The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1809-11-24 00:00:00

BRITISH INSTITUTION.

The Gallery of this lestitatien has been devoted, denim;
the summer recess, to the improveineat of our junkie artiste
At the close of the last Exhibition, His Majesty .as grd
ciuusly pleased to permit one of the pictures at Hatup
Court Palace to be lest to the Institution, for the study
limitation of our artists. In 'dilation to this Royal l'atro
the following Noblemem and Gentleinen sent eighteen p.
tures, beiog some of the finest specimens of ancient art, •is.
!Marquis of Stafford... Titiaa's Mao:master, by Merest.
Lady Ler.ll4. .. .. ..... Portrait Vandyke.
5 Landocitpr ..
Earl Grommet.
d Diets
Lord Kinnainl ) Portrait
i Cosumatiew .. Teniers.
Sir F. Baring, 8art..... tombeepe Cuyp.
Sir Abrin. Haw, Bart. S ChipsChipsCrwrife4.
Ilagar soil Isnnsael .
Henry Hope, Earl ...
Butgoosaster ... Rembrandt.
.
Markin' .. Guido.
IL P Knight, Fey.... hitt. A. Caracn.
Win. Smith, Earl. M.P. Ceoreersetism -•. Erkhout.
Capt. Apr, M.P. 5 LaNdwype Both.
Ditto
Rev. W. H. Carr 5
St. flay F
isamily ..... .. Bar4occo,.
i Ad
Wm Morland, Esti ... CArist and the Coon Relent.

Now an hundred Mathes lime been made from the nhove
saleable sinks; the MIS.* past of-ehich is highly creditable
tv the talents and genius of our artists.
This part of the plan of the institution, which offwi le
the at ititent an opportunity to profit by the works of the old
masters, is particularly entitled to conseesdatios ; wad we
trust that the liberality of those of our Nubility and Gentry
who are in possession of sae collections of pictures, will
coutione their support to • plan which cannot tail of rutting
Si the greatest utility to the rising genius of the oeuntry.
The Earl of li►Crtvs returned to town, rateb
day morning, and in the evening set aid to ht.
mother. the Marchioness of HEAD/Oat, at her
house in Devonshire.
Lady Jonas returned last night to her boom in
South Audley-street, from Devonshire.
Sir Robert LAWI.CY bay taken the home last
occupied by Lady PltaTill, in Gr.s►eoor-aquaria .54
intends coming to it from Staffordshire.
A Punster observing that the rioters had wits
covered all the pit seats io Covent-Garden. and
sampling this with their rude conduct at the theatre
declared. that they had converted it into a Dare-
Goriest.
Lord Lawny* Gewsies house, is Great Stan-
hope-street. May-fair, is ruing in readiness, pre.
porstory to his Lordship's nuptials, which are
expected to take place oast week. •
A fall blown rase was pulled a few days ago is
the garden of Mr. tll'Nus► of Crevigh, Cellos!
of Down.

iitet,
his
he

K is

;tap-
Pr"
as
. .
re i.
sot,

LAW INtELLItENCE.
COURT OF KING'S BENCH, WritstlEmsa, N6Y:il3.

