted with great severity on the evidence for the prose-1
cotton, with a powerful appeal to the Jury on behalf of the
defendant, wheat innocence would be rendered demonstrably
apparent.
Mr. Graham and Mr. Evelyn, the successful cantlitlates at the
eltetion for at. lees. in Nth Mr. Young, a principal member of 1
their committee, and two other gentlemen employed In easurnssing
the borough, and who were constantly in the company of the de-
fendant during the contest, Mated positively that he had nut used
the language, or made the ofiers imputed to him.
If r. SCA AI ETT replied.
The Lonti (limy JUNT)Ct, in summi...mt the evidence, left
it to the Jury to decide on which side lay the teslance of testimony.
If any doubt existed in their minds, that alone would render it
Itheir duty to aegoit the defendant.
'lke Jury teamed a verdict of—Not Guilty.
The-case occupied the Gaut the whole day.

had dune en more than Ina necessary to protect hint fmiet miligtatc
ii can ; and as he conceived his conduct was necessary fur self-de.
ir.^.ee, in giving a eonmuliction of the plain sad gram niiiirepresen.
tations r.r akin tank piece in that teurt, Its would timkt uo order
w...siese- it the ease.
Che Si: i is.vroa-Or steam. then moved for the di.snlittion of
the in7o..t.lin origioally granted against Mr. Kelly. Ile word
i-st Me. K..11y having nu notice of the coaenant made between
litchi'', s=.l Nicholson, the injunction was of nrursie mill nod void I
as to min , and the question of piracy was to besiecided by the laws
r7p.-ethiti literary property.
he Court assented to the perniple, but as in this cam, the entire
wr•rlt ,imuld be guns over minutely. it would he more convenient
to Ls the matter stand over to the tire Friday of term.
Mr. He Ain said, he hoped the man'cr in which the defendant
ri..apetl the committal would not render a locoed application ne-
t _smut for the same object.
The lit n-I 'mute Ll. Lent mid, the parties should recollect, that,
though a work' wee not original, but was collected from ether
ciliur . it was not to he pirod-d, the very set of the collection
tirade it a property. A work of this desaiption resouhled one
upou maps, or a description of the *aces of Europe; these may
it takei from the originals, but the public hail en right to copy
from the week of an individual. There are injunctioos granted
i antennae works of Chronology ; it is plain that these cannot be
mignotl*t most be taken from others, but title collection, as he
remarked.before, gave a title.
Tde tietslerrita-UENEllat. was aware that many Fubjects
whkh were common, lying as if in oteiiii, might become new
nom the es/lades of thefrstructure and arrangement.
111 r. !Isiah wished to know, as whose property the work to
which lthi elleatobjeeted to was published ?
Inc SOLICITOR.OSI( FILM said it was published as the pro.
WTI of Mr. Kelly.
rile. If wiLti—And yet the book itself proves that it is published
in the iisnte of Nicholson.
Time SOLICITOR-lint ZZAL-Arta ; but for the benefit and ad-
cam....ie .4' Me Kelly.
. The ViCE.CHAS CE cLoa repeated his wish that the further dis-
tonsintridtotild be postponed.
Mr.' Herat, said he had ene question to ask, which, if he
thought contetly, would aborten the case :—lf Mr. Nicholson was
prevented by covenant bon publishing anything impaling the in.
trier' of his Hiatt, was Me. Kelly, or any other perstm, authorised
toile so in his name ?
The Vice-Cush cetion—Most certainly, if thnt person have
ro notice of the covenant : if he make a bosuirie purchase, bow is
Ice to be reached if Itel buy hicemplute ignorance of the covenant P
Mr. H rm.') thought the publication impeding the ioterest of his
client aught not in any case to be centinited.
The l'iritst 'Hanes: it. on—Consider that. Assume for a no.
meat that the two works in question trek-e the preelection of Sichnl.
ii.,:i, alai that he sells one to an individual not only protected by, the
ordinate hew against piracy, but also with a special covenant that
hr will publish nothing. to interfere with its sale, and that the day
:::ter he sells ihe other, in direct violation of this covenant, can the
second purchaser be restrained from publishing without notice of
courant berg served on hint ? You tan only affect him fur the
tuture. You cannot affect him fur any prior act, as he has paid
his money.
Dlr. II r ALI) said he was obliged to his honour for reasoning the
matter with hint, but. he did not feel it right to discuss matters
tocreb speculative.
The V ICSACHANCET.I.OII-31r. Kelly. is not entitled to much
mercy, at he has submitted to an injunction respecting himself to
which he ought not.
The further discussion of the merits of the injunction was then
postpotied, by the mutual consent of the parties, until the lint
Friday of term.

