The National Register.
London, England, 1823-02-09 00:00:00

k
i

1

40.

L4W

COURT OF CHANCERY, FEB.
INJUNCTION —FILItt;VIaN LOAN.
At Ilia rising or the Court, the Attorney General said be bed
a motion lc make of a must pressing nature, namely, fur au
. it to restrain money from being rent out of this country
• to what has keen called the Peruvian Government. Individuals
have tome to this country in great haste, one of diem culling
lonmelf are Celery Extraordinary, arid another tire Plenipo-
tertiary of the Peruvian mord/ ; but we may say, (coutinued
llailearned gentleman) there is no such empire iu existence—
we know nut the Peruvian government. It, however, there
he such, we suppose that it roust belong to Spain—but it is
unknown to us, and as a very large sum of isionay tea been
'mid into the bands of Messrs. Everett and Cu. hankers in
. Lumina, for the purpose of supplying that loan, we pray un
' tretulf of the petitioners, Jones mid others. that they may be
restrained from parting with such money—cur application is
Diatit On ail UULLIA it of these facia.
h is Lindsoip--Take your irsjuuctimi to restrain them until
further u•dcrc.
• COURT OF KING'S BENCH.
aIuNDAY, FEU. S.
Mr. Adolphus moved to strike °tithe Roll of the Court,
Clarke and Isaacson, two attorneys. The application was made.
on as affidavit, settiug forth that Brooks, (who had so narrow
an e.cripe at a recent Old Bailey Sellllol3ll, where he was ca-
pitally indicted fur forgery,) applied to a person, requesting
permission to sue for a debt of di. sad giving an iodemorty that
be would not wake out a bill of coma. 14utwithstandiNg that
engagement he ran the plaintill up a bill of 451. The
•Urtnit on to date this wall dune iu the names of the attorneys
against whom Mr. Adolphus moved the Court, sod that it had
Bode 6111101100. The court granted a rule to sinew cause.
Mr. Stuart moved fur a rule to show cause why an attorney
of the Court. trillium name for the present Ire would forbear to.
mention, should at be struck oil' this rolls, for sating as agent
to an unqualified person in the country, and why that maim,
whose name also be would cuuceal, should not be committed for
his offence : and why a ennourt, green to that person, • maid
:wet be delivered up to the defendant against whom the pre-
. eididiegs were taken. The party who acted as principal was
not as attorney, but only a conveyancer, and he and his agent
In town had both been concerned in the conduct of s suit,
which they bad settled by taking payment oldie debt, sad a
sognee.l of the costs. The Court granted a rule to strew cause.
ThE KING V. Hai:GaAs% aIU MUTT.
Aldo was a rule obtained in las► Terse by Mr. Searleta, call-
ing on the defendants to show cause why a criminal inform...ion
should nut be tiled against them. The deferalaute are two of
the Conimissioners appended under the local act far .paving,
.lighting, and improving the town of Brighton; and the parties
-applying for the rile are Magistrates of toe division. Between
those bodice, disputes have fur moue time existed, respectiug
the etude in which the act of Pediment should be curried
tutu effect ; and this rule was moved fur on •thrse Lgroanda—
brat, that the Commissioners had called a nieekrig of the sobs-
bitauta of the town, to consider of the conduct of the Magis-
trates: seouuti, that they had caused sre•olutioue. contui JJJJJ g
libellous remarks on the Magistrates, to be .published iu the
.local newspapers and third, that they had refused to send one
set their belittles. when requested by the Magistrates, to amide
sin quelling a disturbance in the town.
ftl r. Murryatt now abu•ved cause against the rule.
The Lord Chief Justrn . suggested, that it was highly desi-
rable that some amicahle termination should be put to the
proceediegs.
Mr. Scatted, on the part of the Magistrates, expressed his
manners to accede to soy recommendation of the Court.
Tire case was limn ordered to stand..over to give opportunity
fora coloprenriae. At a later period of the day, Mr. Marryatt
produced urshort affidavit of We defendants, stating that they
bad been actuated by no wish to insult the magistrates, which
Mr. Scarled.received as satisfactory and the rule was dos-

charged.
THE KING F. WM. FOX. 404
The Solicitor General moved kir the judgment of the Court
on thin defendant. When called he did not appear aud uit an
pilidavit that be isad been duly nerved with notice, his recugni-
wasices were entreated.

