The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1826-02-08 00:00:00

TNT: BRITISH PRESS.

body's and of which we suppose, out of compliment to or
fear o 7 the rich milli. ?lie mere have shrunk from giving publicity.
Bat the 'divide relation will chow how by a little,flarsee, and ancaff-
did and irsiiiirai corduct, the credit of any house might be at the
mercy of any one man. The report rut related to us by many (and
for the truth of which we could not apply to the parties themaelvcs)
is as follows :
" That the great bulllonist Rothschild applied to Messrs. Jones,
Lloyd, and Co. for a loan of seventy thousand pontuls : to which
the reply was, that it should be arranged in a day or two. The
application was nude when the banks connected with the country
felt that a pressure upon them for ready money was to be expected.
On the following day, or the second, Instr. d of applying for the
loan. the...ended balliontat paid In, and continued to do so, till
nearly mar sailliars had aretonttlated. The partners of the house,
with a sagacity equal to the Jew's, put all the money so paid in
into a drawer (nor W3B it mixed up with their general transactions).
Ito that when the great money.hroker gave a check in one sari for
the whole amount, at it late hour. Jones, Lloyd, and Co. sent bin&
in paymtnt the contents of the drawer: tiring the very notes the
Jew had paid into the house) anti, we have heard, for 90 wanton and
unusual a mode of conducting business, paid up the balance and
lent hack his Mk.
" What vigilance, therefore, and caution aril prudence are ne-
emery in the conduct of a banking concern ! But neither vigilance.
nor caution, nor prudence, can hardly be a match for unfair or irre-
gular transactions—hnd as such, we class the late cry of ' Saute

qui peut!' •
In another part of the pacer was the following observation :
"/t is not true that Mr. Rothschild has cut his ti-roat." Now, in
reply to this very Ilbtllous attack the Learned Attorney-General
awed that he had the affidavit of Mr. Rothschild, in which he
swore that Messrs. Jones, Lloyd, and Co. were formerly his ban-
kers, but that they had ceased to be so ever since 11120, and that he
had had no transactions whatever with them since that time, when
he drew nut the whole of the money that was in their hands belong.
ing to hint. cy rept a few hundred pound.; and he swore positively
that every particular of the charge contained in the libel was wholly
without foundation. Application was made to the editor by the
professional gentleman who acted fur Mr. Rothschild, in conse-
quence of this libel ; an answer was returned in writing by the edi-
tor, in which he Legged to state most tinequivocalbrand distinctly
that lifter an inquiry into the foati%ation of the charge the result
was to satisfy his mind that the report had no foundation whatever
in truth., and that it turned out to be a mere fabrication ; and it
therefore became hies (the editor) to inform Mr. Rothschild's attor-
ney that he would put the farts before the public, so far as to avow
what had been the rank of his inquiry ; but he would not consent
to make any personal apology to Mr. Rothschild, not out of any
disrespect to him. because what he wrote was done front a conic'.
emious belief of its truth, and from a conviction that he was dis-
charging a great public duty. The Attorney-General was pro-
ceeding to comment upon this reply, but was interrupted by
The Loan CHIEF Jc STIOE, who said he might take a rule to
show cause; and observed that the first duty of an editor Vail to
print ccly that which be knew to be true ; and which would be
without any prejudice to any other person.
Rule niri granted.
THE 111X411 V. SLOHAR.
It will be recollected that this defendant, who is a sheriff's officer
for Middlesex, was indicted some time ago and found guilty of an
assault and battery upon a person named Thomas Miller; and alto
of a false and malicious arrest, in which he detained the same Jodi-
vidual in entody a month. It appeared at the trial that the de-
fendant had a warrant against Thomas Miller. and being informed
that he should be able to find him at a certain public-house, he
went there, where be saw the prosecutor (who is since dnd), and
having ascertained that his name was Thomas Miller, took him
into custody. The prosecutor then told the defendant that he was
not the person described in the writ, the writ being in point of fact
against his (the prosecutor's) father ; the defendant, however, pa-
lliated in detaining him, notwithstanding the mother of the prose-
cutor and several other persons assured him that he had arrested the
wrong person. It also appeared that much unnecessary violence
was used by the defendant in taking the prosecuto,r who was at the
time in a vat bad mini of health, and bulletin under an illness
from which he had since died. . . . .

The defendant was this day brought up to receive the judgment
of the Court.
Mr. DErestas and Mr. RICHARDS addressed the Court in miti-
gation • and .Me. E. I..swEs in aggravation of punishment.
Mr. Justice 110I.ROYD addressed the defendant, and said that
his conduct upon the occasion in question was most violent, out-
rageous, and unwarranted, from beginning to end. Ile ha Ino
right or authority to arrest a man until he had ascertained w.th a
reasonable ground of certainty :hat he was the person against whom
the warrant was granted. True he had been misled by the simi-
larity of the name of the prosecutor and his father, hut that circunn-
stancewas fully expleined to him, and yet he was hazardous enough,
notwithstanding these cautions, to persist in the arrest, and in the
course of which he treated the prosecutor in the most unjustitiable
and violent manner. The Court, therefore, taking these chem..
stances into consideration, adjudged hint to pay to the King a tine
of MK, and to be imprisoned till that tine he paid.
The defendant not being prepared to pay the money, left the
Court in the custody of the tipettiff.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, TUESDAY, FED. 7.