The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1824-02-11 00:00:00

THE KING v. DROOKs.

The defendant, a common brewer, had been convicted by two
Magistrates in the penalty of twenty pounds, under the Act of
35 14eo. 111., for selling ale by retail, without being licensed as
to the Act.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL had obtained a rule to show cause
why the conviction should not be quashed.
Mr. Sergeant Pa:t.t. showe-1 cause, and argued upon the Act in
Rapport of the conviction. The plea put forth for the defendant
was, that being a common brewer, and holding a licence from the
Excise, a licence from the Magistrates was not necessary. He, on
the contrary, contended, that the Act distinctly required a licence
from the Nlagistrites for every retailer of beer, and he referred to
the 211th of Georg.. 11. to show that the defendant came within the
description of retailers of beer.
The Loan CHIEF Jusr ict asked for a reference to the Acts
relied upon on both sides, and finding 12 Acts referred to, stopt
the case, and said it would be impossible to hear it to-day. The
Acts ought to have been marked in the margin, that their Lord-
ships might be prepared. This was necessary, for the sake of
example, as well as for the sake of doing justice to this parti-
cular case.

The cue was ordered to stand in its proper place, and to be
heard in its regular course.

CARD C. DOPE.

This ease had been repeatedly t;riiied at great length. It had
been an action upon a covenant. The plaintiffs had been owners
of nine-sixteenths of the Indianian, Herefordshire, and had sold
tivc-sixteenths to the defendant for t 2,00111.; the defendant to be
master of the ship, and the plaintiffs husbands and agents.
The LOAD Crime JUSTICE delivered the judgment of the
Court at considerable length, They were of opinion that the con.
tract was illegal, because the appointment of a master to a ship so
valuable, in such Important and difficult navigation, ought to be
free and impartial, and not to be given from interested considera-
tions or for money given in the form of payment for shares in the
ship, or in any other way. In this judgment the Court regarded
the East India Company only as charterers of the ship.
Judgment for the defendant.
CRIMINAL INFORMATION.
THE RING e. THE BRITISH AND INDIAN OBSERVER.

Mr. ATTORNEY-GENERAL moved fora rule to show cause,
why a criminal information should not issue against William
AVhite, printer and publisher of a certain Sunday news papa,
called The British and Indian Observer, for a libel on Sir William
Rumbold, contained in the publication of Sunday last, and also in
placards pasted on boards, which were carried by men about the
metropolis. The latter stated that Sir W. Rumbold was turned
out of India by Mr. Adam, during the interregnum between the
departure of the Marquis of Hastings and the arrival of Lord
Amherst, for defrauding Government of 350,0001. The former,
after some introductory observations about Sir W. R. having brought
home several boxes fall of specie, was couched in the following
terms :—" The Nizam, who is the Prince at Hydrabad, wished to
borrow from the house of Palmer and Co. in which Sir W. Rum.
bold was a partner, fifty lacks of rupees, or 700,0001. at the very
moderate interest of 25 per cent. As Messrs. Palmer and Co. were
not worth so much, they thought it prudent to borrow as much
money as they could from the natives, at 121, per cent., and by the
force of English bayonets commanded by English officers, levy
their interest of 25 per cent. for all the sums which they had ad-
vanced to the Nizam. This excellent speculation went on for some
time ; in the mean time the East India Company had engaged to
pay the Niram's debts, under the condition that he should place
his estate under the protection of the English government. and al-
low the Company to administer them as trustees, till all his debts
were paid, receiving in the interim a yearly sum for him for his
maintenance. When the several creditors were called upon to
wove their debts, the House of Palmer and Co. produced an ac-
knowledgment signed by his Highness for the amount of 700,0001.
which was thesum stipulated at first to be lent ; on inquiry, how-
ever, it turned out thatef this sum only 360.0001. had been paid ;
and that the remainining 3641,0001. was merely a fraudulent trick
to be played against the government, who, without this inquiry In-
stituted by 31r. Adam, would have been obliged to pay to Messrs.
Palmer and Co. nothing less than 330,0001. more, as a just debt
contracted by the Nizard with their house."
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL observed, that this was a most
atrocious libel on a gentleman who had recently arrived in England,
after a residence of upwards of 12 yews in India :.he would, there-
fore, read the affidavit of Sir W. Rumbold, to chew that the whole
of the statements were utterly untrue and calumnious. He then
read the affidavit, which distinctly denied every statement that had
been published in the above paper.
The LORD Cuing J vr cE.—I will thank yos, Mr. Attorney-
General, to rearkahat partrir ale affidavit which denies taking hem
the Nizam a security of 700,0001., when be received only 350,0001. ;
or that denies taking a higher security than the money advanced by
the house of Palmer and Co.
The part alluded to was read by the Attorney-General, when,
after a short consultation, the chieJustice asked for the affidavit
and paper to be handfd to the Court, and allowed the subject to be
again brought before the Court to-morrow.
RENSINGTON TOLLS.
Mr. BROUGHAM moved for a criminal information against Mr.
Sketchier, treasurer, and one of the trustee, of the Kensington
Trust Turnpike-roads. This application was made on the affidavit
of Mr. Cobbett, which detailed at length the circumstances which
have already appeared, when he preferred an information against
Mr. Levy, the lessee of the trust, at Bow-street, for taking mote
tolls than allowed by law. The ground for moving the informa-
tion against Mr.Sketchley was, that he. being treasurer and trustee,
had not caused a board, with a correct list of tolls, to be placed up
at the toll-gate, as was reignited by the Act of Parliament.
The Cn lEF JUSTICE thought, that as this omission might have
arisen from inadvertency, it was not enough to warrant a criminal
information.

