The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1825-07-30 00:00:00

\did'

, , _
'erit/ence in opposition an the part of die deter Wont. Butt I tool MIS
proceeding oa the pan of the peoolClltat eat very excusatehrelar.
although the unfortunate man might bare soferesl an unjust pu.
abilnueor, which coutd Mt be recalled, yet it mist have boo h
source of consolation to hint to 'lnstitute his character frost tili
4.41 stain which bad been bit Upon ft. ~,
'Ale Jury immediately flittfid the de*nda Griffet,
WRSTRIIAttrI!CU) it 0..1.
-
• 21. •
DEVONSIittiE ASSI7.r.S, EXETER, JULY Ir.
. ,i -e.t.a;
POI. Erdft..
anti
~;
Before Mr. Justice LYTTI.CD4LS. a LOMMOD Jett
INDICTMENT FOR LIBEL. ..
THE KING v. POLLARD.
Mr. RAYLCT opened the pleadings, and stated this was tat ire,
dietntent against the defendant, for a Malicious libel on the prose-
cutor (the Rev. Mr. Lry), contained in several letters which had
passed between hint and the defendonft The ft:die-the/at on !!lien
the present proceeding was founded had been prektred in the I; Attu
of King's Bench, and the defendant pleaded not gutty.
Mr. t:. r. WILL IA us Rowed the case to the Jury fit the *rub.
tiff, and said his client had b ten compelled to institute the pcatest
proceedings in ecnsequence of the libeilaos and malicious "Pe"
Monti of the defendant:. earl for the perpose of vindleatidt bit
character from the iniputstiont easbupgn it bit the tinwarretstabila
and offensive conductor Pollard, the defendant in this acthen. rise
prosecutor, who was the father of a large family, and a respetuale
clergyman of the Established Church, vies demons of nnalifying
i one of hii sons for the medical profession, having previoUsl7 plat t 1
' two other sons at the University. With this view he ht.P led to
Mr. Pollard, the defendant in tills action, who was an cotinch:
practitioner or surgery,. residing et Torquay. The necearer la-
magenta/Ls having been.. entered Ante, Mr.leey's san was aeed
li`e ' with, the defendant in t espar.ity of an apprentice. Ile ma
of
observe, that the young gentleman had been prepared for liar. pro-
fession in which it was intended he should engage, by a nzund and
liberal Education, and a handsome premium was of comet *ld ei
.111 e. P-.4lartl with his newt apprentice; and yet, nrawithet ding
ni these favourable circiisr.nces, the defendant had thought it pre
to expregitis decided opinion of the youth's unfitness end knetties-
tip
city for theloettistir marked nut for itim, and that with inthetere
first fortnight Of the latter'S appfebticeehip, when he cottid bare
had but very slight if any grounds for forming such MI cliiniefo•
He (Mr. NlTliarna) entertained little dotbethe Jury woOldeto*td-
the teseelusion that the defendant, had homed a very. Prernatutestbil
unfounded opinion upon the subject, and that he, Wail not ittat.tied
In representing the plaintiff's sen as incompetent for the profesSibri,
and imbecile in character and &Mina'. However, be the fxctai je
might, the Jury (such of titern at leaf as were parents) untat.knott
' In what manner sucha piece of intelligence was likely to be received
by a father, and how it would operets on hie feelings t Ven if im..•
rutted in the loom considerate, mild, and beComing manna.: %But
had that been the case in the peer:int iastacC? Plot at aIL „Wad
the unpleasant and afflicting infermatir communicated in a itio to
atone foe its unpaletablences ? or had it nut ruttier been Itedglitenea
and tendered doubly poignant by the tootle of convert* jt ?
