The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1824-06-07 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGrNeR.

I Godfrey. The plaintiff was a widow, residing in a home occupied
_ - by Godfrey, who Was the first witness called to prone the cum.!
COURT OF CIIANt'ERI", SAT t: III)Ar, Jt! le 1Z I . This witness stated that he had known Mr. Crow some years before
___ ' l'is death ; that he (witness) was the tenant of a hos* and shop
IttroaTE LLL, A normal:TT. . . from which hethad office yawned bra 111111111 . and put up that of the
This Bankrupt petition, in which Messrs. Front. solicitor.. are d,hemfeenitli•in.t.atfitio:etrheuunroporteiendaraftionivactittiminfidchrendanis eredit,ww"hol hasithattuihed himd i
concerned. was tosdny discuwed by Counsel. Mr. Agar elltoted to
some facts which had not been before disclosed. 51r. Ileniti on
the part of Messrs. Frosts mated. that the coos which had Leen The Cuter JusTirt: mussed the witness as to the consequences I
tu dn so.
directed to he repaid by his Lordship's order, had been paid pre. of this evidence. On these statements he might be Usdicted with'
order
sinus to the being ronnuncol. ' the defendant liar a comiiirary.
The Lo BD CII AN t' ELLoa 'mooned his satisfaction that etch a The writhe.. proceeded! Defendant was not his landlord ; a 'dlr.!
course had been taken, and was desirous that an 'affidavit should Lockett was his landlord, to whom be had regulaly paid rent; he 1
be made declarin the fact. Ile would then draw up an order rould not tow yourluce his receipt", because they had been taken
with respect to both petitions. : from kite by the defendant, whn bad stolen them nut or his desk.
The remainder of the day was occupied by a long argitmert In ari The Cot LE Je ST It' r. caothued the witness against charging •
rate of no public interest, and his Lordship rose at one o'clock.. any Mita with felony in this manner.
The Court was adjourned until %Wednes lay morning. 'flue witness was then orrostuesatnlned—lle had known Mrs.
I Cm", for many years ; he had been in the King's Bench Prison
but never under a fictitious name 4 he had nun received letters in a
fictitious name; he could not tell whether he kntu Illts. Crow's
hand-writing. Saone letters were here *hewn hint, the hand-
writing
of which he nt first Reid he did not recognise. but after.
wards thought they might have been addressed tat s i 11l in the prison,'
and that he might have received thins ; these letters, it appeared,
were directed to Mr. \ Immo.
The Cul n V Juter mt. asked, whether, after such answers as
had been given . 4 this witness, Mr. Sergeant Pell would continue'
the camo-examination ?
Mr. Sergeant Pest. answered in the negative and sat down.
Antal* r witness was then putt into the box ; but before his ex.
amlnation was proceeded with,
Mr. Sergeant V AVON Alf 'mid he had advised tine plaintiff be
withdraw from Court as epee. fly as possible.
The Cuter Jureztl applauded the conduct of bin learned
brother.
Mr. Sergeant PILL said, had the case proceeded he should have
shown the tenets to his Lordship and the Jury; but he should
have desired them not to be publicly read, on account of the inde-
cency they exhibited.
The Cuter Jr. sr ICF. at first called on the witness Oodfrey to
procure bail, as he must be committed for perjury ; but in a mo-
ment afterwards, his Lordship r^t allertilile I • self, said, that he
believed he bad no power to do this in this Court, which possessed
no criminal junodiction. He might, however, commit the witness
for gross ronteinpt ; but he wished to know whether Mr. Sergeant
Pill's diced would indict hits far perjury P
Mr. Strgrant PEI.t. replied in the affirmative, and intimated
that he should bring the cunduct of the plaintiffs Attorney, and
that of his clerk, before the Court is the course of the following
'lerm.

COURT OF KINWS BENCH, Juxt: 5.