Leave was given to mention the mattes t 0.41101701/.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, WESTMINSTER,
TUESDAY, FEB. 10.

'THUITELL T. BEAUMONT.

Mr. Justice Pasta ;e;tl his notes of this trialyestadar. It will
be recollected that it was an action brought by Al r. Thanes Thur.
tell against Mr. Barber Beaumont, as Managing Director of the
County Fire Office, upon a policy of insurance, to recover the
amount of certain goods alleged to have been destroyed by fire in
Watling-street, in the month of January, 1823. The principal
witness upon that occasion was John Thurtell. who afterwards as
such unfortunate notoriety, and upon his evidence and that
of other witnesses, the Jury returned a verdict for the plaintifE—
Damages 1,900 L (the full sum claimed). On the 10th of Novem-
ber last, Alr. Sergeant Teddy moved for a rule to chew cause why
the verdict should not lie set aside and a new trial granted, on three
grounds ; first, a misdirection to the Jury by the Learned Judge;
and secondly, that a bill for a conspiracy to defraud the County
Fire Office had been found by the Wand Jury of Middlesex against
the two Thurtells, and two of the other witnesses in this case. The
Court refused the motion on both these grounds ; but granted it on
a third ground ; namely, that it appeared by the affidavit of James
Wrigglesworth, that a quantity of the goods stated to have been in
the warehouse at the time of the fire, had been sold at various times
on and subsequently to the 2.2 d of December, 1822, by John Thur-
tell and J. B. Snowden to Messrs. !Hargraves, of H ood-street, at
a price twenty per cent. less than their first cost ; and by an affi-
davit of Joseph Hunt, that in a conversation with John Thurtell,
the latter stated in substance that the premises had been wilfully
I set on fire.

Previously to the arguments of Counsel for and against the rule.
the affidavits on both sides were ordered to be read by the officer of
the Court. Of those for the defendant the most material were the
affidavits above alluded to, together with that of a person named
Robinson, wholived opposite to the premises, and swore that he
could see the plaistiff 'a roams whe,n the premises were on fire, and
that they were quite empty. These were met on the part of the
plaintiff by numerous affidavits the most important of which were
M;H those of Messrs. ;Hargraves and some of their servants, and of .1.
11. Snowden, which contradicted the allegations contained in Wrig-
glesworth's affidavit. They were also denied in the affidavit of
the late John Thurtell ; as were also the facts stated by Hunt. The
affidavit of Thomas Thurtell alleged, that when he taxed Hunt in
his brother's presence, at Hertford, with having made that state-
ment, hp (Hunt) burst into tears, begged to be forgiven, and said
them he had only done it to try to save himself.
Mr. SergeantVanants• this morning chewed cause why the
rule for a new trial in this case shoyld not be discharged. This
was a case that was connected with parties and circumstances which
had excited a degree of interest never surpissed. The evidence of
John Theisen and .Joseph Hunt might not be believed, and he
asked their Lordships to consider the ease upon distinct accounts.
This case could not be restored to its former state, on account of
the prejudices that had gone forth, for it did not follow that be-
cause a man had been guilty of one crime he was guilty also of an-
other, which is the Teases of the resistance of this claim. Ile would
put it thus, because. there was a suspicion (for he would el 00
higher) that the house in Watling-street had been wilfully AO oil
fire, and that if there were any goods on the premises, they were re-
moved before the fire. Assuming that John Thurtell was the most
worthless man on the face of the earth, he did not think it was in
human nature to commit the crimes imputed to hint of arson and
perjury. But striking his evidence mkt of the question, the bears.
eel Counsel continued, he would contend that this claim ought not
to be resisted. It had been proved on the trial, that goods to the
ainentnt of 1,700/. and upwards had been purchased by T. Thurtell,
besides the furniture, with the view of his entering into business, as
soon as he could get released from his engagement at the Cock.
This had been proved by unimpeachable witnesses. Ile addressed
himself to men of knowledge, independently of that of their profes.
sion ; and he asked whether it was ever heard of, that a man would
purchase goods and pay for them with ready mousey, in order to put
them into a house and then set it on fire ? The testimony of An.
Berson swore positively that the goods so supplied were deposited
on the premises, and were, as be firmly believed, on them on the
'night of the fire. There was proof of the delivery of goods at Wr-
yest four in the afterhoou before the ere.