Il'hett he told the Jury the latter was the case, add that the asTor
Oration was given to the father, not in language metre:reed be &rata
by a regard for parental teelinge, but in words and a styis of tome
munication the most gross ant! intolerable, they wthild Anil* ho 3
to atipreciate the suffering.' of his client, and (to say the jettitof
it) t, c hidecoroue conduct of the defeedant. tilt Lerirne`d Otntle.-
man then proceeded to reed part of the letters thlnt had pissed be
tweeh :he plaintiff and defendant on this subject; and in V,/ o'.
which the alleged libel on whichthe indictment mas fohndell vest
contained.] The first letter he aliould reed Was oae eddreeeeti be
his client to the defendant, and requitink on his pert, es perfectle
eight and reasonable, an explanation of his extraordinary treatmeti
of the plaintiff's son. Tire letter was as follows
(No. I.)
Asitpringlon, June 6,1. BP.
" Dear Sir,--It does not becerne nis to use coarse language. not
is it agreeable to rpe to be the object of it. You have made en,
abundance of general emertinns, reproatetul and unintelligible; b•.:
liai't not metal one tact to which I might apply them. You hays
praised yourmlf and have abused me. 'This is nut very decoroits.
However, I pass it by, and proceed to businate.•
You say my son does not suit your and I now perceive that
you do not suit my *on. You 4sa• yen. do ;Mt wish to injure him :
certainly I should be sorry even io inconeerilence you. You Wilt
to settle the business between us amicably ; in this we agree..
..Under these circumstances, return me the premiere you (lase
received, and engage to sign over the indenture to tiny person I may
hereafter name, who may suit my con and whom my non may suit.
" I make this proposal. because it leads directly to a conclution,
end because, if I understand your proposal aright, I could not se-
cede to it. 'When all is settled, I shall esteem it a favour if you
will explain on whet grounds you have founded your objectimui not
reproaches, for, to this moment, I ant perfectly ignorant of theta
jepecifiz nature.
," I ate, dear Sir, your matt Obedient sertent, .
„,
" To Wm. Pollard, Lsq." " J. Let 4
In answer to this communication the plaintiff received the fal-
lowing most unjustihoble and indecorous reply, which formed port
of the libel charged in the indictment, and, atter rending the letter,
he (Mr. Williams) would put it to the Jury to ray, whether it was
net most malicious and offensive in its nature :
(No. f 1.% • .
."
Torquay, Jane tn, 1824.
"Sir,—On receiving your letter a fortnight since, I felt such cone
tempt for a person who could be capable (in the first initante)st
practising such a gross imposition on toe, and then have t..e Oliva-
tery to endeavour to persevere in the impoiltiOn at the expense of
honour and every good feeling that might have been expected; that
I did not choose to answer it. The general expression of your let.
ter was insolent, to say the best of it : it e'idently showed you
would sacrifice your son, as well as myself, to an urgovCmable ob.
ainaey and a mean unmanly spirit, or yob would not leave him
Stith me. You are effecting .ignorance on some point; and Asia:*
ing others not true. Your eon is a useless ineumbrance to me ‘
and after sour conduct, naturally it's extremely di.agreeable bolt.
to Mrs. I'4ollard and myself to have him in the house; sad tha
what yen tan he must leave at last, and all forte stratagems-eaß
your evasions, can avail no ping as affecting the main point e
hence you had better take him away irithoOt further delay.
" The qttestion as to whether any or what part of the preiniurd
shall be returned to you is a very proper one to be submitted to a
reference, because a manifest difference of opinion exists bettreeh Ili
on the subject, and as all the declarations of detire to settle this
matter arateahly niust be at variance with truth, when it'
companied by a refusal to leave the que 4 n t r an honourable it
ference, it will be quite useless, unless thin enethod be adopted, to
hope fur a fair and honourable termination of a business, which; in
justice to your son, you ought never to have allotted of itl betel
mentioned to any indifferent persons. I shall have no objection ti
assign over the indenture to any person, provided there is no coo-
ceslment of eircuntsteneee. . . .
`. I had hoped my ieterview with Mr. James Coinirth Would
have Lad the effect of diverting your mind from persevering fa s
course which cannot possibly answer any good purpbse. But heat-
ing nothing from him since has caused me to write to von, ar.4
earnestly as I wish to have it settled, yet if you are kill india:,
posed to do so, you will find me as determined ; and whilst I exist
l and possess a shilling, I will not submit to such a gross imposition 4
which at first might have admitted of excuse.
