The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1824-11-16 00:00:00

CHIOXICITt

Mr. Or al; ET moved fora rule to show came why a 'Timbal
information should not be fled against Mr. Clement as sole printer,
publisher, and proprietor of the /Worming Chronldc.
The COL'IT intimated to the Learned Counsel, as he was about
to proceed in his statement, that he should raise his voice to
audible tone, which however continued very feeble and indistinct
through the principal part of it, so as to render his voice occasionally
almost inaudible even to the Bench. _

Mr. G eager readmeti.-- The Plaintiff; on whose behalf he tips.
peered, was William Kenrick, Egg a Welch Judge, and who also
fulfilled the important duties of Recorder of Dover, and a Magis-
trate of the county of Surrey. The defendant was registered hs
sole printer, publisher, and proprietor, of the Mendez Cheunir.r.
and the present application was made tn coracequence of a series of
lihrllons articles which appeared in the newspaper which he lupe:,
intertled, against Mt. Kt nrick. The articles elsichwere prircite:ly
complained of icy .Me. Kenrick, appeared in theNoraligChre.
wick of the 3d, 11th, atn, 6th, 7th, Itith, 11th, and 24th of last
August, and in subsequent numbers of that paper. The circurc.
stances which induced the present application were theses Xt,
Kerriek was a 31agistrate of the county of Surrey. residing at
Dorking. In his immediate vicinity lived John Franks, a fanner •
and freeholder of the county. A piece of wood, which was des
sailed as a slab of oak, was found on the premises of Franks,
and was alleged to be the property of Mr. Kenrick. Franks was
accordingly apprehended, brought before a reighbonring 3121f:i5..
trate, and committed for trial. The value of the shad did not ex-
ceed one shilling. Franks, in consequence of his apprehensiou
and committal, was confined in Ilorsemonger.lane goal for several
weeks; he was subsequently convened, with other prisoner., its
abide his trial at the Guildford Assizes, and owed his acquittal. as .
stated by the Counsel, to the absence of a principal wittstse.
Previous to his trial remonstrances were tried with Mr. Rene.ek,
to induce. hint to forego the prosecution. His wife had re ere.
&entail the large family that were dependent on him for sem,:ort
and it was further repieseeted to Mr. Kenrick that he would loss
the profits of a benefit which he a.% to have had at a certain club.
by his confiorment in gaol. Mr. Kenrick, through compassion tie
the situation in which t.‘e tinnily were placed, evinced a diiposi•ise.
to withdraw the charge, but on finding that it could not be with-
drawn. he directed the attorney fee the prosecution, in the event t f
a conviction, to recommend Franks to mercy. Franks. as he betere
stated, was acquitted, owing to the absence of a principal wst^eNs.
The Learned Cocri,el proceeded to react the 'several stets:cost:ls
which appeared in the Morning ('hronirle, In wort:nee to the sere
he bad stated. The trial was first deteiled, aid this wits felit”6.a
by animadventioes en the 31agistrary generally. Nor was 't
henriek :shine who was the object of the animairersions of tr.:
writer. Ile dealt indiscriminately with the whole Al agistraei f ••.,
county of Surrey. and made them the objects of his ianen oc cc. -
sure. He (Mr. G.) would read the following from the ..lfcc..ing
Chronlek: of the Ilth of August : .