g
proghtoo:ftboireak.trolheY::orteuh.theidsateHuntladwar:thihte,e;
Mr. Justin./ PAIL—Voce have a Lon
evidence of heath.
Mr. Sergeant VAEGIIAN thanked his Lordship. But it aces said
what evidence have we that John Thurtell was not on the iss:
He answered that the evidence of Lnyor went to prove that fne.
But independently of this, it was a snowy night, and if he 11,,g
been on the premises be might have been traced. Ens", nacre
affithrresZonmuThnmencedtuartethlel wo;sacbcintkehmi_ivAner outhett
case
fnuiorhseeisninnegi
minutes after four.
Loin Cum, licarter —Yon have a right to assume that the
Jury were satisfied the fire was not occasioned wilfully, sad dui
verdict is not to be disturbed, except on fresh affidavits.
Mr. Sergeant l'arcllAN would therefore be short. Ile then
alluded to the affidavits of Mr. Heaument and Wriggleswonk
Wrigglesworth stated, that about the middle of Iteeerliber John
Tburtell and Snowdon went to Margraves', and offered goods, par.
chased of Todd and 31orrisem, 20 per cent. under prime cost, ne
the introduction of M'rigglysworth. Was his evidence true?
is he? A discarded servant of Meaux Margraves. Something
had been insinuated by Mr. Beaumont against the Mewl. 3hr.
graves; but the Learned Counsel contended that they were roma
high and unimpeachable character, and incapable, he believed, sC
any dishonourable action. But Wrigglesworth would have it be.
tiered that they had actually bought the goods of Tburtell * per
cent. under their value, and that the original invoices were lint de.
posited with them, and afterwards changed, and that the metal,
had been demanded by John Thurteil. If the 3lesers. 3largnuts
Acre the tainted characters that Wtigglesworth had describes.
they would not have done their work in so bungling a mantle;
but they positively deny that they ever knew or saw John Thar.
tell, as well as the circumstances relating to the invoices. Ever,
part of Wriggleswinth's affidavit had been contradicted by Snowdon.
LORD Cuter JeflTlCE—Then is one part of Snowdeo's en.
dence to which I will advert. Snowdon states that he acted as xi
agent, but it is not said to whom he was agent. If he sold nu
goods as an agent, why did he not swear for whom he said thee,
He does not negative that they were Thurtell's. But, bendie,
Vaughan, don't think I am giving N
i
any opinion in the present tage.
Mr. Sergeant VAUGHA admitted t would have been better if
this part of the subject had been gone mum fully into.
Mr. Justice Patti—Whether this fact is of sufficient importer('
to warrant a new trial he would not say, but it was as observitik•
fit to be made.

Mr. Sergeant VILI•GRAW--The invoices were produced oa tlt
trial. On the subject of the payment of the proceeds, it was pm.
tively sworn by Mr. Hargrave, that he never paid any moneyI John Thurtell on account of arry sale whatever. The Leaned
Counsel continued to comment at considerable length on the alleged
transaction with the Mears. Marpavea. He then adverted to do
origin of the fire, and observed, that it might have been caused by
the negligence of Wilkinson, who occupied the lower pan elf tot
house, where the plaintiff's witnesses swore they lest saw the dee,
and " well in." He contended, that after what had passed in lint.
fordahire, this case could not be restored to lb former Patel ad
that upon this ground a new trial slidekl not, therefor, be poise
The defendant had gone to Hertford to make inquiries of
Hunt, at a moment when he was preparing fur a most awful le&
non ; this rendered it necessary for the other side to go *I
Hertford to make inquiries of John ThurtelL If the decimals
of such a miscreant were worthy of the least credit, he would Ob.
frost Joseph Hunt with Joseph Hunt. If there was any mom
whim his wards might be believed, it must have been immedinly
aher W conviction, when he went to John Thurteff's cell, bone
Wm tam and acknowledged that be had done him wrong. WA
these observations he left the ease.
Mr. Sergeant PEL L followed on the same side.
Mr. Barber Beaumont said be wished to address the Court.
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE could not hear him. "If you wish
to be your own Counsel, you may apply ; but we cannot hear loth
yourself and your Counsel."
Mr. Beaumont still wished to address the Court, but at law sat
down.

,i- /1-e-

• No. I

NEFF 7
'PHIS EVE
-1- _

PAILA

The principal l
Temr, Holey, 1
Saliba/IN and AI

To co

Polanders--Pri
Mon Baron Lo
sass bodoiska, 31j
Tatars—Rena
Khar, Mr. G. 8m
To-morrow, A
Child; and Giori
On Saturday, A
minimums.

711847'A
THIS EVE:

Or, THI
The Principal (
Cooper, Dgrueet,
lamp azIFI M. Tee

The Feineipal Ch,
Leyte, sal O'Brise
usd. Miss Lowe.
To-asoleen, Jam
The It=7' )61
o,* The 1
.7-7717.—Ar—riz
Ting EVEN 1

Toot
*plum
4171:t63111111to

lard n,
bray of &.mean a
Lie; Mr. Trachwcr
ter. Ma. Bryan; I
Wayiett.