The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1826-06-14 00:00:00

THE AGE NEWSPAPER.

THE KING RICHARDS.
Mr: DEN MAW moved fora rule tailing upon Richard howling
Richards, the printer and publisher of the Sunday paper called
7'he .{Kr, to chew cause why a criminal Information should not he
tiled against him, for the publication of a libel io that paper. This
application was made on the part of bard Bingham, who was the
sou of Lord Liman, and a Major in the 17th Lancers. Lord
Bingham, while in Ireland, had had a quarrel with a Mr. Brown,
and his bortlahip was bound met in the sum of 10,000/. to keep
the peace towards that gentleman, and all other of his Majesty's
subjects. The libel in question was in the shape of • poetical
epistle, and was inserted under the head of " Letters of Ton."
It alluded to the circumstance of Lord Bingham having been
bound over to keep the peace, and observed, that there was no ne.
cesaity for its having been done, for that the Noble Lord was by no
means " prone to fighting."
Mr. Justice ISAVI.EY—It would be forgotten in a week, would
it not?

Mr. DE:gmair thought it would not, especially as Lord Bing.
ham was an officer in his Majesty's service. His Lordship had
stated in his affidavit that he had been in the army for ten years,
and that the publication hell a manifest tendency to Injure him in
the estimation of his brother officers, anti tin the army in general ;
and that it was also calculated to ;rritate and induce a ptrson so
charged to commit a breach of the peace.
Mr. Justice BAYLEY—Was it stated thnt by the words " not
prone to fighting," it was meant that Lord Bingham was a coward ?
Mr. DF:NMAN said, there was no such intend°, certainly; but
there could be no doubt that such me the meaning.
Mr. Justice Ilavi.Ev—A man who regarded the laws of his
country ought not illegally to fight; all duelling was illegal. Could
then a Court of Justice sty that it was a libel upon a man to say of
hint, that he entertained a higher sense of his religious duties
than lie did of the lowa of honour ?

DEKMAN did nut consider that to be the necessary construc-
tion to be put upon this libel. There could be Lo doubt that it
was meant to impute cowardice ; but Lord Ilingliain was at present
in Ireland, and sn ntfidnvit to that effect could not therefore be
obtained before the term ended.

Mr. Justice BA v I.EYsititl,as he thought mach an affidavit was
necessary, and ought to be made by the party himself, the ease had
better stnnd over till next term.
DoE EX-DEM. AUCIIMUTE .0:1) ()VIERS v. MULCASTEE

AND OTHERS.
This was an action of ejectment, brought to recover the possession

Ofsertain premises *ORM bijb• county of Kent, any of i-is.:.
kind tenure. The Jury at the trial founds verdict far the
subject to the opinion of the Court, upon The follow
Samuel Auchmuty had three sons, namely, Hobo':
Richard, and Samuel!, an also four daughters, all of when,
born in the province of New York, before it was saparsted
the mother country. Robert NichoUontinued to reside. at:l:r
war broke out between America and-England, within the B.
lines, and bore arms in aid of the Royal cause. In 1783 he ca; •
to England, and during his residence here he was ntaele Secret:J•
to the Board of Commissioners appointed to settle the cbtin:.,:t
British subjects in America*pon the termination of the war
which commission sat in New York, to whigi place he returned in
1783, under and by virtue of this appoin t. After the !,
nation of the duties of that Board, he settled himself in the 1':.i•.,,!
States, and married a lady, who was also a British-born
and continued there till his death, which happened in 1812. I( a; :II
issue four sons, who were the present plaintiff:. Sir saniuel, tile
son (brother to Robert Nichol), died, seized of the I remises in
question, which were taken possession of by the defendants, wile
were his surviving sisters. The questiim for the opit.ion Pr the
Court was, whether the plaintiff's, namely, the childr.:n of Roher:,
were entitled to recover that portion of their uncle's property shalt
their father was entitled to as coheir of his brother, the said r&i.
Samuel. If the Court should be of opinion that diey were, ther,
the verdict was to stand ; but if not, then a cor.,,:it was to be
entered.

The defence at the trial was, that as the plaintiffs were 1,,0r-,
of the allegiance of the King of England, they were alt. es. stti
therefore were not capable of inheriting property in this c,tilett,
Mr. CHITTY now argued in swoon of the ant!
tended that the conduct of Robert Nichol evidently sh,at .
never had renounced his allegiance to the King of Eiglat.d. .
by an article in the treaty between this country and • -
might have done, by making his election within are. •
after the independence of the United States had
But having continued a aubject to the King. hie , •
the 7th Anne and Ith Geo. 11., endowed with all •;; •.
privileges of British-bora subjects, and were titeref”,- •
inheriting property in this country as codifies of the,:
Mr. ABRAHAMS, on the other side, contended tha'• li6o,
the father, had elected to settle himself in Anur;:4 ;,her the;:
penitence of the United States had been recogr.‘,..!,
to the King of England was thereby terminated; and chi!dref
being all born out of that allegiance, they wa
definition in Calvin's case (Coke's Reports), aleni at .1, If s 4,
tt
followed that they were not taheritable, aid co:.,equenily tt.at t:•.e
plaintiffs could not recover.
The LOAD CHIEF JUST ICE was of opinion that the plain'in
were within the Act of 4 Geo. IL, and not within the ew.eie:or.
that Act, and that consequently they had a good right to inher;!.
The verdict therefore ought to stand.

31r. Justice B
AYLEYaid this case was perfccir distinginshable
from that of Doe Dem. Thomson v. Arland ; i Barn. and
779. The treaty which was ratified between this kingdom and tl.c
United States gave those persons who, at the time of the war, ad-
hered to that country,leave to put oil their allegiance from this king.
dom, and to assume a new allegiance to the new states. lint if aitti
that period the party continued bolding allegiance to this kingdom,
that treaty did not entitle any one to be at liberty to change his
legiance at any future time. In thiscase Robert Nichol Auchinuiy
continued his allegiance to this kingdom after the treaty with Ame-
rica, so that he then stood in the situation of any other person wtu
should go into any other kingdom whatsoever. Now, if a vary
went into Italy, France or Germany, still his children, though born
in either of those countries would be within the protection at
11. cap. 21, provided tie himself was a natural-born subject. By
the statute of Anne, it was required that both the fa•lier and •he
mother should be natural-born subjects ; but the statute of Gee. 11.
made it only necessary that the father should be such. He ras
therefore or opinion that the verdict was right.
Mr. Justice HOLROYD thought that, as to this cart both etc
father and mother were natural-born subjects, the children woe
within the provisions of the 7th of Anne as well as of those ui utu.
11., and that the verdict was right.
The verdict was consequently confirmed.