The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1803-05-02 00:00:00

'#+'kr
~ .

, •

..77r?

probablreolllte; h v.-as an aa of indecorum to-
w.irds the sissernbly to twice 'use of tbem at all in ,
such a place, ard therefiwe they would not allow the '
person who made use of them to proceed, and to
explain them as he was going to do.
Lord ELLLtiliu PUGii—" Was he aftually spe.tk-
ing at the time when he was pulled down from uff
the table r
Mr. GURNEY—" Certainly."
Mr. Justice GRU,k:— " It may be so; but I do
not remember that there was any evidence to that
effed."
Mr. GARROW said, there was • for it appeared
the Defendant was standing on table in the aft
of speaking to the company.
Mr. GeIiNLY stated that General Money said
these words were received by tlte company with a
general hiss ; that Col. liarwrxid wis immediately
pulled down ; and what spewed that he was speak-
ing, was the resistance he_made to being removed
Irons the table on which he was speaking, and his
pushing down one gentleman who :ittempted it ; a
faft which was coetirnied by Mr. Ward's evidence ;
that when he was pulled down he appeared to
explain himsAf.
Lord ELLErt aoaoucis—i, Did he say any thing
after he was pulled down ?"
Mr. GURSZY believed nothing was said then.
Fie added, that still further to shew the words were
urered in the sense he had given thew, he had ten-
dered another body of evidence of such transaftione
between the Plaintiff and his father as would have
established the truth of the winds in the sense he
maintained they were spoken.
Mr. Justice Guoss—‘. I understood you to offer
evidence of what impression the words were meant
to convey. I was of opinion the objeaion was well-
founded, and I would not allow the question to be
put. Ido not remember the latter body of evi-
dence being tendered."
Mr. GL RNLI, said, he would bring it to his
Lordship's recollation. Iti the course of his address
to the Jury he stated, fir two purposes; one, sliewing
the words were true according to the sense in which
he contended they ought to be understood ; and the
other, for explaining the meaning of the Defendant
in using them ; a deed of trust in which Colonel
Harwood, and a Mr. Jones, the Attorney for the
Plaintiff, were trustees ; and he had also stated un-
kind and insulting treatment of Sir Edward Astley,
under that deed of trust by the Plaintiff Sir Jacob,
upon which he should have laid before the Court
such a body of evidence that not a doubt could have
existed as to the cause of the death of Sir Edward
Astley.
Lord EL LIN ISOR OUGH.•••••" You could not hare
proved that for the purpose of slits,. irg the truth of
the words. You could have used that only as a
medium of proof of the sense in which they
were spoken."

Mr. Gus stv said he did consider it as a medium
of proof that the words could only have been uttered
in the sense, he had attributed .to them, and in the
sense in which they were understood by every per-
son who heard them. He had stated at the close of
the evidence, which had been received, that he had
evidence to prove the deed of trust, all the transac-
tions subsequent to ir, and the ill usage of Sir Ed-
ward Asdey by his son the Plaintiff. _ _ _

It appeared, he said, that Sir Edward Astley died
at an advanced age, and had been ill a considerable
Mr. Justice Gaosx—" It was admitted in Court
that Sir Edward Astley died a natural death."
Mr. Cu 'nay said the Plaintiff's Counsel did not
insist that their Client killed his father. In truth,
no person ever imputed to him the killing him by
violence, there never had been a death mote free
from imputation of that kind.
Mr. ERSKINE observed, it was the very ground of
the action, that it was free from imputation.
Mr. GURNEY insisted that no witness could have
been found who understood the words in the sense
imputed to them in the declaration. He could
have pmduccd many who understood them differ-
ently. He had several persons of the family of Sir
Edward Astley attending who would have proved
such teas as would have convinced every body not
only that the words were used in the sense he con-
tended they were, but that they could not have been
used in any other sense. The Learned Judge had
thought the evidence he had tendered ought not to
he received, and he was obliged to close his case,
when the Jury found a verdid for the Plaintiff, with
damages.—Damages which, under all the
circumstances, were most excessive.
Lord ELLENRCPROUGH—" Take a Rule to sliew
cause."
TILE KING v. ItILT. DARLrY, TSR.
hlr.Serjeaau Bisr moved for a Rule to chew cause
why there should not be a new trial in this cause.
The Defendant had been indiaed on the statute of
Anne, fur an assault relative to money won at play,
an offence rendered highly penal by the statute, for
it was punished with forfeiture of goods and two
years imprisonment. It appeared, from the affida-
vit of the Defendant, that tee had employed Messrs.
hlarnell and Draper, Jo conduit his defence. At
the time the Defendant received notice of trial,
Mr. Marnell, leis solicitor, was in Ireland, and
a person of the name of Duncan, a material wit-
ness for him was in Scotland. In this predica-
ment he was advised to prepare an affidavit of
the fad, in order to put off the trial. An affida-
vit was prepared, but it unfortunately was a defec-
tive one, and the Judge refused to postpone the trial.
The Defendant's affidavit now stated his belief that
Duncan was in Scotland, a circumstance he had
omitted in his former one. He also stated, that he
had been told it was not necessary he should attend
the trial himself; and that when he received an ex-
press informing him the motion to po a [erne his
trial had been refused, he immediately sett off fOr
Horsham in order to amend his affidavit, btit arrived
unfortunately an hour after the trial was ovt,r. The
Learned Serjeant said it was sworn by the Defendant
that he firmly believed this cause had been brought
forward for the purpose of extortion, the prosecutor
having offered to make it up for tool. Under these
circumstances he trusted he was entitled to have it re-
tried, particularly as the consequences of a conviction
were so highly penal. lie was a person of consi-
derable property, and the ad imposed the forfeiture
of all his goods, As NCB as condemning him to two
years itnpriteunent. He had the opinion of several
gentlemen at the Bar of great legal knowledge that
his case was nut within the statute.
Lord Ett.h34 tioaticoit asked whether the afEJavit
disclosed what the witness would have stated.
Mr. Serjeant BEST said it did not, hut if the Court
would allow him he would amend it in that repel/.
' '

• - ~,.