The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1824-01-26 00:00:00

TIM KIVG 01.1)Fittn AND.IIEXIILTT:

The ATTOIMCt-tiexeaat;rayedthe judgment of the Court
neatest the ddendanst, who had been eotavicted—.Benneti, on taro.
and Oldfield on three, serc.-al indictments. charging them with
having kept common gaming-houses at No. 75, St. James's-street,
No. 71, Pall-mall, and No. 6, Pall-mall. The prosecutors were
Esons named Richard Carlos, William Smith, and Thomas
rskine Grant, the latter of whom had charged the defendants
with carrying on their illicit practices, and opening a gaming-house
it the King's Bench prison, where they had been confined in con-
sequence of a former conviction.
he defendants pot into Court a number of affidavits, in
-which they solemnly denied having had any connexion with gam-
ing-Lou:en since the commencement of the prosecution against
than; and that, more especially, they had not, direia!y or indi.
reedy. had any transactions of such a nature during their confine-
ment in the King's Bench Prison ; that the assertions made by the
hprosecutor, Grant, were utterly false; that when he was in the
akit of visiting their house, he was in very indigent circumstances,
and could rot have lost the sums he asserted he had lost ; that de-
iendant, Oilfield, never did buy up an acceptance of Grant's for
the purpose of injuring him; and they further declared ,they be-
littled the presecutions to have originated with a slr. !timbal, who
WWI an attorney, and had kept a gaming-house at :id, late do,
Pall-mall, fur the purpose of harassing the detentions. and to
emcee money front them. The defendants represented themselves
as the fathers of large families, altogether dependent on them for
existence; that the several prosecutions had totally reined them ;
and that the imprisonment they had suffered had considerably im-
paired their health.
Other affidavits were put in by the defendant Olaf eld, from
serious wine-merchants. stating their belief that he had relin-
quiAhed all connexion with gaming-houses, and was now carrying
on business in their trade with credit and respectability, and they
Lail found him honest and upright in all their transactions with
hint. Many of them offered to become security for him to any
reasonable amount..

......
Mr. ADOLPHUS. In addressing the Coon for the defendants. in
mitigation of punishment, said, he should make but few remarks
as to the motives which influenced the prosecutors who instituted
the proceedings against the defendants, since it was impossible to
mistake them. No one could for a moment doubt but they arum
from selfish and vindictive feelings. and not from any regard to the
intesests of mends of the public. The Court would recollect that
the defoudauts bad been already punished severely fur the crimes

with which they h:7,a been charged, and that those for which they ,
now awaited judgment were not of a more recent date; all, there-
forw, that could be attained ny prosecuting the defendants had been
effected. lie hoped, therefore, that the Court would scorn to lend
itself to the further pnidahment of the defendants, who had been
bowed down by suffering, who had shown and scorn that they had
given up. all connexion with gaming-houses, and who were ready
to enter into security that they would never again transgress. He
hoped that the Court would sot drive them through poverty to de-
spair, but would administer justice with mercy, and cto no inure
than was necessary to eflix-t the end proposed.
The Ar roast EY GENERAL replied in aggravation. He said,
the offence for which the defendants bad been convicted, was one
of great public injury; it was almost impossible to ascertain the
many evil+ which arose to society from such practices. lie would
not conceal, or attempt to conceal, the motives of the prosecutors,
which might be such as his karued friend, Mr. Adolphus, had at-
tr!huted to them, but he stood before the Court to pray its judg-
meat against the defendants, fur a great public offence.
Mr. Gun Kea addressed the Court on the same side, by stating
that the offence the which the defendants stood convicted, had been
carried on on a great scale, the protits of it were enormous, and the
a:hi:Wiles in the way of prosecution very great. It was seldom the
could lay hold of such offenders, and, when it did, if the Court
did not deter them and others from again transgressing, the offence
would undoubtedly increase. But if the Court would shew them that
they were playing a losing game, their practices would as certainly
cease. The Court had been told that the defendants had suffered
materielly in health from their imprisonment, but he thought that if
wholesome exercise were added to it, they would suffer leas. They I
had also informal the Court that they would not again transgresa,
but he thought the Court should so punish them, that they would
not dare.

Mr. Hoc lIIE followed also in aggravation. He would not expe-
-1 time on the grievous sin Of gambling, nor on the necessity for put.
ling down the practice, which, like the baneful Upila tree, spreads
its poievn over all. The Court had heard the defendants complain
of the sufferings and imprisonment they had undergone; but :he
Court would recollect how many, through their means, had pined
lin captivity. lithe defendants were brekenalown men, they ought
to have been so; because until they were they would not give up
their practices. In the particular case of Grant's prosecution, the
greatest aggravation or the defendants guilt was the defence they
had set up, in order to. blacken the character of the young man ;
Ito ruin him in character whom they had ruined in purse. It was
the tear of being thus exposed which prevented prosecutors from
coining fiuward.
Mr. Justice 11 iy LEY, in passing sentence, addressed the defend-
, ants in a arcch of much feeling and talent. lie said the orient:ea
which they had been convicted was one of a very high description;
one which had been carried on to a great extent; and which had
brought ruin on many families, hr dnving their supporters to den.
potation. Those who lent themselves to produce such evils were
criminal indeed. The present indictment was founded on Acts of
the 3d and 4th of' his present 31tairary. by which those who weie
convicted were not only subjected to line and imprisonment, but
also to hard labour. The Court, however, had hesitated before they
put the latter part of the punishment into execution, because the
amt had been committed after the passing of the Acts, and they
had decided against it. Every one must be aware and regret how
much every sentence of the Court must affect those who had not
transceased, by involving the families of the pill in difficulty
Aral tenable. But the defendants must recollect how many had
been in,javed by them t how many bad been deprived, by their
means, of comfort and support.
The Learned Je uoa then proceeded to pass the sentence of the
Court on the defendants. For the offence of which Oldffeld had been
,aloe convicted, the sentence was that lie should pay a fine of r:001.
For the next offence of which they had been both convicted, Old.
field was sentenced to pay a fine of 1,3001., and lkiinett a fine of
2,0001; and for the third, they were sentenced to pay each a further
fine of 1,300 L, and each to give security for his Food behaviour fir
fire years, themselves in 10,0001., and two sureties in 3,0001, each,
and be imprisoned until the fines were paid and the securities found.