1.111E1..
THE 10%4 r. COl'alVa.
Mr. TALTOVRI), in the Sintufe c.l lb% Scarlett, who bad not
entered Court at that early hour, stated that this wax an indictment
brought by Hilton Jolliflr, Esq. M.P., angles' the defendant, foe
wilfully and scandalously publishing several malignant lilac's upon
his character. The defendant appeared to have gut a neEion into
his head, that Mr. JulliWe's family were retaining from nn.
I lawfully, certain property to which he usserteil that he had a claim,
and, acting uncle, this delusion. had practised and prrsivar.ti in
using every species of annoyance against 31r. Jolliffe, hy publish-
ing rod circulating against him hand-bills of the most intinznia.
Wry and libellous description.
John Wells was called to prove the publication of the hand bills
in question. Ile said he knew the defendant Poulin{,, who was •
imui winetimen in the habit of getting his living by the sale of
fruit, and had often herrtd him talk of his claims upon the Jolla*
faintly, and his determination to pursue them, by annoying 31r.
Jullide in all quarters, and circulating hand-bills to his prejudice.
He met him last September, and said, " Cooling, how do you get
on with Mr. Jollitfe!" He answered, " I sin still at him, here's
a handbill 1 have out against him,, and I'll stick to him for it." 14
produced the hand-hill.
Cross.examined by the defendant—l often heard you say_you
were uppressrd, sad kept unit of your property the plaintiff.
I
cannot say whether he offered you an annuity to stop proceedings ;
I hew! you say you wanted a certain auto fur stopplng. Ido not
know that you are the most injured man in England; I might have
I:card you says..
Itelandant—'What do you get for coining here to speak against
ute ?