SHERIFF'S COURT.

Before the &ismer of MiDioLynx and a Special Jury.

DILAPIDATIONS.
THE MERCERS' COPIVANT P. (*TI MME.

This was an action calling upon the Jury to assess a compensa-
tion in damages for an alleged wanton injury that had been done to
the Company's house, which was held for a term of years, in the
ocenpation of the defendant.
Mr. WALTON and Mr. PLATT attended n COUNUI to argue
the case.
Mr. WALTON opened the case for the plaintiffs, observing, he
celled upon the Jury for such damages as they should C.MCCiVC
hint entitled to, upon the evidence he should adduce. The action
wax brought upon the covenants of the lease, under which the.tle-
fendant was bound to repair and yield up the house in as good a
condition as when he that took possession. The house was situate
137, Long-acre, and had, by the defendants carrying on the trade
of a coach-maker, become much dilapidated, which dilapidations
had been surveyed by professional men, whose evidence would be
mgu for the better regulation of a verdict.
Mr. Georg,/ Smith. surveyor to the Mercers' Company, deposed
he bad occupied that situate= for eleten years. l'he Company
were by no means oppressive on their tenants, and he had occa-
sion to survey hundreds of houses in a year, in a dilapidated state.
The defendant in this case had taken down a counting house, a par-
tition, /tu fur the conveniense of his Dade, which, on leaving, he
had omitted to rein talc. This, with other very serious dilapitia-
lions throughout die house, he MO eatimited at 1271. ss. fad.
In this witness's cruse-esaininatlop by Mr. PLATT, he admit-
ted that, in consequence of the house getting into the hands of a
new tenant, a surveyor for the defendant had no means of form-
ing a just estimat&f the dilupidations; for on the last entry re-
pairs were commenced by the tenant, and no notice had been pre-
viously given to the defendant ; his own survey cos after the de-
fendant had taken
Mr. Joseph WalteTessrvne.yor, went over the premises with last
witness, and considers his estimate a just one.
Mr. John Young, surveyor, surveyed it for the in-coming ten-
ant, and is also of opinion the estimate is under the mark.
In his cess-examination, witness said he took his title of sur-
veyor from having lived sevesiscars with Mr. Potdtcny ; drew plans
and elevations, and .made calculations for him, but never. sold a
house or serval an apprenticeship.
?Ir. PLATT, in ins address to the Jury for the defence, said, it
was for them to consider what amount of damages they could give.
Ile was told that a witness would be called to say that • he surveyors
must evidently be mistaken somewhere in Melt calculations for the
03,01,nar, and, as a_professional man, be would give bit estimate
at not more than half the amount. There was nothing. so common
among surveyors as this amazing difference of opinion; and he
(Mr. l'latt) saw It daily. It would be for the Jury, therefore, be-
tween this difference to form &just conclusion. It they could, rim
their consciences, give a verdict for the amount, no man would
more happy to pay it than his client; if, on the other hand, they
gave credence to the defendant's witness, he was entitled to the be-
nefit of his evidence. It was important to state, that the defendant
had never had notice to repair, and not until the insuring tenant
had gone through most of the attentions was he aware of this
question.
.Mr. Charles Gill, sutveyor, deposed he had formed an estimate
upon a survey of the dilapidauons, at 641. lie conceived 3lr.
"Smolt had taken in that which could not apply to the tenant; that
it. counting-bourse and partition to be reinstated.
Mr. WALTON here referred Mr. Platt to the schedule of the
lease, wherein there was an express ciente to that effect, that it
should be reinstated... .

