The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1826-02-11 00:00:00

THE RING V. DRYSDALE, LEACH, AND OTHERS.

7tlr. SCAR LETT, in Michaelmas Term last, moved for and ob-
honed is rule to show cause why a criminal information should not
I. filed against Mr. Drysdale, the printer and publisher of the
/trashier Chronicle. the proprietors of that paper, and Mr. James
I,..seh, a publican residing near Reading, for an alleged libel on
!ii r. Monet, the Member for that Borough, and three other Ma-
gin rates of that town.
The libel was in the form of a handbill, stating to the publicans
rt llotdirq certain acts of the Magistrates, terdir.ti to impute on
undue andeorrupt motives in their refusing to Jesnell Leach
a for his public-house.
The ATTORNEY-fiENT:PAL (with whom was Mr. MAIL-
-IYAT, the COII,ION•SERJVANT, and Mr. F. Por.i.oca) now
showed cause against the rule. ar.d contended that the publication
13 question was not in any degree libellous, but was a mere state.
went of facts which actually occurred, and if those facts tended to
show that the conduct of the Magistrates was attributable to im-
proper 'naives, it was their own fault in furnishing the means by
which persons rime to such a conclusion. The supposed libel was
its these terms:— . .

To Publicans respecting their Licenses.
" Brother landlords—l beg to solicit your attention to the fol.
lowing plain statement of facts, in order that you may be prepared
to meet any similar proceedings should they be commenced against
Toil. 1, James Leach, four yeah ago became tenant to Mr.
Stephens of a house and premises called the Four Bono Shoes, or
bong ILrn, at %Vhitley, near Reading, and hme continued to oc-
etipy the same to the present time. About Midsummer last r re-
ceived a notice to quit. On Saturday, the 17th instant, that being
tM day f.. cd fir- granting licenses, I attended the Bench of Ma-
gistrate.. en:l to my very great surprise I there found my landlord,
Mr. Stephens, with another tenant, prepared to take out a license
for the shove house. I was inform by Mr. Stephens that a li.
tense would not be granted to me; howeree, at a proper time
I went before a Magistrate with my bondsman and the
wins) certificate, when Br. Mitford, the Chairman, informed
me that n license would not be granted, but gave me no reason why.
Mr. Alonck was present, and rain Sri(' to as to whether a
cense should be granted or not. e replied it should not, and
treated ma with great contempt, by refusing to bear any sort of
explanation. Finding the Magistrates present determisied in not
giving any reason why the license should not be granted, I left the
room, after a hich I understood that the Alagiatrates adjourned
until this day (Tuesday), when I went, accompanied by my attnr.
wey and bondsnein, and :took with me the necessary certificate.
AU, being detrained an hour, through the absence orAlr. Alortc.k
(fur the Magistrates refund to act until he came) , and also, after
a private consultation had been held between the Magistrates, I
was allowed to enter the room. I then tendered my certificate
and bondsman, upon which Mr. Monek stated that the license
would not be granted. My attorney then produced the last Act of
Perham:tit for regulating the conduct of Magistrates in granting or
refusing licenses. By this Act, it appears that the discretional
power of 31agistrates to renew licceses is repealed, and that the
Magistrates are bound to go into an inquiry on a complaint against
the publican, previously to visiting him with any punishment. If
the publican bellawfully convicted thereon, he is liable to the pe.
malty of lire pounds for the first offence, of ten pounds fur the
second offence ; end for third offence, a forfeiture of his license,
if he be convicted thereof before a Jury of the Quarter Sessions.
W ~,,irbstanding, however, the express provisions of this Act of
Parliament, Me. Nflonck declined that the Magistrates had pre-
vi.iusly made up their minds to refuse me a license ; upon which
my attorney &mantled, as a matter of right, the cause of such de-
termination. Al e. Mona said they were not bound to give an an.
awn, sad would not state that they. was any camplaint lodged

