The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1808-12-23 00:00:00

TOR RINK V. MARY LIDDI.P.

This was au indictment for perjuiy. which, from
the statement of the Attorney-ificik rid. appeared
In have taken place upon ncca•ikni of Captain
Chamber* ming not a divorce araiii.a his wife. who
to daughter of the Ink& i.ord ttodilev, soon' sifter
sits uttaitting a verdict apinst the late Captain
Caulfield, tor criminal conversation with her. Mrs.

Chambers, in defending this dirore., h.gd urged
the harsh usage of her husband towards tier, and, in
support of her pie,, had called the Defendant as a

"rime— os at Doeisre;-Co.nntotei. This Defendant
had been formerly a Servant in the featly and

during Ibe time ref her remaining in that situation,had
upon various cweesions and to various parsons stated
her • real sentiments of her maser, and her abhor-
rence of ir.. Lanai and cruel nut ,e of his wife, whom
she si nevi pitictl. It happened, afterwards, that
Captain Cliambers chose to raise this servant
isotice, and to establish Iwr, as a schoolmistress, iu
Haiitingslon, and had -even coniltieended to put
his own children midi r her care; and she, in gra-
titude for such favours (as was alleged), chose to-
tally to deny her former statements, as well as the
facts themselves, when called upon by Mrs. Cham-
bers to give her testimony.
The ATTUIINZT-GENCIAL entered at ennsi-
dtrable length tato a statement of the facts, which,
although somewhat interesting, we deem it tiles-
pedient to publish, the farther proceedings in this
prosecution being quashed, upon its being disco-
vered that the indictment did not state that the
interrogatories put to the Defendant were such as
were deemed materiel to the point at issue in the
C^rllloolll. In consequence of this discovery, the
under the necessity, without hearing
• e , to find the Defendant—Not

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Elwin.

11.ANkt.NMAISLN P. YRS WINDOW ASSURANCE
COMPANY.

This wa• an action upon a policy of insurance
upon a voyage fruni the port of London to that of
Revel. The cause was tried upon admissions of
the fallowing facts by both sides:—ln the mouth
of October, in the last year, the insurance
was ef-
fecte,l, and the vessel sailed under convoy, and or-
need off Copenhagen Roads in the mouth of No•
v eti.ber. The fleet there received information of
hiwt:tities haviag commenced on the part of Russia,
and, coniequently, the vessels did not proceed.—
L.:lto-ad of going into Copenhagen, the Commander
of the (envoy snratnoned the Captains of the
tp,nnt• see, 1• n.. I. • t•

tied, dmin hi* cam, to bvirion I awl thy ship hi
questi ttttt among. the rest; proceeded accordingly.
Oa this voyage, she disappeared, and it was ad-
mitted she was lost. The question arisiog from
them facts was, whether this was such a departure
from the original voyag«; us to discharge the
iu-
surers of it ?-
The diary decided in the negative, and accord-
ingly found a verdict for the Plaintiff:

GUILDHALL JUSTICE 110011, DECEMBER 22.
Before Alefernms Sir MATTHEW BLOXHANI Pre-
siding Magistrate.

HAGUI V. wow:omit,
At an early hour in the morning, the Room was
much crowded, his Royal Highness the Duke of
I,ring expected ai a wittiow; emend persons
Also attended, in consequence of being in the
printing biisinew, and anxious to know the rtsolt
of so novel an information. •

At half-pita twelve o'clock his Royal flightless
arrived and toiik Al seat 14)011 the left hand of Sir
AlattLew If

'f his was in information lodged by the Prosecu-
tor against Mr. George IVoetlfall. printer, Pater-
noster-row, under the act of Ilia present Majesty,
for the better prevention of treasonable, seditious,
and curooral puldivatiam, which obligee printers,
under a penalty of tot. to register their printing
!mbel, to affix their names to all publications
printed I.e them respectively, terretain one. copy
of each publication MI printed, together with the
manuscript, and to write thereon the name of the

person by whom they may be employed, that the
same may be produced in evidence before a Magi-
strate, in support of any information lodged in
such case; thi odormatian was not brought upon
alleged grounds of any thing of a treasonable, se-
ditious, or immoral tendency in the matter printed,
which was i sort of enigmatical Prospectus to a
periodical pamphlet vopoeed to be published, re-
specting the author of certain ationymons letters
which have lately appeared in print under the sig-
nature of An Englishmax," reflecting on the stet.
of the British army, but merely under an allega-
tion that Mr. Wondiall had printed the Prospectus,
and had not affixed his name thereto, as by law
required.
Mr. Hague stated, that before any evidence was
gone into, if Mr. Woodffill would make an affidavit
that he was not the printer of the Prospectus in
question, he would put an end to the informa-
tion.