WRIGHT v. WARDER.
The Arroatter-Gattertat. rose to shew cause
against a Rule moved for by the Counsel of Mr.
Wardle, for • new trial. Ile said that the Court
could grant no such Retie, unless Mr. Wardle pre-
vailed upon it to administer justice to him upon
principles entirely different from its practice in or-
dinary cases. He was sure that his Counsel could
have given him no hope in his present application.
There were, he observed, certain facts, in which, if
the Court hail been at first instructed, he was con-
lideut that the Rule could never have been grant-
ed. Those fuels he would now proceed to stute.
Before any motion had been made in this Court,
Colonel Wardle had preferred an indictment, at
I licks's Hall, against Mr. Wright, his brother, and
.3lrs. Clarke, fora conspiracy to obtain the verdict
;.% en against him, under their Lordships; the; names
..1 those persons who had appeared in Court against
aim were at the back of the indictment thus (Oul-
u- brought forward, but he did out indict any one
of the witnesses for perjury. He hoped Mr. Wardle
was now in Court, and that they were not always
to hear complaints of absence, such as he lied
taro-d.
Lord Est.eallOttonaH remarked, that that could
be ao ground for granting a rule to skew came.
The ATTORNLY-GattaitaL agreed, that it could
not; he proceeded to state, that some dark Mai.
natation, were made against the Attorney who con-
ducted Mr. Wardle's business, and who was now
discharged. Mr. Wardle did not swear that hr
thought his (setae improperly conducted by hits ;
but in the very act of his dismissal, as much was pre-
tended to be insinuated ; he complained of the per-
jury of the witnesses, but had not the hardihood to
indict them ; and he had the fully to suppose, that
if he could procure a trial, from which their
testimony was excluded, ha could, by means of
his own Mewls. carry the business all his own
way ; was there eser such an impudent pro.
caeding ? There was more of little cunning and in-
tilgne in this business than their Lordships could
probably commis,. Mrs. Wright knew a good deal
of the transaction, and Mr. %V. was told that,
by preferring an indictment agsiisst the wituessea
for conspiracy, he would not oaly prevent such
witnesses froth appearing against him, but also pre-
vent Mrs. Wright herself. But there was more in
Ibis proceeding. Mr. W. was desirous to know
what could be proved against him ; and therefore
he 'flared fur a male to shew cause. He hoped he
was within hearing—if be writ in the Hall, he should
bear what be had to say upon his conduct ; he
would therefore repeat, that this rule was moved
for the purpose of ascertaining how far Mr.
W. might go, with gaiety, on tame trial of the
iodictments, which he had preferred. lie expressed
his high sense of the honesty of his Client, who
was desirous of stating all be knew, without dread
er apprehension, because he had only to state what
was true. There was :mother fact, winch, if it bad
beets comannuicated to their Lordships, hr con-
ceived that they would newer have granted • rule
to shew cause, and that was • letter of Col. Wardle
himself. which appeared the very day after the trial;
at las addressed to the people of the United Xing-
dom. In this, he (Col. Wardle) stated, that his
Counsel were satisfied in their minds, that the Jury
would not find a verdict upon the testimony of
Mrs. Clarke,' Mr. Wright, and his brother; and,
therefore, they did not attend to his wish fur the
itainuination of Major Dodd. Mr. Glennie, and
other respectable witnesses, who would have given
evidence directly contrary to that which was sworn
by these persons. From this, it was evideut, that
Mr. Wardle knew what was s.vorn agaitist him. lie
told the people of the Untied Kingdom that he had
repeatedly entreated Ins Counsel, in writing, to call
the witnesses so named. What then became of the
swivelling excuse with which he now came forward,
naively, that he had not an opportunity of commu-
Meeting personally with his Louustl ? He told the
people of the United Kingdom, that he knew what
was proved against him ; and hr further told ahem,
that his Counsel were satisfied that the testimony
of two iiiiimpeached, uncontradicted, witnesses,
would not he helieved by a Jury. if his Learned
Frieuils had said so. they were pretent, and could
confirm it. But he would do his Learned Friends
justice. It had been stated, that they got positive
written instructions. lie recollected, that. having
asked Mr. Park, while Sierjeant Best was speaking,
whether they had any witnesses to produce? Mr.
Park replied, that he felt himself in a very auk-
ward sitilation, as he had not then so opportunity
of consulting with Mr. Best upon the propriety
of preducmg evidence, which it was at his
own discretion to produce. If those facts were
known, their Lordships would oat have granted a
rule to *hew cause. lie would now make • few
comparisons between what Colonel W. had stated
with, and what without affidavit. lie stated that
hi: Counsel were of opinion that the uncontradicted
witnessed against blot *mild not be believed, and
the preseut application was 'node upon the ground
oaf surprise; when. therefore, he read the letter to '
the people of the United Kingdom, he expected
to have Gould in the affidavit, copies of the letters
to his Learned Friends, in which lie required of
ti.em to produce the witnesses, in his opinion so
ii..,werta,d to 11:s cause. No such copies, how-
appears ; there was not the slightest iuti-
mation of any such instruction, in writing ur other-
wow, in his affidavit ; he declared that lie was not
iu Court ; but did he state, that lie was cattier-
It ignorant of what was going forward in the
Court ? Did he state, that his attorney was
' not occupied in carrying him intelligence, which
must have prevented his being taken by surprise?
It was remarkable, that, in the whole of his affida-
vit. he newer mentioned having aubpernad wit-
nesses; he was indastnotis in settimmg. forth that
Mrs. Clarke and Major Dodd were subpuniad by
the Plaintiff; but it was only by accident he let
it shim, in his letter to the people of England, that
he had subpcenad the very persons himself.
What did this prove ? Did it not ,hew, beyond a
doubt. that lie was aware of the important facts
which would he urged against hou—facts with
wind; lie knew that those persons were connect-
ed, and on which hr looked for defence to the
tennuony of Major Dodd. lie would appeal
tit the recollection of their Lordships, to the reCo:o
leatum of his Learned Friends, and of all who