" Slaking as we do the beauties of the magisterial, system our
peculiar care, we cannot but esteem it a pies of particularly nr st
fortune that we have under our eye. as it were, those public ft.!: e-
tiotiaries who are, by their own confession, the very picks of nory.:
terial perfection. Leery county has its pride. Ptyon glories it. hs
cream, Cornwall hi its hog* !a•hinghl, Kent in its men, York its
jockeyship, Norfolk boasts its dumplings, and Surrey is famous
for alagistrates. (Much laughter.) Many shires, Estes and Cain.
bri.lge more especially, style themselves the gardens of England ;
but beyond all dispute, Surrey is the garden of Justices. Our
geographical position, bounded as our view is, to the north by the
Strand, on the south by this favoured county, would seem to con-
stitute nos its natural supervisors; we therefore look upon our
locality, in this respect, as a piece of particularly good fc:ture.
and when we are elwallirg on those wrongs and toolcnces s.tn
which the world abounds, we turn our ey.a to the great hi Is of
lutreeyy, and exclaim. Surely. it justice were banished ft • a the re.
icainder of the world, it would find a resting place in the comm...
sion el the peace of that rightem.s land! It is ti,trc that Mr.
Ssairey lava down the law, sulk Mr. Allen approves it ; it is tutees.
that Mr. lienrick improves the estate; that the cuitray is bltsstit
with the mild cnunteitarie of :dr. Mole San.ntr, and rejoices in
the sway of I.onl Ec..cor, Mr. Hedger, and a host of tither
venerated personages.ritat reuse them sel mod the Quarter Session s.
It was 1.1.4..01 that Mr. Kenrich had been actuated in his cond-cct
on this ocemion by the circumstance of Franks haying occupied
a farni which Mr. Kenrick wished to possess himself, but w roch
was refused to hilt, as Franks received it front his fither and grand.
father. and was therefore proud in the possession of it. The news.
paper further *rued, that Franks' wife list been tampered ~,m.to
obtain a ask of the freehold, which she refu•lai. Again it was al-
l:Tod, that :loris.g two months that Franks was in gaol, his son wail
the sole support of the family, by a little money which i.e had
raved. It was said that Prank: was coi..ined at.l treated as a MM.
mon felon : he was Inuled with iron* and conveyed from Horse.
monger-Ike gaol to chained, with a waegon.full of
idols. Ile was acquitted, but at the true of his acquit:a:
was so emaciated as to be incapable of a•.crtion. In Whet
articles on the same sithject„ the Magistracy of Surer, were d...
scribed 311 •• the wourge of the whole county." Franks was
poartrayed as `• an excellent charaertr." Mr. Kenrick's ce,e.
duct was alleged to be an act of opprestion, and an Instr.:we. 4):*
" the power which the law permitted the rich to possess ct.r• the
poor." The olservations were a ttoinpanied with strictures
the administrattan of justice in England and Ireland for the last
century, and that there had not been within that petivil a sitythr
Institute a committal by aSt ti llabstittitc In Scetlaati.

• i

i

t+
~~
~;

r'

,141

1 , -'i

•>
•
7 •i

4


wma, itionsover, recommended, that there should be • repre-
wwns!ion on the stage Of the 14 Jas. ices cies-wed in Alfred's reign,
and st wee suggested what a popular conclusion of a play-hill
would be to say, that the re,formance concluded with the
/Recut:on of faurtecu Justices. (blurb laughter.) A letter was
sad, trailog with much accuracy • psrailel between Naboth's
varyard aril Franks' freehold. lipids the possible anticipation of a
eiesdar result. Several other Inters and articles were adverted to
lig the Learned Counsel, which, he contended, had the effect of
stugaraging the character and siLfying the magisterial conduct of
Mt. K^:mick.
Tto Loan Cuter Jetrrlcr inquked if the nal...vitt of the
Ferrer and poislisher were in pn.sessioa of the Learned Counsel ?
OtillSZT replied In the einnative.---Itule granted.
evE EMI r. N. RaltßlPnlt.
lit. J. WHatirs applicl for a criminal information, in the
shape of a qua wernentu, to be filed against the defendant. to *how
by east soty-o.l'y he executed the office of Mayor of Chester. The
Counsel read an affidavit. as the ground eT his application,
102... c-: stated. that the charter of the City of Chester requited that
the Irlayor be elected by twenty-four Aldermen. and the election of
Ithe defendant was invalid front the circumstance of there being only
ae ea A;derniee present at the elation of the de;endant.
lisle grated.

TEE lIWO V. 3. NARIIIION.
Mr. J. WILLIAMS obtaineJ a similar rule reaino the defendant
r. skip me. calling upon him to chew by what authority he ea-
..;ateil the office of Sheriff of Cheater. The ir.formality of his
erst.or, us in the former case, farmed the ground of the application.