SIN R. PHI I LIPS V. sturatx AND MARSHALL.
This was an application to restrain the piracy of the defendants
in selling certain works, ealkd " The Chronology of George the
Third and Fourth," which were extracted from works published
by the plaintiff, called " General Chronology."
Upon • comparison of the work*, the injunction was granted.
=FINE V. MOBY.
Tfria was a ate ja which the authority of the Court was con-
temned, and its subpiena was refused to be accepted. The case was
Aeo:e the Court on the 13. st tical.day, and it was now ordered to be
postponed for the purpose of receiving additional affidavits.

COVET OF KINO'S BEN(11, SW:may, J. 19.

Int*/ at •Westaitsger &Are the LORD CUM' JUSTICE and
a Special Jtory.l

WALTON replied.
The Surau•r said, the Learned Counsel for the defendant had
told the Jury that at the Quarter Sessions there waa a difference of
opinion with the surveyors. lie thought they need not go there to
ascertain that fact, for they almost daily experienced it, and some-
times to their no small astonishment.
The Jury, without hesitation, gave a verdict for the plaintiffs—
Damages 1271. Is. 6d.

PERJURY.
Tan RIX° V. JADIZS BAUM.
This was an indictment foe perjury, alleged to have been coin.
meted by the defendant at the cosset for the representation of
tit. Ives, in Cornwall, at the general election in moo. The trans-
actions of that contest have been already before the public in a
variety of forms, *ad on several occasions in the shape of prosecu.,
Mons in the criminal Courts. After the election, a petition was
presented to the House of Commons by Sir Christopher Hawkins
and Sir Walter Stirling, the unsuccessful candidates, against the
return of Mr. Limharu and Mr. Evelyn, on the ground of bribery
and corruption. That petition was, attending to the Grenville Act,
referred to a Committee, by whom it wee dismissed. Before this
Committee a person named Dunn gave evidence, for which he had
since been prosecuted and convicted of penury. On the trial of
Dunn the defendant was a witness, and•in the cause of his testl.
nicety he had denied that during the election he had ever stated
that the voters for Graham and Evelyn should receive 15L oath, if
these candidates were successful, or Bel if they were not. He had
also dean that he had stated, that if the electors voted for Sir
Walter Stirling they would get nothing. and that they had there-
lore better vote for both Graham and Evelyn. as if they did not
vote for them both they would get nothing bum either. For these
denials, the defendant was now prosecuted for perjury. The de-
fendant is an attorney, and town-clerk of St. Ives, and acted as
*gent for the successful candidates, Mr. Graham and Mr. Evelyn.
• Mr. PARR opened the pleadings.
• Mr. SCAR LETT stated the case for the prosecution. This was,
is said, es serious an accusation as could be preferred against any
alanber of society, and became especially touresting and en. [Before Mr. A eet it and a MidJkst.r Jury.]
potent when brought against a member of the profession of the
ea*. The admiaistration of justice dipseided on the sanctity of Charles Sandra was indicted for stealing twenty-four pair of
oaths ; and all that was valuable to our exigence, property, dm- warners's boots and three Felt of women's shoes, the property of
:sae 4 nay, life ewer was insecure, if false testimony could be John White, value all
given with impunity. No can could pretend ignorance of the The prosecutor is a boot and shoe make, in Galen-street, and
guilt of perjury. A member of the profession of the law had par. the prisoner was his errand boy, and had been so for two years ,he
titular opportunita of observing the anepeakable importance of having previously lived in a similar capacity with the prosecutor.
truth in the administration of justice. What other men knew only Mr. lilac having reason to suspect that the prisoner had robbed
by inference, he knew by the whole course of his profetrional ex. him, sent for an officer, who searched hint and found twenty-live
',evince; and this actual and unavoidable knowledge aggravated duplicates on his person, of boots and shoes pawned between the
tenfold the mime in him, which in no man could be without 29th Oct. and the 11th Dec. at various times.
,horror, indignation, anddisgust. If *betide of false evidence Mowed Four pawnbrukers produced the boots and shoes for which the
through the channels of our tribunals, there would beat once and foe ! prisoner had received the duplicates, and the prosecutor 'acetified