*ere presentat the trial, 'shelter he titl not repeat,
over and over that his case was to be proved by
three witnesses? That, upon the testimAny of Mrs:
Clarke, Mr. Wright. and Major Dodd, he rested his
proofs altogether. He named Major Dodd, whom
lie had suiipcenad, not for the purpode of build-
ing his case upon any thing he should say. for he
knew him to be the intimate and confedoate ofCo-
lonel W. but because he expected that if the De-
fendant's Counsel had proceeded to examine him,
be would draw from hint, on the cross-examination,
what might invalidate his own testimony, and es-
tablish the case which It was intended to subveit.
He did not fear Major Dodd's testimony—lie
courted it—he had challenged his Learned Friends
repeatedly to produce it. It might be said, that
though Colonel W. did not communicate his wish
fur the examination of Major Dodd to his Counsel,
he might to his Attorney ; but did his affidavit set
forth any such fact ? No ! lie was dismissed, it was
true. Mr. Ellis was substituted fur Mr. Corfield,
but no imputation was brought agaiust him, there
was nothiug but his bare dismissal, to give rtioin for
any suspicion of misconduct. He (the Attorney-
General) could give out reason fur the absence of
COSIOneI W.'s former Attorney ; it would he rather
erthward for Mr. Cortield to be present during his
ilhatement, when there existed such an impossibility
a reconciling Colonel• Wardles complaints with
Illocircuaustauce of his Attorney having acted pro-
terlY*
Lord EcLassoitovon wished to know what
was the ground of surprise upon which the motauti
rested ?
Mr. ATTORNEY-GENERAL said, that Colonel
Wardle contended, that he had never contracted
such a debt, and that the evidence produced upon
the cause had taken him completely by surprise.--
But he would beg leave to put a supposition to
their Lordships ; he would beg theta to imagine for
a moroent•that they were sitting in judgment upon
another occasion. that they were occupied in trying
an indictment for perjury; that they had, upon the
one bawd, Mr. Wardle's affidavit, and, upon' the
'other, in proof of the falsehood of that affidavit,
nothing more than his letter to the people of the
United Kingdom ; the one complaining of being
. taken by surprise, the other declaring his having
subiested witnesses. whoa, his Counsel neglected
to call. lie would ask them whether they would
not consider such proof aufficienttosubatantiate the
charge, for which vii that Cale he would be colitend-
ing? stated, that he was not in Court ; but did
he state that he was not ill the Hall, that he was
not in such a situation a. to beanie to be in Court
if he phrased ? He had stated, tliA he did not cows
sul; persoirill, with his Counsel ; hut should he
not swear in addition, before any attentitm could,
be paid to such a witsiel!, that h.• had no comma-
nicatuuo with them? But no such thiag was -done;
on the contrary, it iimeared truth two ert his wanes.
sea, that lie had sent them into Court; • proof that
he was not without his coniiuuuicatiius and io-
telligenre.
Lord Ei.r.canottouza s ti.l, that he could have
come into Court at the time, but declined it : he
could take no advantage of his absence, nor urge
it as a ground in support a his application ; he
wished him (the Attoney-Ge..eral) tustats the ear.
prise, of which he (Colonel W.) complained, in or-
der to save the trouble of going iota the affidavits
at length.
Serjeant BEST stated, that the ground upon
which they moved for the rule, was in consequence
of evidence which had been discovered since, and
which, from its nature, could not have been disco-
vered bctore. The ream) of his mot telling Major
Dodd, was, because he thought he owed it to him,
net to bring hint forward without evidence to
support bun. Their Lordships knew very well
that there were many cases in which it would be
ratilmeas to produce an evidence, let his deposition
be tier so true, if there was net evidence to corns.
borate and sopped Nes. lie stated to their Lord•
ships, as the ground upon which hr rested his op.
plicatrun, that be had been put in possession of
evidence, since the trial, which there was uo mesas
ef striving at, until after the evidence at the trial'
was disclosed. With respect to the indictment to
which the Attorney-General alluded, he could say
that he had no hand in it ; nor did he believe that
his Lenard Frieuds were eaucerised. He felt the
situation of the Defendants iii that indictment, if
the trial in that Court was permitted to precede
their trial ; but the Attornty•Geaeral had it in his
power to prevent any inconvenience of the kind, by
waiting for the decision of their trial, before they
proceeded to the other.
Lord ELLE:MOM/UGH said, that the Court would
extend its protection in criminal cases, and prevent
any unnecessary disclosure, which might anticipate
tho defence. or in any manner obstruct the cause of
those who were the object of them.
Serjeant BEST declared, that he was willing,
upon that account, to let it stand over until their
trial was decided ; but the Court being unwilling
that the Plaintiff should be kept out of his mosey
so long, refused its acquiescence.
Mr. Serjeant Ben proceeded. lie said, that he
felt somewhat aultward at an allusion made by the
Attorney-General. on the subject of the instates
tient of Colonel Wardle ; he could say, that no pee
sitive instructions were given to him ; if there had.
he felt no hesitation in stating, that whatever might
have been the consequence, he would have obeyed
them. lle had already stated the reasons why he
did not produce Major Dodd ; he would now
state the facts upon which he considered that they
were entitled to a new trial. He contended, that
whether the verdict obtained against Colonel War-
dle was right or wrong, it was not obtained in a man.
tier consistent with the jurisprudence of this coun-
try, namely, under a full and complete possession
of evidence by the Court and Jury ; and he sub-
mitted whether it would not be a hard thing, if it
should afterwards turn out that the parties were
eutivicted of conspiracy, that they should here the
fruits of their iniquity in their pockets. There
were many inconsistencies in the evidence upon
which the verdict was obtained; insomuch so. that
the Jury hesitated for some hours before they were
finally agreed ; of one witness, he eight say lfrseu
what passed is gawkier phseel that on' Joey ovoid
believe her. But he did vat adds's. theta merely
upon the iwprobstility of the *ld woe. If the
audit was give. to him Cleellea dew fele ea sad
of the Plaiatire ease: she mete they weroferaido
ad on the crsdit el Kr. Wig* ; bit.lM Caen