TIM KUM v. CARLTON AND OTHERS.
Ms Rutter t.t. said be was prepared to proceed in a•cument in
:Ray which stood over since last team
1.6 an Citigr JILI3IICF—This is, I believe, a can of
-libel, and was argued before my Brother Bayley. (Mr. Justice
Daley HS< not present in Court v.teerilay.)
T. Russru. replied it had been argued it: ram It was an
application for a criminal information, against the defendants, who
Wert the printer. pithlisher. and proprietor of the Fred:, for
as alleged libel on SIT Chet wy nci.
The Loaf) Cillalr JUSTICE said the Court would not bear
tanker argument in it, in the abser.ce of Mr. Justice Bayley.
Mr. Rosetta. reguseted that their Lordships would appoint a
day Car hearing further argument in it. It Ira likely to occupy
esintaderabirrinte, and his client (Sit G. Clietwyt.d) was anxious to
base is Mara On, Red disposed of.
'lb* Loan Came Jnartot said the Court wonld not ap-
prise say time, as, should they appoint a tiny, something might W-
ee:sane to prevent them from entatainiug it. •
Mr. BIIOUCIIIAM said that there-was s motion of a similar kind,
brought by the same prosecutor, against an evening paper (we be-
b.ve the British 7'rerriter). It was 'grind with the Attornt7.oe=
sen.l. that it should abide the litute of theme which bad been just
inat•-•:;o.led, and which bad men been beard in part.

THE DINO r. HAMMOND AND OTAIXR/•
hit. g:AI TT applied for a rule to show emu wry a criminal
:Information shonid not be tiled against the !hinter of the News-
paper called the Calesilt ('cancer, and also egainet Mr Hans.
mond, and certain Parishioners of the town of Greenwich. for
affixing their signatures to a report reflecting irjariously on the
conduct of the late Directors of that parish. on whose behalf he
Weariett) moved. The Colonist COu ler repeated the awe-
seneen" rontained in this report, and accompanied them with a se.
see, imminent upon therm The late Directors complained (4' this
senor, ns containing an artificial and false detail of their conduct.
Then a Is an Act of Parliament authorizing the Directors to co.
<veer te with the Overseers of the parish, in regulating the rates and
tti,i gement of the parish. It was projected some time ago, to
procure an Act of ['aliening foe the purport of lighting the town
of Greenwich with gas, and foe watching the town. It devolved ae-
cordirg•e on tlie Directors to propose the tender of attimate, with
a view of cerrying this impertaut purpose into effect. The parties
thc tenders were called upon to give in an minute of the
Pe :eel of the lamps. and the other parts of the contract. Two tenders
were accordingly 'mak, one by a Mr. Heacily and the other by a Mr.
flailing, who was extensively engaged in traneactions of this kind.
It wen proposed to Mr. Goaling„lueriOns m any contract being en.
tered into, that be should join Mr. needle in the contract, and it
was suggested to him that they might put 10001. in their pocket by
undertaking it conjointly. This proposal was declined on the part
at Goshen.. Their tenders were then phital before the Ctenmittee;
that of tiredly was comparasively low. hut he forbore front giving
statement of the elect's where to be the gas liehte, and the Cont.
vnittee accordingly forbore from entering into a contract with him.
ID the estimate of lividly, it 'ASS propusetl by him to give ten
lamps to the parish gratis. and alto to procure an Act of Puha-
anent for lighting and watching the town of Greenwich, free of ex-
pense to the parish. Nevertheless, on account of his not having
StAttllthe plants where to fix the groklights. and not having corn.
plied with other requisitions imposed by the Committee, the Direc.
Ms contracted with Mr. Gosling. The Directors were persons of
the first respectability in the town of Greenwich. It happeeed that
when this conditional contract (for it was only made corditionally)
-was altered into, the period arrived for the succession of Go-
ya:roots and Directors of the parish. The vestry clerk, mean-
while, resigned, and offered to give up to Mr. Hammond, who
acrd a leading part in these transactinna, all the papers con-
vected with the contract which the former Directors had made.
-Nevertheless, the report to which his name and tithe's were affixed
ecetained false facts and unjust inferences front the conduct of the
fettr.er commiuee. The committee, it was insinuated, rejected the
proposal of Headly, and accepted that of Gosling. from improper
and interested motives; and it was imputed to them that that was
the reason of their not accepting the favourable terms of Hardly.
Whereas it appeared that the Act of Parliament which be offered
to troeure gratuitously was tint a particular Act for the tows of
oireenwith, but an Act for lighting srveral towns with put, intro.
deic,d by a joint company in which it was his intention to have
the town of Greenwich included. In the report a statement was
:'.awn up with a view of still more strongly fixing this imputation
nn the crinductef the Directors. This statement was a piece of
distorted ingetuity. In ore item of the expense the report alleged
e.ott there was a difference of 162/. in the estimate of these gentle.
resit—that of :11r.GoidIng being 662/., and that of Mr. Ileselly 54101.
As the contract was to last for fourteen years, they mulnplied this
sun' by fourteen, which was about a difference in that tern' of years
of 2.1i151. The other items, according to the calculation of these'
gerdemen, recited in the general estimate of Mr. !lewdly and Mr.
eireding a difference of 5,2381. This was asserted in the report for
the purpose of prejudicing the Directors in the eyes of the pa.
tisluoners. It was also said, that the hill in which it was Insinu.
a-nd these gentlemen, together with Mr. Gosling, had an interest,
was thrown out, in consequence of a question being put by the
Mon. Member for Surrey, requiring to know who were the parties
to the bill, and no answer being given. This was also introduend
`into the report, although Mr. Hammond was ensured, by a letter
from the late vestry dark, that no such question was ever proposed
by the Hot'. Member for Surrey. In the report the parishioners
Irene further :insured, that " their interests were wantonly betrayed
and wretchedly neglected." The Director were prepared to prove
that they entered into the contract with a view to no interest except
that of the pariah, and that they •had no profit o- mum in the
Act granted for lighting and watching the town of Greenwich.
The reading of this report crested a great uproar at the weary meet.
leg of Greenwich. and drew down erre, prejudice and unpopu-
halt, on the Directors. The ('desist Cunene, in addition to the
report, fixed the stigma stronger, by the commentary scrnmpany-
ths insertion of it in that paper; he therefore submitted that
ides was a ease which entitled the respectable gentlemen who tilled
the office of Directors for tae benefit of the to the nrotectien
of ilic Court, from the imputations thus wrongful'', laid to their
'lto LOGO eTtIEF JOSTICE—Take a rule.