CORPORATION OF GRAVESEND.
Mr. SCARLETT molted for a rule to show rause why a criminal
information should not be filed against Francis Southgate, George
Nash Rich. and two other persons, for obtruding into the Court
of the Mayor of Gravesend, obstructing him in the exercise of his
duty, and successfully resisting the constables of said Court, in
their eflbrts to remove them—Rule granted.

THE ZING TIRUST.
The defendant, who had been convicted for publishing Palmer's
Prineipks of Nature, and other blasphemous works, was brought
into Court on a motion of the Attorney General, to prove that he
had performed the promise made to time Court last Tnrm of giving
up all productions of the above description. He produced an a 5.
davit stating that since the prosecution he had not sold offensive
works of any kind, and that he was ready to give up the few now is
his lou ; that those he had previously disposed if were
b gentlemen of education and talent, who could not be
injured by the perusal of them ; that, although repeatedly urged
to republish the interdicted works, he had positively refused to do
so ; and that, moreover, his health bad suffered materially by the
punishment already indicted on him. He added, that since the
prosecution for publishing works of en immoral tendency, he had
sold Dr. trutsols's Apology for the DU*, Dr. Priestley's Answer
to Paine, and others of a ennilsr nature ; and that he had now no
concern whatever with the shop in Fleet-street.
The ATTORNEY GENIMAL, in= WA fleet altbongh he
had seated his having still many sari st'ian works in his
@ion be did not state where they wall to bifonnd ; and Lilielt
believed it was the custom with persons who sold works of the kind,
to place them beside those of a different nature, and dispose ,of
thorn together.
Trust assured the Court that the books were deposited with a
person who was ready to give them up immediately.
The Loan fitter JUSTICE—Mr. Attorney General, have you
any objection that a proper person should accompany the defend-
ant, and ascertain where the books see, and what quantitynnatins
of them ?

The ATTOINET GENZRAL...-Celtlitiy not, If yelirlierd;
ship thinks proper.
In oonseqoasee of this determbsation, the further - -
•
were postponed to a future day.

KING'S BENCH SITTINGS.
Before the Right Hon. Sir CHARLES ADZOTT, Knight.
IN TERM.

MIDDLESEX. LONDON.
Wednesday . Jan. 20 Thursday .
Wednesday . Feb. 4 Thursday .
Tuesday . . —lO Wednesday .

AFTER TERM.

Jan. 39
Feb. 5
-- 11

Friday . Feb. 1$ Saturday . Feb. 14
Sit at haft-past twelve o'clock, Jan. 2U and 29, and Feb. tand
and at hall-past mine on the ether days.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, WzaTxtirssza,
BATrauArt JAN. 3/

■ . HOARE Ayr) oTntie.

Mr. Sergeant VavartaX moved for ;ink to shew cause why the
verdict which had been glean for the plaintiff in this case should
not be set aside, and a nonsuit entered oe a new trial granted. This
was an action brought againstthc defendant*, who were extensive
brewers, trading under the name of Goodwin and Co., for an ex-
' erosive distress alleged to have been taken by them In the Coach
and Horses public house, at the time the plaintiff was tenant there-
' of. The Jury bad given a verdict for the plaintiff, damages Is.,
and the defeat:atm now again brought the easetneward, feanng lest
an imputation snoukl remain on their dnitattas bt a verdict having
been given against them. • i •
51r. Justice Be naouon—l gave my opinion on the merits of
the action, which I thought ought never to have been brought ; I
certified, in order to deprive the plaintiff of Ids coats.
Mr. Sergeant ‘'•voltax mentioned, u the first objection, that
the third count of the declaration stated that at the time when the
distress au nude for the sum of 90L, there was but a small sum of
due, "to wit, the sum of IL 3a. and no more." Under
this legation he concluded that the plaintiff was bound to have
proved the sum actually doe, and that not having done so, there
was a fatal variance between the declaration cud the proof. The
second objection was, that the sum of ..151. was really due at the
time of the distress being made • but that went to the merits of the
rase only, and related to the second part of the motion, if the first
part should be refused. The third objection, which was of the
same nature, was, that the distress had subsequently become mat-
ter of arrangement between the parties.
Lord Chief Justice Ole roe n---On this statement, I think the
action was of such a nature as ought not to have been encouraged.
With that, however, we have at present nothing to do. The
(peanut] tics before us is, whether, on the objections which have
been made. the plaintiff ought to have been nonsuited. On the
first, I am of opinion that the plaintiff is not bound to prove the
sum actually due ; and, as to the second, I think that, on the de-
fendant's own 'hewing. a sum of tb2L 10s. was alone due. There
is no imputation an the defendant's character ; but, in point of law,
the action is sustainable. As to the arrangement between the
parties. I an of opinion that that dues not destroy the right of ac-
tion, tltcugh it certainly is matter for the consideration of the Jury,
in their estimation of the damages ; I ant, therefore, of opinion,
that the rule must be retused. I may, perhaps, add, that I ram.
eider the certificate to have been very properly granted by the
Learned Judge who tried the cause.
The other Judges concurring, the rule was refused.