against me. Upon this, Mr. linnet was asked whether he thought
it right and correct that a man should be condemned unheard. to
which he replied, ' Certainly.' As soon as I left the room, Mr.
Stephens, with two persons, immediately entered it, for the pus.
pas of taking out a license for the • Your Home Shoes; and I
have been given to understand that a license was granted ; one of
the party appearing in the character of a tenant, and the other in
that of bondsman.
" Brother landlords—Dr. Mitford (Chairman), Mr. Monck,
the Rev. 31r.Stevens„ and Mr. R. Harris, are the Magistrates
who were on the Bench during the above proceedings. But Mr.
linnet. the great advocate for fair hearing and impartial justice,
took the most prominent part; and I have it to yourselves to
judge whether he has not, by his conduct, given a fresh proof of
his own independence, and the very friendly feelings he entertains
towards publicans in general. JAMES
•• Four Horse Shoes, Whitler,
" Thursday, Sept. 20. 1824."
The fats of the ease, as stated by the affidavits, were in Pub.
stance the same as here set out. Mr. Leach had held this public-
house without. the least imputation on his character for four years,
and was then refused the renewal of his license without any cause
whatever being assigned. It was supposed that the cause arose
from the circumstance that, sonic time before, an assault had been
committed at the door of his public-house on a person named
Roper, but no blame could attach to Leach on that occasion, for
be had actually advised Roper to prosecute the defendant, which
had been done to conviction at the Sessions, when an apology
was accepted. It was necessary, however, that their Lordships
should see the relation which subsisted between the parties.
—Mr. Stephens, the landlord of this public-house, was a
brewer, in Reading. and also a partner in a banking concern
there with Mr. Harris, the magistrate. He was likewise brother-
in.law to Mr. Monck, another of the magistrates, and in conse-
quence of Leach becoming in arrear to Stephens, he refused to
supply him with his usual quantity of beer, and at Midsummer,
1223, served him with a notice to quit his premises at the Christmas
following. In consequence, when lie applied for a license, it was
refused, under the circumstance Stated In the hand-bill, and the
inforttinate man, thus deprived of his means of support, and
smarting under an injury for which no cause was assigned, made
that statement to his fellow-victuallers which was the subject
of the present application, and which application the Learned
Conned trusted would be dismissed with costs.
Mr. ALiPtIIIrAT was proceediag to address the Count on the
same side, when
The LORD CHIC? JUSTICE remarked, that if so many Gen-
tlemen in a cause were to go over the same ground, it would
be productive of the greatest public inconvenience and loss of
time.

.....
Mr. MARITAT then said he should ofer nothing in addition
to what had fallen front the Attorney-flenend.
31r. COMMON SERGEANT and Mr. F. Pottoca shortly
followed. .

Mr. SC...BLITT and Mr. TALTOIIIID then contended, on the
other side, that the hand-hill in question undoubtedly con-
ce!sed the most serious imputations ao the honour and integrity
of the magistrates at Reading. Under the semblance of facts
s'ated. In were thrown out that they had acted from die
most base and coerupt motives; and among other things it was
Alleged that when Mr. Alonek was asked whether he thought it
Tied, that a man should be condemned unheard, he hail answered,
" certainly." .This was a most insidious waylinf making it appear
that that Gentleman had been guilty of flagrant injustice; but he
had explained the matter quite differently. lie had sworn that
when this question was put to him, he answered, if the refusal of
a license at the discretion of the magistrates, without a declaration
of their reasons, was to be considered as equivalent to a condem-
nation, undoubtedly the law was so. This waft quite different to
the coloured representation published by the defendants, and unless
this Court would extend its protection to the magistracy of the
country, they could never be sate from those aspersions so degrading
to their characters and their office.

The LoaD CUIEF JUSTICE then delivered the judgment of
the Court.—Tbis is an application to this Colin to interpose its
authority, by granting a criminal information for the publication
of alleged libel. The effect of our refusing to make the rule ab-
solute will not be to close the dour of justice, or to prevent the gen.
denten who now apply to us from proceeding in another manner to
punish (if the offence be deserving of punishment) the author and
publisher of the paper now complained of. It is my opinion, and
the opinion of my Learned Brothers, that we ought not to make
this rule absolute, but, In discharging it, the Court must be dis-
tinctly undmstood not to impute any corrupt or improper motive
to those gentlemen. When a criminal information is moved for, it
is the rule of this Court that those who apply for it must show that
their own conduct in the matterof which they complain was entirely
free from objection ; and therefore, although upon the investigation
before us we are of opinion that the conduct of these gentlemen
wan not to be attributed to any corrupt or improper motive, yet if
the facts that took place were such as to afford reasonable ground
for aporelieuding that they were acting from improper motives,
this Court will not interfere. In discharging the rule, however, we
think It ought to be discharged without costs.
Rule discharged without ccs:s.