COURT OF COMMON .'LEAS, MONDAY, Nov. IL

CLOUD o. TUFIZZING.

This was a ease arising out of a conviction before the Commis.
.s.anot. of Hackney Coaches, under the following circumstances :
At information was sworn against Cloud, a stage-comb owner,
Joe Laic iNg up two pessengers at St. Paul's Chureh-yard, one of the
mime of faintiaay, on the With April, 1820, and the other Sarah
mom the 12th May, in the same year. Convictions were
had before the Commissioners. and divers of Cloud's goods were
bi and slid under an execution for default ~f paving the pe.
Tirol ; he., however, allowed no cause ks ;ore the ommimionsrs
why soh mually should trot be paid. /le stinsequently brought
as ...don of trespass, for the mammy in damages of the amount of
It properly said in riecuth nand obtalaed a verdict. We should
oleeere that the information was laid unticr the Oth of Anse. It
slatni that Lindsay, the , ea' gee, in Amid lived in Mayfair, and
t....:euestedly hooked himself at Mt. Paul's. and he was warned by
the 1..1. ri-r, that if he pitsisted in proceeding to Piccadilly by
(Zelit'r cuatli an inforn,ation would be End against Cloud; mad et
and conviction had Imes. it.
The matter now appeared in the shape of's open al ease.