Witnees—Nothing.
Deferielant-31y Lard. I can assure you be gets a good deal fur
coining here; he will have property by It.
'l'lle band-bill which imputed to Mr. Jollilre fraud and niftiest.-
tion of property tif the defendant was then read in evidence.
The defendant hem addrestad site Jury in hie defence ; Isis sp-
ot evince tea. that of the humbler tarsi in life, but his manner
sea. vehement and irregular. Ile read from a paper with great
rap;dity of utterance, and both front the style and delivery it was
difficult to catch the substance of his statement. Ile imputed, In
every sentence, • series of uppresion to Mr. JoIll&, and charred
prat witileman with having for years a ithheld from I his Jo..
riglita of property, by which he had been Ma only kept in poverty
and wretchedness, but also exposed by summary process, and with.
out the imereeutton of a Jury, to long imprioniment, merely for
making qyiet efforts to regain what he knew to be his own. this
who not all I he had been coentignial toe ho laic asylum, and ma-
nacled. Now, the his, he always understoml, made a lunatic irre-
sponsible for his actions. and yet taste lie was called a lunatic by
Mr. Jolliffe • and by the ante man had responsibility fermi upon
him, coercively, contrary to the h rite et/moused of the law. Ile
went h.. to say, that he never could get the antalleet settlement
from Mr. Jollifre, except casual rum. of money, such as half •
crown at a time; and what he said in the bill was true—he had'
made every effort by I ter, hat there poverty again stopped Inni, and
he could get no at tomey to enable him to proceed in fiteato ;were's.
The defendant, in his &bear M. Mr. Joildre, did taut confine him-
self to the mere statement of what he asserted to be hit own
wrongs, but travelled into the faini%. history of that gentleman, in
her alleged general transactions in life; told a long story about the
'dealing of some church plate, the selling the borough of Peters-
field to 'William !hailer Best, and in other individuals at diffkrent
iniervala, although he (Mr. Jollifl) had no right to have in-
, fiiieuce in that borough, moth less to sell it contrary to law to any
body. Ile enlarged upon the rights Cul liberties of the subject,
and the protemen doe 10 the pour al well as the rich, according to
law, all of which fundamental privileges of the constitution he de-
. dared to bare been violated an his own case, by Mr. lialifre's
power, which, however, he knew must fall before a grave and
hernial Judge and an enlightened and liberal jury, to whom he
eow learlewly committed his case, and would entrust Ids life.—
l'he defendant railed no witnesses.
Ale. Jostler Livr t.Enstr summed up the case for the Jury,
and told them, that in his judgment the publication in quest.
tion was • yeas libel on the prosecutor, and if they were of the
same opinion, they would say so by their verdict.
The Jury immediately found the delendant-aDuilty.
PERJURY.
THE Kinn e,
This was an indictment for perjury against Mary Ilailey, wbo
lived L. servant with Thomas Silvester, in January, 1822.
Tar NTOU stated that the following was the sulieumtive
al legation in this ow e. It appeared that at the time in question, a
t:ocninission of Bankrupt was issued against Thomas Silventet,
but In the course of the same year he succeeded in obtaining the
eignaturee of a majority of his creditors ; soon after his success in
this respect several of the creditors applied to the Lord Chancellor
to stay the certificate, and it because necessary in the course of
proceedings to serve a notice upon the Bankrupt, and out of this
the perjury arose. The solicitor's clerk (lfendetson) went to make
the necessary service at the Ilanktupt's house, and saw • servant
who denied that Silveeter wan at home, but they overheard his
voice hem the parlour; that his wife came out t admitted he was
et Inane, that it would be Inconvenient fur him to come out, but
that they might leave any message or paper for him, which should
he delivered. These facts were stated in affidavits ; nevertheless,
• servant, Mary Halley (the defendant) came fitewani and swore
that she was the person who, on the uremia% alluded to, answered
the clerk at the door, that they did not ask for her master, nor
leave for him any process, and it was for this alleged perjury the
present indictment watt 'nought.
John Mier Jones produced and proved the preliminary docu-
meats o' the liankrupt case in the Court of Chancery.
lin the production of Mary flunky). affidavit,
Ale. 41 NOR EIVII objected to It production, on the ground that
as the female who swore it was described as signing with ber
attack, it ehould first be proved that it was read over to her, and ex-
plained before she utilized the mark.
31r. Russet t. replied.—lt appeared from • reference to the
Clerk in the liarkrupey Office, that the affidavit was tiled in its
present form.
Two °thee Officers In the Document Office of the Coun of
Chancery were then rolled to prove what was the Lord Chancellor's
practice an taking affidavits. Prom their testimony it appeared that
the necessary rule of the office was, to take the jurat upon swear-
ing the party who wink /Ives the tatiiihrit, that it was " truly,
clearly, and audibly" read over to the pertain who subscribed, with
a mark beffire be or she was brought to swear the same, and this
form did not appear on the face of the document to have been ful-
filled by the witness who had this affidavit flied.
Mr: rat vTmfi, for the prosecution, said that the evidence did
not apply here ; slit' practice just mated regulated merely the prac-
tice in the public office, but this was sworn before the Abutter in his
private house.
111 r. Justice LIT TI.V.DAI.I was of opiniatl, that the authentica-
tion ought to he equally complete in either cane. A party who
might be in ignorance of the cements of' a ;taper to which hoot she'
subscribed, could not commit perjury. He would, however, Nave
the point. The case of' perjury, as a matter of fact, might still be
tele& although there was reason, in point of bum, to reject this alli.
davit, still there most be lemur evidence that the parry knowingly
and wilfully committed the net on which the indictment was
hounded. Had they that evidence?
Mr. TAUNTON said, that in obedience to his Lordship's wishes,
he would go directly to that evidence.
Mr. Ihll, a stationer, said. that his clerk engrosiecl the affidavit
now handed to him, in his preeence. The party to swear this MIS.
dirk, who came to hie office with Mr. Siasester, watt a female:
she was a stranger to him, but he could not say the affidavit was
reed over to her& it was not read in his (sentence.
B. Eldridge, the previous witseev'n clerk, alto was present at
the time, could not say that the affidavit was read over to the
marks-woman.
'rile servant to Isle. Trower. the Master in Chancery, was next
yelled. but he knew nothing of this affidavit, of Silver/tar, of Mary
Bailey, or of her mark. (Much laughter.) lie certainly went one
day to Hatton. grnlen, and was told by Mary Ilailey, that she
Ind swims an aflidat it, anti signed her mark, and that she gave It to
Al r. Silveater -thee wits all he knew about the matter. lie knew
nothing of Mary Bailey.
Mr.Tnow ea, the Master in Chancery, was relit examined.
(Ile sat on the bench during his examination.) The affidavit now
handed to hint hid his 'denature, alai was 'morn before him, he
believed at his house, on the tiering of the day on which it was
ilated—s man and a woman attended at the time. Ilia general
practice wee to ark the party beinging the affidavit, " is the jllllll
regular ;" and he mimeses' that he had naked that question here
in the regular manner ; lie had no reason to doubt it. It was not,
however. read over in his presence ; they take it for granted, that
that is done by the party bringing the jurat„-- the 34/1/PUT sit rat
called upon toliave all the affidavits rasa over before himself in
the presence Of the yarded.
Croehexamined by :11r. Aeries:we —lle certainly should not
have taken this affidavit in the manner he lied done, had he been
apprised that the petty was unable to read or write.
Ale. Justice 11.1TILICDALE said, that the sasignntcnt of perjury
could nM he sustain el upon an indictment signed in this n antler.
Mr. Tau tiros wad, that he had another 11111114Vit inure
ocular in form, and which would, he trusted, sustain the charge
of perjury.
The eecon4l affidavit was put in and proved by Mr. Trower to
have been sworn before hint at his oilier.
Ale. A outitire objeeted to the produrtino of this &than% it, as ,
it referred to the former one, which was deciatal to be ini- '
perfect.
'rise Court cortererta in this objection, and the Jury found a
verdict of Nut Heathy.