Might rertiember hon'ilsc 'agitated. bb being asiciii
as to the period of her acquaintance wide him : she
said at first teat It commeuced about autumn. but
afterwards It turned out that she knew bite about
the 16th of November ; so that, according to her
own chewing, she had given false evidence in the
first instance. All this hesitation was occasioned by
her anxiety to chew that it was upon bis credit the
house was furnisbed, in order to witch it was ma-
terial that their acquaintance should have preceded
the agreement with Mr. Wright. In this however
they failed; some of the goods were rent in before
her acquaintance Mr. IVardle; and in order to
account for this, it was stated that they were sent
there on hire; upon this there was a direct contra-
dic.ion between the parties. Mrs. Clarke swore
that the goods were returned to Wright, and
Wright swore that they were seized in execution.
Since the trial, it was discovered that a Mr. Curt,
a Mr. Simeon Bull, and his servant woman, of the
name of Mumford, could directly contradict the
evidence adduced upon, that trial. If their Lord-
ships were of opinion that it would advance the
justice of the case to grant a new one, he was pre-
cluded they would do it ; and when the circums
stances were such as to make the Jury hesitate for
hours, and a discovery had Ewell since made of evi-
dence which weut in direct contradiction to the tee-

timony then advanced. he thought he might with
justice apply for and expect a new trial.
Lard Ext.tmsoaoccnt said, that if the Court
was to great a new trial is the present case, upon
such grounds, it would be establishing a dangerous
principle, the security of prowerty would be reit.
dered invalid, and all trials go for nothing, if lia-
ble to be set aside upon further discoveries of evi-
dence.
Mr. Serjennt ilcsr observed, that, in asking for a
new trial, they did not call upon the Court to say
whether the affidavit of Sir Richard Phillips wap
true or false, but merely sought for an oppurtuuity
to confront him with Mrs. Clarke. . _

Lo►d ELLLNIBOBOUGII wished to know what facts
Bull could hare mated.

Mr. Serjeaut &ST said, that the reason given to
maintain tile fact of the furniture being given oil
Mr. Wardle's credit was, that Mrs. Clarke would
not have been credited by Wright. This Wnght
himself had sworn to; but Bull could prove that
.Wright had about that time recommended her to
hiru as a lodger, and said that he was looking about
for a house for her, which he was to (turns!) ou her
own account.
Lord ELLaNBOROUGII said, that the whole effect
of this legato prove that he wished to get her impro-
per credit, but was not by any means inconsistent
with the story.
. „ Mr. Scrjeant BEST allowed, that if it 'las against
the rules of the Court, it could not be expected ;
but he might say, as bad been said elsewhere, tgat •
great deal of infamy must rest somewhere, Whit it was
the wish of his client to have it sifted to the bottom;
lie was anxious to have an opportunity ofshewin, that
what the Attorney-General had stated that day ori-
ginated in the same conspiracy, and was founded
upon thy same perju'ry, of which he cotnplained.
Mr. PARK insisted strongly on the contradiction
given by the affidavit of Mr. Curt to Mrs. Clarke's,
evidence. She stated, that she did not know Mr,
Wardle, until the 16th of November ; but Curt
swore, that be met Wright on the gth, and that lie
said he was coming from Mrs. Clarke's house, which
he had just begun to furnish; he had taken carpets to
her, and other articles, different from those described
loy her. lie (Mr. Park) stated farther, that he had
never received any peremptory orders from his
Client, but that it was left to his own discßetion as
to whether lie should produce the evidence; and
confirmed the account given by the Attorney-Gene-
ral, of his conversation with him upon that subject.
Their case did not rest solely upon what he had
already stated ; they could also prove that Wright,
though he swore he would not trust her, had gone
bail for her about the same time.
Lord Er.t.a►susouma observed, that he was,
probably, aware of .her being afeinnte cocert, and
therefore conscious that he incurred no risk by
that act. _