" I am, Sir, your obedient servant,
" Wit. POLLARD."
" To the Rev. JeCob Ley, Ashprington."
4 Was this language to be addressed to a father and a clergymati
in the situation of the plaintiff .M ? and was r. Pollard juetihabie .
the course he had therein adopted ? His client, feeling the tete
of the insults and injury intficied, eddressed him as followed t—
(No. 3.)
le Ashprington, lit July, 1824.
"Sir,—l am greatly at a-loss to understand whether the abuarei
language with which you honour me be natural to you, or whether
it be forced and got up for the occasion, to accomplish come parti-
cular object which you have in view. For certain, my letter tayv
no foundation for it. In that letter, to which I still adhere, Ire.
I press my disapprobation of coarse language, decline your prOpcsall
reference, and consent to transfer my son to another master on set.
tarn statvi teems. I have now to add, that I have co desire fret
concealment, but will readily agree with you—whether I eel it}
treaty for a master or you in treaty. fur an apprentice—to
our correspondence before the party with whom we treat. I'3
will be reeipieteally candid. On this ground I have acted in For
warding cop:en pt' our our 'letters to Mr. Kitson, to whom vela
inentional en dingy.-- Y . mailing-4
' - !testi
. I han
unfaiflye
-v eat

. .
been Aly eentriete.), on the oath of curtain perioni ; 'ibexes in
truth, as the indictment alleged, he had not been duly convicted on
' the, oath of the persons mentioned. It appeared to him, that
it was open to the prosecutor to show that he had nut been
duly convicted' lAt all events his Lordship thought he shottid '
act impropaly if he stopt such alitosecution as this on the '
ground taken.. " Hod forbid I" said his Lordship with aril.
malice, " that his Majesty's objects should any longer hi
exposed to ugh proceeding. as this case exhibits." The
allegation is, that Baker was nut dole convicted. I think the law
1 has gone as far as it ought to do, and indeed farther then 1 think it
should do, with reapect to the privilege of Magistrate* protecting
themselves front liability, by convictions drawn up by themselves-
, nut I lived an hundred years ago, I certainly should have used my
, efforts to discotintenenem such a doctrine. It has already been
;carried too far. and I shall not carry it farther. Other JedgeS may
do as they think proper. will nut stop the proiteution. I shall.
however, give Mr. illarryatleiee to move an arreat ofjudgment, if
he thinks I have acted erroneously.
Joseph Abbott examined. Thy witness's evidence went to in.
culate the prosecutor.
Thomu Ferguson gave similar testimony.
George Chamberlaine, of No. 7. Jeacols-atreet, BeeMondsey, cor-'
roborated Abbott's evidence, and gave rosily the smite account of
what took place between Baker and the pi in the Park.
Examined by the CHIEF JUSTICE—, had one shilling of the
money. I don't recollect why I had not more: Teruel) or 30 yards
loft-. I was near enough to see all that pastett.lk.g. could not tell
whether it was a child or a woman. I did not heaiethe child make
any outcry or noise. At first I thought it was • mars* We did
'not intafere until the man had left her. lithe girl had made a
noise we must have heard her. The girl was present at the exa.
mination. I did not hear her asked where she lived.
The depositions returned to the Sessions along with the while.
tion week then put in and read. They purported to be signed by
the defendant, and recited in the usual form, that the deponents
had been sworn and examined before the defendant. The ordp.de-
positions returned were those of Abbott and Ferguson. The brat
professed to give the words in which the deponent delivered his
evidence; and after stating the circumstances which he sweretol
have observed in the Park ( which, however, differed in several
material particulars from his 'evidence now given) concluded in
li
these words, " contrary, to the form of the statute in that case made
land provided." The '*position of Ferguson was only to this
effect—" that the facts stated by the other deponent are true, to the
best of this deponent:a belief." There was no examination of the '
girl returned, net vets there any examination of the witness Channl
berlaina
This was the can: it the defendant.