Mr. Genets', Counsel for the Defendant, said,
that the Prosecutor, in the chsnieter of an in-
former, had brought his client there to answer his
information--he was read/ I. do it ; but he dial
not come to make affidavits at the pleasure of uu
informer.
Mr. Dit.t.os stated, that lie attended us Counsel
on the part of his Reyal Highness the Duke of
Sussex. He was authorised by him to say, that he
disclaimed all knowledge of the publicatiou then
under discussion. fits Royal Highness had re-
ceived a summons, which he was lint hound to sub-
mit to, and which a Magistrate could ant enforce.
It was his advice to his Royal Client not to attend ;
but lie, from the sense of respect he had for the
City of London, and its Magistrates, resoled to
du so. It was his advice to his Royal Highness not
to undergo an examination. He field in his hand
a pamphlet, which contained a most gross and
scandalous libel upon his Royal Highness, of
which the Prosecutor in thit case was the Author.
He olio had in his possession a latter, only re-
ceived tu% 0 der. ago, by his Royal Highness, from
Mr.Higue, of a threstning nature ; and lie felt con-
viuced, the only view that induced the Prosecutor
to wish for his Royal Highness's presence or exami-
nation, was, that he might have matter for another
libellons pamphlet. ['rider this consideration, and
that of his Royal Highness not being obliged to at-
tend, he would ,propose, if it met the consent of
the Worthy Iklagistrite, to examine his Royal High-
ness, by putting a few questions to him to the fol-
lowing effect : 1, Whether he had any knowledge, or
given any directions. respecting the publication
then io dispute, directly or indirectly, or whether
he ever haul intercourse with the Defendant respect-
ing it?" This would answer every thing intended
by the Prosecutor, and would not detain his Royal
Highness in so disagreeable a place.
111 r. ‘VteLer, Counsel for the Prosecutor, ob.

nerved, that his Leorood Friend, Mr. Dillon.

had stilted, that he had advised his Royal High:
nets to answer only such questions as were put by
his own Counsel. If this advice were not

drawn, he for one must protest against at. Wes it
ever known in a Court of Justice that a witness
should have en opportunity of inhuming his Coun-
sel what questions he would wish to answer. and
not to allow the opposite Counsel the benefit of
cross-examination ? He was instructed by his brief
to put some questions to his Royal Ilighaess.
winch, from his view of the case, would be the
means of elucidating it ; he did not go the length
to say, that he was obliged to answer every ques-
tion pot to him, he was at liberty to reject
those be did not with to answer. It was the
first tune he aver knew a witness come into •
Court of Justice attended by Counsel. The
Law of England knew no distinction of per-
sona. They were all equally •amenable to it.—
There might be some persona who might think that
his Royal iligliness condescended to be angry with
Mr. Hague, but he should he 'lorry for a moment
to suppose his Royal Highness had any knowledge
of this Prospectus. which traduced the female rela-
five of the Prosecntor, and a merchant in that city,
a Director of the East India Company. He wisks.,l
it to be ntiderstood that he disclaimed any such
idea; bat as every person might not be of his °M-
aim), he applied to hiss Royal Highness., awn ;nod
sense, whether it would not be better to undergo an
examination, in the tio:valzi, then to follow that
mode advised by his Counm I, Mr. Dillon?
Mr. Dri.t.os sa".l be was surprised Mr. Wigley
MUM lay so mush stress on the advice which he
had gives his Royal Highness. when he could not
be igsoraot how vilified his Royal Highness had
been be Mr. Hague.
His kora Highness the Duke of Su4sett °beer% eel,
he had so objection to be examined by Mr. Wig-
ley.

The information was then read by the Clerk.
Mr. %Via LEY rontio.tp.i ih • .

is they were wanted to lie exainine.i. Fiewtited hie
reason for this we,, lomlittee the witliewhes he hod to

examine in support of the information, were on.
willins witneloe7., as they were all iu :he employ or
service or the U►fendunt.

The 11'itileases were accordingly ordered oat of
Court.

M r.W t wait then proceeded to examine hie Wit-
Iltilekl.

Sarah Weaver, wife of the porter of &New
110. total, deposed she bad ta NMI, of the name of
Robert, apprentice to the' Defenihnit ; being shown
the Prospectus„ she laid she had never beets it Ire-

fore, nor one ►ike it. About a month or ►it *tyke.

age she saw a paper in her Itell.” hand, but she did
not see it opened, and did not Lion what the coo-

tents of it litre.

Richard IVeaver, son of the Hitt Witness, de-
posed, he had iweia • paper in the hands of his
brother. The 1% itite%a had read part of it. but
could not say whether it corresponded with the
our produced.
Mr. GURA EY end Mr. Bot.son here interfered,
and argtual that Mr. Wigley must confine himself
to the Prospectus or paper before the iVagi,trate,
. . . .