Mr. Pane said, that they were not even con-
fiord to that, for they could also prove, that, with
all his protestations against giving her credit, he had
given his draft for 1081. the amount of the fixtures
at Westbourne-place, so that up to the momeut
these goods were sent in, he was in the habit of
giving her credit. This 1091. was entirely distinct
Irons the 5001. mentioned on the new trial.
Lord Em.straoitottos said, that Cart, being
Mrs. Clarke's landlord, et Westbourne-iplace, was
• most natural witness to resort to. Why, there..
fore, was he not produced at first ?
Mr. PARE concluded with observing, that he had
also paid her rent ; and that other circumstances
could be shewn, aot depending upon parole proof,
if the Court would grant the trial.
Mr. MAIIRTATt on the same side, said, he was
astonished haw the Learned Attorney-General
could state, that it was a contrivance of the De-
fendant to get at the defence of the Plaintiff.—
The Learned Gentleman might, with his acuteness,
have found out, that the Defendant was in the
setae sitnatian. But, leaving the evidence of
Dodd, Glennie, kc. out of the question, was there
not sufficient cause for a new trial, front the affidavit
of Col. Wardle? Did that not shew that there was
surprise its the case ? Although it had been argued
that he was in the hall, yet he might not hare been
there. and only have heard what evidence was ad-
duced half an hour before the trial was finish-
ed. Another point the Court ought to consider
was, the short time the Defendant had for prepara-
tion to defend this cause. The demand was made
on the ed of Juoe, and on the 19th of July the ac-
tion was tried.
Lord ELLINIOROIJOB---•" That cannot be now
pleaded as a cause fur • new trial; for, if the De-
fendant had complained that lie had not sufficient
time to defend the action✓ on en application, the.
Court is .Iways reedy to give reasonable indel..2
geom." t.q
Mr. !dimmer?, in condensation :—lt appeared
that the Pieintiff hail no account in his besirlis
=the Defendant; that was only fourkiirset in
r last, by the Plaintiff's answer toterbill rn
Chancery ; also the affidavit of Joseph Cur% which
arts forth, that he met the Plaintiff' on the gilt of
NoVexaber, before Mrs. Clarke was acquayted
with the Deiced...l, and he told hies that 14- -in-
gaioi to the house is Witetbeereileseep to take

.

Inestsere tot carpets and &Meta, In be pcs &nee
and set down in that house. This, the Lestresed
Counsel eontended, proved that the Pbsintiff resin
the act of furnishing the hotter*, before the Defend-
aut was even known to Mrs. Clarke; also the etre
curnstance of the Plaintiff's having hum red the for-
uiture in the name of Farquhar, and, on the mime
day, making another insurance, Ili the name el
Clarke, proved that the furniture was not insured
for Mrs. Clarke, but for her mother.
Lord Eeeteeciaouclit—•• It was siren is evi-
dence ou the trial. that there were goods to a con-
siderable amount rent into the house, at West.
bourne-place, on hire, by the Plaintiff. If Mrs.
Clarke had sworn there were no carpets, it might
have a different appearance ; but as to the questiou
about the Infurauce-Offices. if proper diligence had
been used before the trial, you could as well have
known then in whose name the IN,Ii y boil heel]
completed, and by whom, us now. You have not
mentioned a particle of evidence, that you might
not have produced at the trial, except the answer
to the bill in Chancery. which we have no right id
look at ; you might have put off the troll until
after the bill in Chancery had been filed. la which
case, we could have rec.ived the answer as PVI.
deuce."
Mr. Meatteerr then concluded by saying, that
Mrs. Clarke had given in evidence, that she never
thought of any other person paying for the harms
tune hut the Defendant ; which was contradicted
by the affidavit of Sir Richard Phillips; *kerma
he declares, that Mrs. Clarke gave him, as a reason
for her wishing to make the most of her publica•