Mr. GURNEY then addressed the Jury in reply; He had told 1
the Jury in the outset, that the 'question was not whether Baker
was or was not guilty of the silence alleged &rim himi, but
whether the defendant had acquired a judicial knowledneenf the
facts and circeinstances of the case, before he doomed the unfurto.
nate man to three months' imprisonment, and hard labour in The
house of correction. The guilt of Baker, assuming it to hut hien
satisfactorily made out, could be no answer to this indictment.
Let that unfortunate person be ever. AO guilty, the conduct of the
' defendant was equally illegal and !mproper. But lie contended
with confidence that the story told by thmthree men, who bad lietii
examined as to the transaction In tile path, was so inconsistent and
improbable as to be wholly unworthy of credit, a hen opposed to the
solemn declaration of Baker liiineelf. Jury had fhei
opportunity of observing his demeanour, and they would
judge • hether his evidence did not oatweigh the testimony
of those persons to whom his evidence was opposed. The
thing was improbable and incredible. Again, these persons j
professed to give the most minute account of what din:Retail seen ;
and yet they could not, at the distance of 20 or 30 yards, discern
whether die female was • grown *Milan of a child. Thla circurn-1
stance was suff,dent of itself to damn the whole of their evidence. ;
But how happened it, that the girl herself, who was the qnly im.
lament witness upon Ruch an issue, had not been produced ? She
was within the reach of the defendant. and if not, it might have
been shown, that unsuccessful steps had been taken to find her.
For any thing that appeared, she 'bight now be in the town, and
yet she was not called. This abstinence on the oilier side, in not
examining her, was another decisive proof of the faleetiood of
the charge against this unhappy man. Put leaving the
guilt or innocence of Baker out of the question, for it realty
had nothing to do with this issue, the real point being whether the
defendant, as a Magistrate, sitting as a Judge and a Jury upo.i die
tote of an accused man (however guilty), had conducted himself in
• manner which could be tolerated in any civilized country go.
vented by laws, and regulated by humane institutions. The two-
fold defence set up by the defendant wan somewhat ciltkous.
First, it was said that the indictment was out of time, because
three months had Clamed. This was the first time lie (Mr.
Gurney) had ever heard of any limitation as to the time
within which an indictment must be preferred. Ile remembered
•inan of distinguished rank brought to justice twenty one years
after the commission of his nefarious crime. The Act of Perna-
ment upon which his friend relied, contained, it was true, a linii.
tation, but was confined solely to civil actions, and did not extend
to indictments. That ground of defence, therefore completely
failed. The second ground of defence was, that the defendant was
protected by the convktion which had been regularly drawn up
and returned to the sessions. Ills Learned Friend had attempted
to justify, or at least excuse the defendant on the groung of loran.
tion and meta misapprehension as to the nature of the papers
which he was called upon to sign. Now did this topic
square with the second ground of defence? If the defend.
apt hail incautiously signed depositions and a warrant of commit.
ment, containing • false assertion that the parties had been duly
convicted, and that the witnesses had bceh duly ::corn and exa-
mined, by him, the defendant, with what colour of propriety or
decency could he afterwards deliberately draw up • conviction in
which he solemnly asserted that he had duly convicted die party,
and had duly examined the witnesses on oath ? Such a proceeding,
he asserted, amounted to a forgery t for it was the torgery of a
record for his own defence. This was heaping crime upon crime,
and an infumous attempt to justify one crime by committing an-
other. The Learned Counsel animadverted in energetie terms upon
the improper practice which had obtained in Mr. Bicknell's Mine.
Here the clerk's clerk was the Judge and the Jury—the person to
make the commitments, and to deal with the liberty of the King's
subject., upon the formal signature of the Justice,. wh..3 was either
too indolent or too dishonest to trouble himself with the important
functions of his office. Ile hosed to see the cloy that this most in.
iquitous ey 'tern would be effectually checked. It was too mon-
strous for toleration in a civilised country. Such conduct mule the
blood boil with indignation. And yet the defendant now Attempted
to shield himself from justice by forging a record, and availing him.