ever an end to all that could render life either safe or desirable. The' them as his property.
charge against the defendant arose from evidence given by him on Mr. AaAuIN. in summing up to the Jury, observed that the •
a termer trial, for the same crime of which he wee now seemed. , capital part of the charge had not been proved ; for it did not
on the petition against the return of Mr. Graham and Mr. Evelyn, pear in evidence that the prisoner dud conveyed away property at
:whose agent the defendant was, a person named Dann had been; , any one time to the value of 405., which was necessary to sustain
examined before a Cemmiute of the House of Commove. Dunn the capital part of the charge.
*were to a great number of acts of bribery and corruption, is welch i Guilty of striding to the amount of 395,
the return of the sitting members was to be ascribed. In these John Wittentury was indicted for stealing six sovereigns and two
pas the defendant was deeply implicated. Dunn alleged that he , half-crowns, the property of Wm. Adams, in the house of Wm.
bad distributed tickets among the electors, entitling them to be (Albertan.
treated at the open houses of Graham and Evelyn. if they would The prisoner and prosecutor were journeymen bakers, in the out.
'promise to vote for those candidates; and that he had further I ploy or 3lr. Gilbertson of Judd.atreet, D a runewickpiant. The
specially offered them 101. each, if these gentlemen gained the prosecutor, prisoner, and two other journeymen, slept is the same
election, and 101.11 they lust it. Dunn was afterwards prosecuted • room, at the top of the house. On the 27th of December the pett
ier perjury, and on hik trial the defendant was a principal witness, secu:or deposited the money stated in the indictment in a trunk is
send he distinctly and psitively denied that he had made the pro. • his bed-room ; he locked the trunk and put the key is the pocket
cross and Wen enpeted to him by Dunn. It would be proved by ,of his trowsers, which were leR on the bed. On the 3d of January
a great number of witnesses that he had made the promises and . the prosecutor mimed his property ; a friend of the prisoner, named
seers, which he had denied when giving Ilia testimony, expressly 'Volute met him on the let or ffil January. and asked hint to lend
Yoe the purpose of convicting Dunn of the crime of perjury. The him I.le. • he said lie would lend him les. and ss. more in a lay or
Learned Counsel exestiated at gnat length on the seriousness of two. Yonde also gave him the ticket of a coat which hr had pawned,
.the offence, and the irresistible strength with which the case but which he desired the primmer not to redeem. In a few days
against the defendant would he established. latter Voude met the prisoner, what told him that be had redeemed
The witnesses on both sides were ordered out of Court. his coat, because-it was at interest that plights& well be saved, and
Mr. W. B. (homey, the short-hand-writer, read a voluminous . that be had taken it home.
mass of tridents given by the deiendius upon the trial of Dunn. • The maid-servant of Gilbertson recollected the prisoner going
It distinctly denied that any bribery or corruption had been prat_ into the beelesioni about six o'clock in the evening of the Ist Jan.;
deed on the part of the successful candidates, and in particular that hut she at the same time said it was the only place he had to
he had taken any share in corrupting the voters, as alleged by Dann. dress in.
Amebae Husaren, Thomas King, John Bennet, Felward The On the prisoner's master being called, he said that his name was
eow, and several other voters of St. len, were examined at great I William Walker Gilbertsoa ; upon which
lengtb, as to the defendant's exertion in canvassing ter the sue. Mr. AIAIIIN informal the Jury that the capital part of the
cmsful candidates, Messrs. Graham and Evelyn. They all one-! charge must fall to the ground, as the indictment stated that the
ourred in averring that the defendant said they would get nothing prisoner had committed a robbery in the hour: of William Gil.
if they voted fur Sir Walter beefing, and that they had better vote bertsen. Ile stated that the prisoner, just before he was
for both Graham and Evelyn, in which ease they would be well erarched by the officer, wanted to borrow es, of him, to give in
paid, but if they did not vote for both they would get nothing. change to the customers; but he had been out of his Gelbertson'm
One of the witnesses unlit spoke to the fact that tickets had been . presence souse menace after he asked for the se, and before the