. •
and not give evidence to any other, although it
was ; for, notes. he proved that the idyll-

field out, before the Court was printed et the office
of the !Mewl:nit, the inforitunon moat fall to the

ground; particularly al the infonner had made his
tioast that lie wouid make two or three thousand
pouted* of the Defendant, us -lesr-Mtended to res-
cover on every copy which he could find.
Mr. WIGI.IIII contended he hail a right to get at
the fact of its being printed by the Defendant, la
ally inside, partie:darly as the witnesses were in the
employ of the Defendant.
Sir AIATMEW 14LOXVAM was of opinion thst
Mr. Wigley must routine the witnesses it. the pa-
per before him.
Richard Weaver was again called, and denied
having any knowledge of the Prospectus produced
iii the Defendant's shop, or that it was ear printed
there.

Mr. Wood&ll's foreman, and four of his jour-
neymen, corroborated the testimony of the last
witness. as nut having any knowledge of the Pros-
pectus produced, or of the writing a direction of a
cover, which the Prospectus was alleged to have
been inclosed in, directed to Mr.. Hague.
NViti. Woodfall was next called, on the part of
the proseention, but did not appear ; it was Ktated
he wasill.

Mr.IVIOLET insisted heshould be fined for non-
attendance, he being summoned.
On the butinnons being examined, it appeared ;t
directed hi• should appear before Sir Matthew
Woodfall, instead of Bloxham, of colise it was ir-
regular.
!Major awl ellit.ll.l Maxwell were next called,
but not appearing. t .•
Mr. Wroutv stated, as those witness* did.not
attend, he would take the liberty of puttissto d few
questions to his Royal Highness the Dote of
hushes:.

- . -
His Hoyal Highness answered he was ready to
answer auy questions he thought proper to put to
him.

Mr. %%riots's- gala he thought it would be per-
fectly unuecemar7 to swear his Royal Highness.
The Duke of Stissek observed' he understood Ue
was in a Criminal Court, and he did not wish any
privilege the law did not allow him ; and as it dkd;
not allow person* to give testimony in a Criminal"
Court, mccept on oath, he wished to be qualißed
accordingly. 1' •
. •
The oath was accordingly admit attreidaiißer
which Mr. ‘VieLks, put the following 4i/toting's
Q. Has your Royal Highness, id,angi 4,l3flverati-
don with Mr. Womlfall, heard hiio.agkrlowietigi
that he was the printer of the Prospectus now bey'
fore the Court ?—A. 1 never saw him before this

dad•.
Q. Was a manuscript of it ever shown to you ?
—A. No.

Q. Wkis there ever a printed ropy of it sent to
you ?—A. It is impossible for me to speak from re-
collection.
The direction on the back of the corer was then
'hewn to his Royal Highness, the writing on which
he declared lie was unacquainted with.
Mr. W lOLLY decl gto ask any further ques-
.

Lion,.
111 r.. GURNEY said he begged the liberty of put-
ting one question to his Royal Highness.
Q.—Did your Royal Highness ever procsire the
Prove-A:tits to be printed ?—A. Certainly not.
Sir MAT/III:W SLUMMY! eXpfellea his sorrow
and disapprobation at the unnecessary trouble his
Revel Highness had been put to.
His Royal Highness asked if his presence ntig'it
be &veined with. Bring answered in the atfirdia-
tive, be said he had come there out of respect to
the City of London. There was a summons served
on him, the right of which he protested against.;
he believed it had been smuggled by some means,
24 Alderman Shaw had denied having any know..
ledge of its being issued ; he had nothing further
to say—but, having come there out of respect to
the City of London, this time, hr hoped the Court
would not consider it a mark of disrespect when
he declared he would not come again. HIS Royal
Highness thea bowed to the Magistrate. and 'ell
the Court.
Sir MATIVEW BLOXHANI then observed, that in
disposiug of the matter before him, he was of opi-
nion there had been no evidence to prove that Mr.
Woricifall was either the author, rioter, or puli-
lisiisr of the Prospectus. lie, thvrefore, of mums
dismissed the information.
There were three other informations between the
same parties ; the bearing of which are adjaurised
k until the 19th of Jannary, 1809.

A vessel from Oporto, for Hull, i• on shore near

11.$1>t week three men, named Ja.-tes Creiham.
Philip Mason, end Janes num alias Rzekiel
were apprehisoded at Le:thorn, mar Richmond,
ou suspicion of havin robbea Mr.
Ittces /AMON, agent to the lead nines, near Wench.
lead, un the .2.ith ult. as stated in our paper,
yeiterila. The two tonne.% on the oiaLli of Mr.
It. hare been committed to Northallerton gaol
for the robbery. The latter is lodged its the huuhe
ul rorr,srl in:: tinder the errant act. hitt