self of a protection Intended for the honest Magistracy of the
country fairly acting in the discharge of their duty, in order to
screen his iniquity. The day would soon arrive, he trusted, when
this privilege of onanufacturing convictions to protect the acts of
justices, would be taken away. It led to the most serious conse-
quences, as it affected the honest and upright administration ofjus-
tice, particularly in times when the magistracy of the country were
vested with such large discretionary powers. It was said that the
defendant did not act front any corrupt or unworthy motive, and
that he had manifested a desire to leave no stone unturned to rescue
this unhappy man from an unjust punishment. Did he dew ? The
whole case negatived all excuse of that kind. Upon discovering the
fatal error into which he had fallen, what was to prevent his apply.
ing immediately to the Secretary of State, who would instantly
have ordered the man's liberation upon the bare statement of the
case? But no, thedefendant had not the manliness to confess his error.
On the contrary, he blindly and obstinately persevered in his mis.
conduct, and afterwards had the infamy to forge a false convictions
in order to shield himself from legal responaibilite. }hippy was he
(Mr. (lucency) to say, the commission of the peace was seldom
stained by proceedings of tide nature. The Jury, in the discharge
of their duty, must find the defendant guilty, and the result would
be that the commission of the peace would be purged by so HD.
worthy a minister of justice, and thereby hold out a luau:ars, ex.
ample to the world. In conclusion, be adverted to the insinuations
coming from the other side, that the prosecutor could not be so
destitute, else he could not find the means of instituting this pro-
secution, and going to the expense of a Special Jury. Haired, in
this country there was a generous spirit of sympathy fur the wrongs
and sufferings of the oppressed. To this this unhappy man had
flown for protection, and to the generosity of a few humane gentle.
men, lie was thus enabled to lay his grievances before the world,
and expose the nefarious system to which he had fallen a victim.
The LORD Oiler Jeseice, in charging the Jury, observed,
that if all good men must feel pain at seeing a person in the dis.
tinguished tituatien of a itlasistrate placed in the situation of the
present defendant, the sensation was happily counterbalanced by
nett there

,
, -- t with no..
. . . sag.
the consolation of rec liming that thougi - were thousands of 1
candour from me. If you desire explanatlon, inform PH in. a
Aire to the other, it seldom, very seldom happened, scarcely once in -
our di reement. .ou shall meet
1
Magistrates daily admielstering justice, from one end of the em-
you shall have it. If you are ucere in believing that I
ten years. that cases of this nature were brought forward. The us v! finesse, ssnesse, stratagem, or imnositioo, or have treated you unft
I
ken.
Learned Judge then directed the attention of the Jury to the pre- I let ate know how, when, and in what, and I shall third' it my .
a cise nature of the charge upon the record, and to put it to them i to show you that you arc mist
whether the charge so hanged was not clearly made out by the eel. I " I ant, Sir, your very humble servant, . .
dence. The substance (tithe charge was, that the defendant, beings "J. LIY. •
Magistrate, had thought proper to commit a man for three months "To this letter Mr. Ley reccived.the foidowing anewet Crony ticil
and hard labour, upon a supposed conviction, drawn up on the defendant. It was written en the back of his own letter to ler.
oaths of two persons, whereas in fact those persons had not given Pollard, and charged with a triple postage:—
their evidence upon oath. That allegation appeared to him to be " l'i'hat ! mill pursuing the deep same, and no advancentant in
satisfactorily anode out, for the defendant had no authority to make I doing me further injury ; only ridding additional insult ID 114
the conviction, or issue his warrant upon it, except distinct and I injure already done.
satisfactory proof was given, in his own presence, of the truth of the I ' The correspondence between you and myself hap seen Weal
charge which had been preferred. The conviction was supposed to be Ito the pareists of the yottng gentlemstst whole; I have raisin!, ft,
founded on an Act of Parliament of very modern date, which added gaged a.s an apprentice. but I do not believe you bare laid tb,
exceedingly to the authority of Magistrates, empowering a single whole of it before Mr. Kitehn Or gni/ honourable Impartial :Person.