trots, that she had to pay 3nool. to the Plaintiff,
for the furniture scut in by him to the house in
Westbourne-place. Upon these groudda, he trusts
ed that the Court is ls world not think him unree
sociable in pressing them fo grant* new trial.
Lord ELLValioaoUGlll—" I think, that if
granted a new trial, it would be a most dangerous
precedent. mud-would be injurious to the 'Mann.-
tratiun of justice; it would be enabling Defend.
ants to lie by, until they knew • the Plaintiff's ease,
arid. es was very properly stated by Mr. Attorneee
General, that they then might fish for evidence t'
contradict the case. The Court, in granting •
cowl trial, requires the party applying to sheer
that they were taken by surprise, and that they'
had used every due diligence beforehand, to
bring forward the nesressary evidence. It is mile
on such convincing provide that the Court can
grant a new trial. What surprise is there
this case. that common industry could not have
prevented , As to the affidavit of Curtis, the land •
lord, coals ,not his evidence have Len obtained oa
the trial ? 1 due diligence bad been used, would
it not have been uatural for the Defendant to have
applied to flit Imalliirdpf the house, in the "
instance. who wns more likely to know the cie:urne
stitucev or the tenant, than he that lets the house 7
tie neglects to apply to him, and he calls upon a
Court to exonerate him from that uvglect ? There
is no pretence that Curts's evidence could not ha,
been had on the trial. As to the business of . _
insurances, 1 left that to the Jury, and they decided
on it, If all the circumstances of that Iran—
action we seer- bikes them, it wits the Defeuda
ant alone that was remiss, for, by common i•-
dustry, he could have produced it. As to
Plaintiff's bailing Mrs. Clarke, is several actiouss
there was nothing in it ; he knew she bad pleaded
her coverture, and he could not be hurt. As to
answer in Chancery, the Court cannot look at '
If the Defendant had tiled his bill before the
he could have moved to have had it put off
the answer was put in. It is not that those
curastances would not have affected the case,
it is that the circumstances did not come on the
fendant by surprise. As to his not having personal
communication with his Counsel, lie might have hail
it by taking a few steps from the hall into the court.
I have taken every circamstance of the case into me
consideration, and sin of opinion that a new trial
should not be granted."
Mr. Justice Gaose—" I em of opinion that no
case of surprise has been ,hewn. The case seems
to me to be this, that the Defendant's Counsel,
very judiciously, on seeing the Plaintiff's case,
made a speech, mud left it to the Jury. It world
be a dangerous precedent to grant a mew trial on
such merits."
Mr. Justice Le ELAWC entered minutely into
every circumstance of the case, and concluded by
observing. that the Court would be trampling on
justice, if they granted a new trial. If it did beat
hard upon the Defendant, which he would not
say it did, it was better that one should suffer, than
live hundred ; for it would be laying down a pre•
cedent, the perniciousness of which, perhaps, might
never be rooted out.
Mr. Serjeant Bette—" The Defendant was ap-
prised of what the nature of his defence should
have been : and the only subject of surprise.
brought forward is, that Mrs. Clarke, on the trial.
said. that the Plaintiff would• not entrust her; and
that the Defendant, to rebut that. brings forward
affidavits to prove that he would have entrusted
her. I entirely agree with the Learned Judges
that a new trial should not be granted."
The new trial, of course, was refused.
The Court was crowded at a very early hour:.
Col. Wardle did not appear in Court.
1119 ROYAL HIGHNESS THE DUKE OF SUSSEX
LIBEL.
WIZ SING V. MINIM 111011S2118 411.
Mr. ATrORIIEY-GETILIAt. moved, that the Dee
fendant should be brought in tojeceive the judg-
ment of the Court, for printing a Libel ou His
Weal Highness the Duke of Sonwee.