distributed among the voters, inviting them to be treated at the . officer's arrival. The prisoner had been paid 23x. wages on the
'hotel opened by Graham anti Evelyn; and :hat the defendant 17th of Dec. which was all the money he had received for some
had promised the voters who engaged to poll for Graham and , time, lee of which lie had said that lie had lost at cards. He had
-Evelyn IN. each, if the election were note and lid. if it were lost. been complaining a good deal of poverty for several days. The
The contest lay between air.(graham and air. Evelyn on the one officer, onsearchieg lieu, found 181. on his person, and in his trunk
and Sir C. Hawkins and Sir Walter striding on the other. ! a cow, two sovereigns, and Ida.
The Al' TORN EY•GENEIS AI. for the defendant addressed the Mr. .1 a ABI N, in addressing the Jury, remarked to them, that if
Jury at ceitetdmable length, amid with great lone. He said it! they should. on considering the evidence, believe the prisoner to be
would require noordinary mass of clear and unsuspicious testimony guilty, the amount of property stolen would have no influence on
to convict the defendant of the revolting and disgraceful crime of i the sentence to be passed upon him, as the capital part of the
perjury. He was a highly respectable man. He bad been fur charge was done away by Mr. (Alba:eon's name nut lacing pro.
thirty years an elector of the borough, and universally esteemed by perly stated.
these who had the happiness to know him. He was also the town- .11'ot Guilty.
clerk ;an office to which he had been introduced by the well. Jilts Spriuir Was indicted fur stealing, in the dwelling-house of
grounded confidence of the corporation. One half, and the most John leek, situated at Lituchnum, a coat and other articles of
eerie's% part, of the aceusation' had fallen to the ground without the wearing apparel, the property of his son, Henry Fisk, value Kea •
necessity of any dein by the defendant. (Inc witness only had ! ' The primmer ledge.) in the house of John Fisk, and dept with
spoken to the fact, by which the must corrupt and diseoneet Mtn. the prosecutor, Henry Fisk. The property was stolen out of the
tiro ;soulsl have been shown by the defendant. As it was necessary bedroom. where it was always kept ; and as soon as it was missed,
in cases of perjury, that at lea two witnesses should swear that the prisoner absconded, and was afterwards seen wearing a waist.
the matter of the teleged perjury was false, that part of the charge coat belonging to the protrcutor.
was disposed of, and the defendant was entitled us mum aequital, so Mr. A 11,411111 observed, that there was no proof of the prisoner
far as that allegation was concerned. It remained only to rove the having taken the articles at one time, and directed the Jury to re-
evidence as to the other and less injurious part of the alleged per. turn a verdict of stealing under eas.
'try; and it would be satisfactorily prayed by the must respectable Crete of steeling to the value of 395.
testimony, that the conduct attributed to the defendant during the The prisoner calkd no friends to his character; but his mother,
election could not have taken place. The evidence for the prose- an old wenian, cane: into ('ours, in great distress, and internist the
cation was in the hethest degree suspicious: The witnesses had Learned Judge that she had travelled a distance of 100 mita, from
been already before a Jury with the same evidence, and they were Deerham, in Norfolk, in consequence of this unfortunate charge
disbelieved. They had all sworn in vain to save Dunn from the against her son, and begged for mercy in hie behalf.
penalties of his guilt. How then, or why, were they to expect a Mr. Ato ANI with great kindneas, aseured the poor woman that
different fate before the present Jury ? When the witnesses for her son was not capitally convicted; and asked her if .she thonght
the defence were produced, the balance of evidence would incline that she could get employment for him in his own county
immediately in femur of the defendant. No reasonable doubt Tbc mother said she had no doubt that she should be able to do
could then exist as to his innocence, and he would depart from the' so; upen which
Cant as entrained in character as he entered it. The Attorney.' lie. AEI sum ii desired her, on her return home, to make apples-
General concluded a very able and argumentative sate+, in which tion tin were for the pr'.vencr, and wheel aide' had print:red it, to