individual, unaided by a Jury, to decide upon the guilt or innocence Such a step would beat variance with your rr,ccedinim—
of a person, who might perhaps bc nithout Counsel or ether profess the public you are not the Lard Chancellor, or Coe :Ade blighili4
atonal assistance. In such a situation, above all others, it was locum- sufficient to occupy tt-w hole lifetime, anti still be lett undechital•
bent on the Magistrate not only to observe the substance of justice, Yo:a must be more clever than I take ytiu to be, if, With all 'eat
Well feif
you enbne mpacrkfeetatuneo,n leo
I.: otnhga t btlelleiyevaerenactounraplentl isaliteeidencraie
bk.;
but strictly to adhere to all the formusp,onintohredteerntiompurenyveinntatitirse
rate,po‘se:
dineettelilte'cyt
sibility of injustice. It was clear_
that the defendant hail departed from his duty in signing deposit insensibility.
tions, the deponents to which he had never seen, and committing a " I return you this to show you that I'll receive no mole of fLlif
man to prison who had never been confronted with his accusers, jargon—no mete of your insolence; that I want no further proof,
His Lordship animadverted in strong terms upon the Practice which of your deep, mean-spirited, and dishonourable conduct; or lOW
appeared to have been obtained in Mr. Ilicitnell's office, in allow. haps, If it Is possible, I mat think worse of tots than I doaki
ing the clerk to take the depositions of witnessess in the absence of present. " Wm. net-MO.
the Magistrate, and expressed a hope that it would be forthwith "To the Rev. Jacob Lev. Aahprileton."
corrected. Depositions should be taken on oath, in the presence of Surely the Jury, in looking at this c.irrespOncienee could SA
the Magistrate, who was alone the competent authority for that nothing to unsure on the part of Mr. Ley, whatever might be Shei,f
purpose. His Lordship then adverted to the depositions and to the 1 opinion of the defendant's share in it. There was nothing .maws na
record of conviction, and observed that in each it had been falsely Ifng or improper in a fa:het being slow to believe a tharge of c s
asserted that the witnesses had been examined on oath before! plate incapacity, when wide against his son, however, ,they mig
the plaintiff: This was a gross falsehood. It had been truly feel disposed to censure the manner in which that charge had') ,
ei3
observed, that if the defendant had been so minded, he might, ,min made. and all the eircutnatances attendant on fha definilaril's cone
the discovery of his error, have cr.used Baker to be released home- duct in this ease. It Ayoubd not have bsen made Matteri of aeclliak
diately, for though he could not have clone so on his own authority, I :ion against his eneun that he bad sent his son to Pollard., and pay(
yet the Secretary of Sate, upon a proper apniwation, would have him the cumplintant of
.intiusting hint with the care of an India
erdered his discharge forthwith. Indeed, his Lordship dttabtid ; vidual who was Dfeenarlit, so dear to him, Was flit's, as !t fiat
whether he might not hove caused him to be discharged by Habeas been stated by the defendant, any third like imposition, or did i 1
Corpus. Much evidence had been received which was irrelevant to juin!y the eplthets mode use of by tu
him to the tectetpanstee
the present charge, but as the prosecutor had launched Its ea eby : that Cilallfjletwevn the 'Fatties ? Ile thought nut, sold that Z
proof cf hi., innocence, fills Lordst ip felt himself bound to admit Joey wooLl be wf the same opiniob. It sat the aeryteliet vibe

. t
.
, . , • ~ , _ ,'
in the pan et the defeniant. But+ I eoel•41/1
of the prosecutor *Mt very exeu.sahlreellse•
te man [night bare suffevtal an enjua pu.
nen be recalled, yet it meet have hem a
t hint to vindicate hie chaster from tilt
en bit upon ft. a_
ly ftietd. the de*tultiP.i Weft,
...
S T R 111Y-Tl..iC U) it
I
. 21
._,.
It ASBI.7.t.iS, EXETER, JULY 11r. !
t: iaestee
veltlL sin.. , ,
t L.lr TAD ALE. antia 1:0111MOD Jutf.
;TMENT FOR LIBEL. ..