Jyt _At*.
Lord ELLEHBOROVUR read over the minutes of
the triad, which was tried before him, in February
last. It was an information against the Defendant,
for printing and publishing a hand-bill, setting forth,
that His Royal Highness had been gulby of a en.
min.! offence. It was an information, and the Do.
leodant pleaded not guilty. The hand-bill was
nearly as follosis
's Twenty peach reward--Wberess there has been as
flews Isbol niplishod to trselure the character sea writs.
time of Mr. Tbrasiras Hsgur, the author of whit h is soppered
to be hie keyed Ibiboitsa the Il,tlr of Sussex Any pers. a
who will givess ayn, is as I:e stay hr convicted, 'll4l 1
receive the a d."--Illeery Llorseaeso, pnoter, Has.
way. street
The Dofetwitretind in an affidavit, setting forth,
riat he bsi been iu the service of Thomas Hague. -
for eight years; that Hague used to sell his books
through the booksellers; but that wore fuiir g
1.2

woe
adl
• ••
rill
od-
MP.
'0
e-
rne
red
rbl
I I'M.
ght
had
RV(
eta •
not
gin
*et
t td . •
old I,#
iith
that
ever
:tu•
rf
req.& •
100111
IC4* •
e IN
vita
sea*
we •
reUil •14
end.
Care,
t: to
• sr+
she.,
they'
• to
only
I‘l
ever
• ill
have
4
d oe,
gold
have
flrgt
t:urn.
use T
I tho
.'here
have
f the I
tided
'feud.
n in.
o the a.
Ilona.
Glided
othe
trial.
until
e cir.
but ti
e Dr.
•
retinal
re had

i•
•
1 ..