OLD D.4ILEI' SATIKPAT, Jusg S.

POST.OFFICE_ROBBERY

William Whalley stood indicted fur secreting a deter containing •
fiL Bank of England note, which came into his custody on the
morning of the 2,1 of April last, he being at the time a letter-car-
rier at the General Post-alike.
blesses. Gurney, Rolland, and Shepperd, were Counsel foe the
prosecution, which wan instituted by the Poat.otliee. The detente
was conducted by Mr. C. Phillips and Mr. I.aw.
Mr. 1. Cassaine, Secretary to the Royal Military College at
Sandhurst, stated that on the morning of the bat of April hint lie
inclosed a five-potonl Bank of England note, No. 1E774, in a let-
ifT, addressed to James Cox, Turtman-street, Portman,square.
The letter was put into a hag, and sent to the receiving-office. lie
had a list of the notes which he had in his possession at that time,
and as hr divined of them he wrote on a paper to whom he sent
them. lie produced the paper, and by the side of No 15,774 was
written " Mr. Cox." He had also a note, No. 16,775, au the same
day, which he transmitted to another person.
l'ents.examined.—Was positive that he did not interchange the
notes. The Governor had a key of the bag as well as himself. The
note produced is the one he sent to Mr. Cox, at least it is of the
same number.
Roger Mortis, letter-carrier in the college at Sandhurst, opened
the Iliviernor's bag on the Ist.r.l April, and saw a letter for Mr.
Cox ; Ito put it with other letters into the college-bag, and gave it
to Hammond, the carrier, whose duty it was to carry ht to tile Post-
ofßee, Itagsbut.
Ilamniond proved delivering the bag to Mr. Smithers, the
keeper of the post.nlfice at Bagshot.
ilmithere said he received the bag from Hammond, and
transmitted its contents to the post-office, Lombard-street, by the
mail.

James Coppice. clerk at the General Poet-office, bombard-street,
received the bag from Ilagshot on the morning of the 2d of April.
I 'ross-examilicil.—Mistaktv sometimes occurred in the delivery
of letters, but very rarely.
‘i'uod, overseer and inspector of the letter-carriers at
the General Post-office said that on the Donning of the 2tl of April
he gave the letters to :he prisoner, which were directed to persons
bed ding in his district ; Portman-square is in the prisoner's dis-
trict, and all letters addressed to remits rosiding there, must in due
course hove come inth the possession of the prisounr. The prisoner
was In the employ of the l'ost Office on that day.
Cha,rles Forren, the proprietor of the Cambridge Coffee-house,
Newman-street, Oxford.atreet, stated that the prisoner called upon
him on the 3d of April, and clionged a 41. Bank of England note,
No. 15,774. Ile wrote upon it " Postman :" meaning the prisoner.
The note produced is the same.
Mrs. Forren corroborated his statement