E KING v. POLLARD.
d the pleadings, and stated this was tin in'
ifendant, for a Malicious libel on the proses
sy), contained in served letters which had
d the defendant. The *edit; bent on "inch
• i
Pas fbunded had been prekrtal in the LAW .
he defendant pleaded not guilty.
is mated the case to the Jury fee the plains
had b int compelled toiinstitute the wettest
ance of the lieellbus and malicious asaere
L. east for the perpose of vindleatieg pis i )
putatienteaseupOn it by the tinwarrintabia
F Pollard, the defendunt in this aettl4n. rise
ie father of a large fluidly, and a reapettable
tblished Church, wis demises of qealifyiag
medical profession, having previousle plat f 1
University. With this view hk ht.P led to
Ulan( In thie tenon, who was an eininet:
„residing et Torquay. The neceseiti m-
utt entered into, Mr. Ley's sari was aced
di', capacity of an apprentice. Be urea
gentleman had been prepared for tfet pro_
intended he should engage, by a sztintl and '
a handsome premium was of course Aid la
nee apprentice; and yet, notwitliat. AMA
instences, the defendant had thouy,ht p pa
)pinion of the youth's ur.fieness send h ..eap.
tip
t• 1 1 7 ; rked nut for itim, and that with ineketere
latter's appfebticeshie, when lie cotaid bate
any grounds for forming tech an nfitnitio. i
attained little dietbethe Jury stottlaLso* tat
defendant, had homed. a try. Prernatteteathri. i I
a the subject, and that he, was not idatifiell
itiff's sett as incompetent fa the Voiles/VD,
te and abilitiek. However, be the feetei j( i
Pf them at leaf as were parents) unfat.knotk
t'e'e of intelligence was likely to be received
r would operete on ha feelings ma 1 goig
iidentte, mild, and be owing manner: '.13
in the preterit instate? riot at all. ~.liga
rting ittf.firnatien communicated in a itil to
!DM ? er had it net either been Italglitena
poignant by the touts of convitythOt ?
the latter was the case, and that the Lao: L
father, not in language metsered ix &Tata
feelings, but in words and a styie of toms
roes ant! intolerable, they wbuld Alio* hoh
ring.' of his Client, and (to say the leskt,of
et of the defeudant. (The ',netted °entic-
e:al part of theletters thkt had pissed be
I defendant on this subjett ; and to Pee o'.
on whiC't the indictment as folindell Mai
w
letter he should read Was one addreaea: by t
ant, and requiting on his part, ha perfectl it .
I explanation of his extraoraineaty treattneel ..
Vile letter was as follows (
No. I.)
. . " Asitplington, June 8,1.80.
act breemb me to use coarse language. not
to be the object of it. You have made se,
tertian', reproatetul and unintelligible; b•.:
rto which I might apply them. You Mies
ye abused me. Thu is nut very deeotoits. .
and proceed to busineet.• •
does not suit your and I now perceive that '
. Voti ativ yen. do pot wish to injure him :
jetty even io inconYettience you. You Wes
ween us amicably ; in this we wee..
natances, return me the premier-4 you km
sign over the indentuee to any person I may
4, suit my con and whom my con May suit.
d. because It leas directly to a conclution, .
'stand your proposal aright, I could not se, I .
is settled, I shall esteem it a favour if you
undo you have founded your objection) ant
Moment, I am perfectly ignorant of Meat
you: moot Obedient sertent, .
.:sq." " J. ,
Lt.*.
mitunication the pleintiff received the fel-
Le and indecorous reply, which formed part
he indictment, and, after muting the letter,
Id put it to the Jury to Hy, whether it wee ,
offensive in its nature :
(Ne. R., • .
" Turquay, June 23, 1824.
your letter n fortnight since, I felt such cone t 1
to could be capable (in the first initante) et
it -
imposition on me, and then have t..e efTren-
ersevere in the impoittiOn at the expenit of
feeling that might have been expected: that t
ter it. The general expression of your let-
y the best of it : :t eeidently :Mowed you #.i.
