The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1825-04-28 00:00:00

LAW INTELI.Iar.YCZ.

—saateew---
WERT Of KING'S BENCH, WEDNESDAY; APRIL ri.
111/NE V. PAttfitS. •
Mr. Baonowax, on behalf of the defendant., begged to move
that, this ease should be sent to the Consideration of a third Jury 5
he did this upon the affidavit of the defendant, and he well knew
the difficulties . under which he laboured in submitting this ease tip
the favourable consideration of the Court. First, he had not heart]
any of the former prouseding,not even being present as a by-stander
for more than ten minutes during the trial, and therefore for any
thing that hid pained, he (Mr. Brougham) was not responsible ;
the defendant, however, on the last trial, labotwed under difficulties
which his (Mr. B.'s) experience led him to think was great, for he
considered that his character was at. ;take, and therefore he had
thought proper personally to meet the charges he was unused of,
and had therefore 'personally preser.., ti himself before the Jury ;
he was, too, at the time deprivEff of the assistance of his vei--
respectable and able solicitor, who was from a dreadful malady pre-
vented attending the Court on the trial, and was compelled to pot
up with the mete assistance of the Clerk of that Solicitor, who was
totally ignorant of tlic 'main points of the cause.
Ale. Justice BAYLEY—AII tbititrould have bead grounds fall an
application to postpone the trial.
Mr. Raoul:ilia n—lf the defendant had been assisted by Coen-
sel, perhaps he would have adopted that course.
Mr. Justice Barter —And it was his own fault that he did
flOkavail Mineell of Counsel's assistance.
Mr. Baot:GH•11 —Perhaps so ; but still he looked up to the Court
for the protection of his character: two juries had certainly given
verdicts agaitiet him, and those verdicts were consistent with eact
other( but when the Court recollected the grave nature of the charge
against the defendant, be trusted that it would Interfere. The pre
sent action icdpvited to the defendant that he had appropriated the
moneys of a public charity to his own use. This was a Margie
which he (Mr. Dvougham) trusted the whole public-spirited life
and character of Mr. parkins tended to rebut. He had by his purm
contributed largely to the public spirit of the times. He might
have had his whims, but he certainly was not the man who woult!
rob a till, a church, or the pooetii.hox of it. This was conduct that
could not be attached to alr.,Parkins and he appealed to the com.:
mon sense and humanity of their Lot'dihips in support edit. The.
sktintony which gave foundation for •the verdict win that of Air.
Cobbett. He ( Mr. therugham) would not, ,ax applied to Mr.
Cobbett, make use of an expression thrtt ...night be considered as
harsh or offensive, but, like other men, he must be liable to pre-i
judice, and if he war prejudiced either against or for Mr. Par..
kins, his testimony ought to be very closely watched. Now Mr.
Perkins swore in his affidavit that there had been an action peadin
between himself and Mr. Cobbett regarding a horse; that Mr, P.
had recovered. verdit t, and that Alr. Cobbett, at the time Ca gara
his evidence, smarted under the effects of that verdict, and had im-
bibed a spirit of rancour, hatred, and prejudice against Air. Par-
kins ; indeed the very questions and answers of Mr. Parkins and
Mr. Cobbett showed that no very great affection existed between
the parties--(loud laughter)--for Instance, when Cobbett was sim-
ply asked on *hat day did such a conversation take place. instead
of giving a day, a mcnth, or even a year, he replied—" Why. is
was the day that you told me that you were the son of the lat.:
Duke of Norfolk, to whom you had lent 28,0001." Orthat "it
was the day you told me that Lord Sidmouth had paraded all his
daughters before you, for you to choose one of them ler a wife."
(Here there was a loud roar of laughter, in which the Es-Sheriff
appeared to join heartily, anti their Lordships shook their sides with
it.) The Learned Counsel then proceeded to comment upon the
evidence at-great length. He contended, if Mr. Parkins did
really make the admissions imputed to him, that he must be coo-
sidered as toning at random—he lids the author of the subscrip-
tion for Byme—it was at the time his favourite child ; (a loud
laugh ;) he was anxious of being congratulated on its success, and
perhaps be bragged of his doings--hut no man of sense could for
moment suppose that so large a sum as WWI alleged could ever
be collected by twopenny subscriptions dropped into little tin
boxes.
Mr. Justice BATLEY—But, really, all this was a matter for
the jury. to consider ; and, by your own admission, Air. Brougham,
two juries have come very nearly to the same conclusion.
Air. Baoucinam then contended that the writings of Mr. Cob-
bet in the Statesman, and in his Register, published at the time
lie fixed as the period at which Mr. Parkins acknowledged the
amount of the subscriptions he had received, were totally at va-
riance with his teetimony on the trial ; and Mr. Parkins, in the
affidavit upon which he (Mr. Brongbarn) non moved, denied these
admissions in tom.

Mr. Justice BAYLET.-But that is not evidence that could
go before another jury, and whets would be the use of a third
trial

Mr. C. PHILLIPS here observed, as we understood, that Mr.
Cobbett was not editor of the Stalerman at the time which Mr.
Brougham had alluded to.
Mr. BROUGHAM, in reply, rather sarcastically observed, that
whether .Ir. Cobbett was, or RAS not, editor of that paper, the
articles he alluded to were signed ‘• Witham Cohbett," and with
regard to his own Registet that would speak for itself. The
Learned Counsel then urged strongly the con.asaistancie of Counsel
on the part of the defendant at the trial.
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE—Tim defendant complained of the
gentleman who was to have conducted his case on the first trial, be•
cause he was prevented attending by indisposition ; he then abused
the gentleman who, at a moment's notice, undertook Ins defence;
and he has since that heaped abuee upon almost every gentleman
at the bar.
Mr. BROUGHAM then went on to contend that a new trial might
to be granted, because a witness named Lemoine, who had been
subpoenaed, was not present at the second trial, ahhough he was
examined at the first. The character of Mr. Parkins upon some
occasions might not have been judicious, but his honesty, his
honour, and his morality in money matters, had never been at-
tempted to be impeached, and upon these grounds be submitted
with confidence his awe to their Lordships.
Mr. Justice Iletcr y, Mr. Justice Ho nOYD, and Mr. Justice
LITT LEDALE then gave their opinions, seriatim. They thought
that the present verdict ought not to be disturbed ; the ease bed
been calmly considered by two juries. The evidence of Lemoine
they did not think of importance.
Upon the second trial, the defendant went before the Jury under
more favourable circumstances than defendants generally did. for
he had heard the evidence given on the first trial, and could not ba
taken by surprise; if the defendant had been damnified by the non-
attendance of Lemoine, lie had his remedy, either by acuon, or the
summary mode of attachment for contempt.
The LeBD CHIEF J !MICE did not delirer his opinion.
Rule refused.