. .
The prisoner said he was innocent of the robbery.
Mr. Rerun II LLOCX summed up the case, and the Jury found
the prisoner Guilty—Death.
IVm Casually was indicted for stealing a 1111. Rink post-bill,
the property of Thomas Gibson. In another count the property
was described as the property of W. Wilkinson.
Mr. On Et EY stated the case to the Jury. lfe said that on the
morning of the 2lst of March last a person named Wilkinson, re.
siding near Grantham, transmitted a JUL Bank post-bill to Win.
Gibson. who was a domestic in the family of Lord Sidniouth.
Wilkinson could not write, end he employed a man warned
Thommum to write ',wiener : the bill wail enclosed, and it was
addressed) '• IV. Gibson, at Lord Viscount Slilmoutles." This
letter was put in an envelope and ir'drestell, " I.olvl Viscount
Sidinouth, Secretary of State, Whitehall." The letter was put
into the !Nut-office, but it never arrived at Whitehall.
The keeper oldie post-office at Grantham proved having received
a letter addressed to teed Viscount Sitlmouth, on the 21st
of March, which he transmitted to the General Yost-office,
London.
Lord Sidniouth deposed that he dial not receive a letter for Gib-
son either at or shout the Ladd of March last.
Mordecai Benjamin, who keeps a coffee-house in I)dke's.places
on the 26dt of March sold, the prisoner u watch for 41., revived a
lei. post-bill, and paid him 01. in 'sovereigns. The post-bill pro-
duced is the same.
Thouipstm and Wilkinson proved that the past-bill produced
was the same they inclosed in a letter to Gibson on the tat of
March ; a large W was written on the back of it, by which they
identified it.
The prisoner. in his defence, said he livid the pa
l'erdict—Guilty.

AT THE NEW COURT.

THE RIOIIT OF APPROPRIATINO THE SEATS OF
THR COURT.

In the course of Saturday `Sir Peter Laurie addressed the Court,
and begged to take their advice u to the manner in which he
should act under the circumstances, which he felt it his duty to state
to theut. On Thursday evening he went round, in his private
dress, to the doors of the gallery of the Court, and sought admis-
sion. Ile was obstructed by two persons, who were not his officers,
and whom he did not know. These persons stated themselves to
be officers appointed by the Court of Common Council, and, under
that authority, they now exercised the power of obstructing the ad-
mission of persons to the Court. As Sheriff; he (Sir Peter Laurie)
knew nothing of the ('ourt of Common Council, and denied the
right of any one but the Judges and the Alagistrates of the f'om-
misaion, of whom the Sheriffswere the executive officers, to exer-
cise such • control in the Court where they presided. This Inter-
ference, by all authority which could not be recognised, lie regarded
as an invasion of the authority of the cmumission, and the rights of
the Sheriffs. Those rights he was sworn to maintain, and himself
and his colleague were anxious to transmit them unimpaired to
their successors as they had received then, from their predecessors.
They therefore called upon their Lordships to direct these two per-
sons, who 'vilified admiration at the dorm, to be called, aid desired
to mate upon what authority they acted. The Worthy Sheriff also
begged to point the attention of the (taut In the circumstance of
two scats having been appropriated m the use of the City Lands
Committee, and lacked against the public, without the knowledge
or consent (tithe Sheriffs or the agistrees.
Mt. Sherill%Whittaket said, he perfectly concurred with his wor-
thy colleague in all he had stated.
The R 1111 En sid, that the tso persons who were stationed
at the doors of the 11.illery elwuld be called.
The two men were then brought, and pieced on the floor of the
Court by the oilier,, of the Sheriff:
The Lout. MAvnn, who presided in the Court, asked them
whither they kol been ntationed at the duns of the gallery ?
The men replied that they had.
The Lour .111,tvo asked them whether the Sheriffs had placed
them there ?
The men replied they hail not, but that they were placed there
and acted under the direction of the City Lands' Committee of the
Court of Coninom Council.
l'he hoar 3inv on declared that he concurred with the Sheriff's
in theopinion expressed by them. The Conn was entirely under
the control of the Magistrates and Judges of the Commission and
the Sherilre, oho were their officers. The men on the floor must
not continue to stand at the doors without the authority of the
Sberiffii, and if they presumed to interrupt them, or act further,
they must do it at their peril.
The men withdrew, and surrendered the keys of the donna which
were Sill rwards taken possession of by the officer' of the Sheriff:
Their Majesties the King anti Queen of the Sandwich Islands
have notified to the proper Authorities, that it is their Royal in-
tention so visit the Old Bailey on Monday.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, S4yr !MAY, Juxr. 5.

CROW P. BREW ;I:r.m.

Mr. Sergeant V Alf i11A; stated 111.11 t this wall an action of tree-
pima for breaking and entering the planning bonne, and impro-
perly taking her goods under a diaries., levied ou a man named