bit. Frig:ant s'El.I. new argue.] the case, in auppnet of the Ter-
Jist anti aiviinst thacontic:i .n. question was ant merely be-
tween parties, but it Intel:MA by the case to detern.ine be.
twat' ih • Ilnitri at the ti•anrofflee and the 11 kinimirdoners foe
Livens:lg ..'lackney.enaches. The Commissioners of Htschney-
ct,trh endend.ol, that haring taken up and a.c down a passenger
*Pit.tirt et- pivcri reca—
The CH ILY jllNTlCit—Pahaps ny IlrotherVaughan will chew
us. (use ..tc• Wei' compels a person taking a ;lace
it s I.4.,..—crar‘i to go the whole way whether he pleases et nct.
Tir.'cr whit stain& can they proceed /
f• r. PELL-1 shnuld sappnee under the s.th•Geo. HI.
19.;, sr7,•=. I 1 and 12; and Alan under the statute of 9th Anne.
C. 92, arr.. 4 which was the fleet Act regulating hackney-coaches.
Under the Illth Cm. 111. 1%87, the emumisinonera thought that
(*kw! had triniined the law, inasmuch all the Act made it penal for
any fiTircii s•age 10 take up peasengent fur the purpose of setting
an/ surh pa:set:gem down in the paved streets of London or tionth-
wsrk, rl.t. driver Of such atige knowirg that the person was to be
Get down within the paved streets. The penalty being SI.; here
thr penalty imposed by the Magistrates wash.. contrary to the
A ct.
The etztrr JPlllllOr.-1. perceive that in the Information die
coach is Let once called a hackney-coach. Illy Brother Vaughan
we will hear yaw. for re have we doubt.
_ _ .

kir. Justice 010113.R1L —The queution of difficulty with the
Ce”rt will the entiviction lot you tato the misfits or the care ?

St-r,atit V*II6IIAN contended, under the 9th of Anne,
C. S 3. the: the t..Tekney-enath own( r% had porchnsed the privilege
enact doer in !denim'. And by 1 George 1., chap. 37. Reel. I. it
"eat r,intlaod that no per,on .hould let on lure any coach within the
itlh of Mortality without a Fcense (ton, the Committloners, under
palely ocsL These Acts were made perpe.ual by other Acts.

6ASELZE.—Tite c .nrktioa, a 4 fa: as we can now
i! ► p Aid eceletw.q ; but :t tr. r.• att it the certiorari be

properly 'nought before us. Does the irformatiou state an offence
so as to bring it properly before us ?
3lr. Sergeant V•UOILAN apprt hendeti it did.
Mr. Justice Gast:Le E.—% on base not charged in the ir.rotnaa-
lion that it is a Mitttiey. coach. Look at the statute of Anne.
The (luxe Jusrter.-11 t:k.: it that my Brother Vaughan
gives up the statute. of A::TIC. and trans tan the statute of 1 Geo. 1.
chap. 67, us. ng the term haelt,..ey-eriscli.
Mr. Justice VARIL.--'f Lc lihmdcr to re is, that you have put in
your information words ditti r-ot from t'uise directed by the Arm
of Parliament. The words " I.t.t tot inv.'," do not appear in the
Act of George 1.. until reu come to " mourning coaches." These
words do not apply to hackney coaches, though perhaps they were
so intended.
The till Er JusTicr- -I shall intend nothing,BrotherVanghan,
in favour of a limited criminal jurisdiction. Here you sue for
a penalty, curl I must see that everything was right before the
Blagistrates. We can Imth at nothing but the use.
Mr. J woice Itunuovort.-11 your conviction be formally good.
it stands : if cut, it is had and rotten. The Act of Parliament
does not sustain year information, which must be on the Ist of
George I.
The CH 'EY JUST tcr.—You must charge upon the informa-
tion, that he was driving (or hire. Beside, we cannot find any
fraud here. You want a new Act of Parliament, for the statute
rays " paved streets," and if the 31aeadetniaing plan goes on, an
Act will be necessary. There must be a good conviction before exe-
cution ; but if there be an improper execution, at should certainly
set it aside. This iefonnation is neither brought within the words
or the spirit of the Act of Anne, on which this information was
founded. The Act of Anne, as has berm said, gave a monopoly ;
but the words were, that no man should let to hire any roach or
horses; and further it never eomemitlatcti stage-ceticlics. Then=
here did not " proloss to act as a hackney-maim:an." He made
a bargain to take the man to Kensington, and I know no law which
compels the driver to take the man there, if at any intervening place
he wishes to get down. The information was al ogether had, and
not being made under the statute of 1 George 1., and not at all
touching the 55th George 111. we must say, that the person act-
ing under the execution, hail no legal warranty for so d nog.
Their Lordships concurrtd in the opinion, and the conviction was
set aside.

SHERIFF'S COURT, MONDAY, Nov. 15.

EXTENT OF THE. CROWN.

f c:.