, as well as myself, to en urgovemable ob.
manly spirit, or yoU would not leave him
sing .ignorance on sortie points, and Asia!' i
our Fonis a useless ineumbranee to me ‘ I I
naturally it's extremely disagreeable boa.
ityself to have hitn in the house; sad tee • r
leave at lain, and all yottr stretagerns—taß
ril no ping as affecting the main point;
re him away githogt further delay.
o whether any or what part of the phetniurd t
a is a very proper one to be submitted to a
rifest difference of opinion existe, betiteeh Ili
i all the declarations of 4rtire to wade this
be at variance with truth, When it'
. 11 to leave the que in t )an honourable Ce•
a uselers, unless this method be adopted, to
arable termination of a busmen!, which: in
to ought never to have allotted of lr be:4
Itent persons. I shall have no objection ti
re to any person, provided there is no toe- t
,:e. . . ..
itervlew with Mr. James Cornirth Would
[livening your mind from persevering to a •
sibly answer any good purpbee. But bear:
since has caused me to trite tb von, and i
sve it settled, yet if you are Still indise
I find me as determined ; and whilst I MEW •
will not submit to such a gross imposition' ..
e admitted of excuse.
Sir, your obedient servant,
" \% e. POLLARD."
Ley, Ashprington."
• be addressed to a father and a clergyman
itaintiff ? and was .Mr. Pollard jun/habit ' . • '
in adopted ? ills client, feeling the tete
y inflicted, eddressed him as followed:—
(:10. 3.)
't Ashprington, Ist July, 1824. 4
at a-less to understand whether the abusiti!
ott honour me be natural to you, or whetter
for the ocotsion, to accomplish tome pain. 4
have in view. For certain, try letter dare
n that letter, to which I still adhere, I tr. • •
s of coarse language, decline your prOpcsa
o transfer my sun to another mace °niter.
aye now to add. that I have no desire fai
readily agree with you—whether I ach 41
r you in treaty fur an apprownice--t0 3
Ore the party with whom we treat. T
. ,
lid. Ors this ground I have acted in fee' r
'letters to Mr. Kitson, to wham st4h i
einent. You shall meet with natliing4
iou desire explanationt inform me in *boy
If you are sincere in believing that I ha 118••
or Imposition, or have treated you unfaitl in ye
, and what, and I shall think it my drtlf •
re mistaken.
ir, your very liumb:e servant, . .
'iJ J. Lay. •
Ley received, the fo'Jevieg an from OS"
Min en the back of 11!3 own let:er to Mr
ith a triple postage:—
ing the deep name, and no advancement ii
ivy ; only adding additional insult In teal
e between von and myself la,s been littera
ming 'teatime,: whom I have roiled, Pet,
:e. but I do col believe you bare Said rib
XitStms Or any honourable impartial Person.
t variance with your preceedinese. Well tiff
the Lnrd Chancellor, or care tattle irighl tI I
thole lifetime. mid still be lett Indict:std. ' '
ver than I take yltu Or be, it. With all 'Gilt
ry one long believe natural lit liciencies et
ions, or that they are compensated for by( 1
o show you that 1.11 receive no More of fLIiF
•,..
for insolence; that I want no further p
Mites], and dishonourable conduct; 9r lOW
.
I may thine worse of tots than I doe I & ,
" Was. Pc•raat`p.
b Ley. Ashprington." .
,taberspt,iikEeogfinalstlitr.t)Ti.eshyec.r.l,w"whae:ntenvoedenrthmieeni:h:tonbetibeeop'.:l,thell
i,
tuteerh
:heet being
n,
snn against
emanner
slowin i
swt Orit ~,V1 ithe:vael ae
c,
hes:trhowever, charge
tote yo hadf cti g a
mataneea attendant on the defentleel's cone
molt not have been made **(toe of iecao
that he bad sent his son to Pollard, and paid( .
.''
if imitating tfien with the care 4f an India
erdy so dc•or te him. Was fill's, as It /14
4
rentfant, any third like impositioe, or did ii
sde use of by kin to the teetetpeudatice ; c parties? llg thought nut, end that
acre opinion. It Vas the defy :dart %be
(