THE [INC e. JOHN IRWIN.
The Solicitor General moved for the sentence of the Court on
OM defendant, who had suffered judgment to go by default to
an indictment on .19 Geo. 111. c. 126, for pretending to sell to a
,person named A 111113211 a place in the Excise. A wan named
.James Vs °Wall was charged with a participation in the olleisce,
but. tad not been touud.
The cirealustances of the case, as disclosed by the affidavit
Of the prosecutor, were as follows:—Having been unfortunate
is bu►iness, he caused an advertisement to be inserted iu the
7'iours newspaper of the 10th of May. 1810, oltering a reward
to any one who would procure for the advertiser a permanent
mercantile situation, and desiring letters to be addressed
"P. W.,20, Fleet-inarket." A day or two after a letter came
by the two-poesy post iu answer to the advertisement, request-
ing hint to coinexo Walker's-terrace, Mile-end-road ; to which
place be went, sad there met the defendant Irvin. Jrviu told
him the situation lie proposed to obtain fur him was in the Ex
cive ; to which i.e replied that he was sit upholsterer, and
.would prefer something in his own line, hut It yin assured him
•that the salary attached to this ohlice was 901. a year, and that
It also afforded considerable perquisites. Deluded by these
representations, lie agreed to give eighty guineas for the situ-
ation, which was to he procured by the influence of a clerk in
the Treasury, by whom the premium was to be accepted. On
the next dry, Ashman was informed that it would be necessary
to advance 351.; this lie hesitated to do ; hut °tiered to deposit
the whole money iu the hands of some third persou, to be paid
over as soon as he should be in the enjoyment of the office. lie
was then introduced to Woodall, by whose persuasion he was
ultimately induced to pay the 351. in notes and short dated bills ;
the whole money was taken by W °Wall ; and a joint and
several promissory note si.sed by Woodall and Irvin, for the
.repayment of the advance in Eve weeks. When the note
became due it was not paid ; and he called on Irvin, who gave
Lim a bed and some other articles, not worth more than 51. in
part payment. In prison, afterwards Irvin had uttered him 21.
to give up the bill.
tin the Isar( of the defendant, his affidavit was put in, setting
forth that he hid kiwi& here the dupe of Woodall, and that
lie had a wife end three children entirely dependent upon him
tor sabsistence.
Mr. Jas ice Bayley pronounced the sentence of the Court,
inhielt was, that he should be i•uprisoned in the Hou►e of Cur-
receive in Coldhath-fields for sui caleuthr months.
TIII: KING V. JOHN FIIOST.
Mr. Puller preyed for the judgment of the Court on this de •
fendaut, who was brondAt up in custody of Om gaoler of Mon-
Leve Loot' vtilq at the 14.1 eaat4ea (ut that

Tilt

rM. REdniTtlk

comely on two indictment*, charging him with the publication of
libels un Mr. Tbontae Protheroe.
The Lord Chief Justice directed that that the case should
stand over till hluuday next, and that in order to Means, the
gaoler of Monmouth, he should Le committed in the matt time
to the custody of the Marshal of the Marshalsea.
Mr. Frost thou retired in custody.
Ccesikerrt V. WALKER.
This was au action in the case for infringing the copyright of
the air " Vire Henri !holes" with variations, composed by
Mr. F. liallibrenner, and by him sold to the plaintills, who ate
entieent dealers in musical instruments and publications.
It appeared from the evidence of Mr. Kalkbrenner himself,
hat in Juan or July, 1814, just at the tune when the Allied
4iovereigus slatted London, be sold to the ',Weigle the copy-
right ef• the sunk in question, with that of our or two other
airs, for 301. which lie received. On Lis return to Paris, he
sold the copyright of the mime work there, excepting England
suit Germany, to Mr. Pleyel ; and it wa duly registered es
his properly according to the law of France. The air conti-
nued on bale. by Messrs. Clementi, but no assignment in writ-
ing (which under the statute of Anne is essential to the copy-
right) was made to them till the 24th of January, 1822. In
time, she work was sold opeuly in Paris, and Mr. Walker being
there with his son,,inlBl7, purchased a copy and republished
it at his shop in Soho-64min, where it has been sold since the
regular assignment to the plaintiff at half the prise which he
demanded of Lis customers.
The Lord Chief Justice gave no opinion on the point of
Iwo, but suggested that, as •it was of importance to musical
profteeore,• it should be brought before the Court fee more
solemn decision.
A verdict was accordingly taken for the plaintiff.—Damages
2s. subject to the opinion of the Court on a special care.
TKU La BAY, PER. 6.
BLASPIIEMY.—JUDGMENTS.
THE KING V. TONIIRRIUSE.
The Solicitor-General moved for the judgement of the Coati
on the defendunt,•foand guilty of publishing a blasphemous
libel, namely, Palater's Principles of Nature.
The Lord Chief Justice read his notes of the trial:
The (10'41E111a Put 'in no allidevit in mitigation of punish-
ment.
The Solicitor-General also declined petting in any on the
part of the prosecution.
The defendant addressed the Court, and read front a paper,
the ground on which, lie said, the Court ought sot to pas&
judgment on him.
On the 20th January. lie was tried, he said, and found
guilty upon the evidence of phi:, officers, who swore the book
was sold in Carlik'e shop, but not one would swear be deliver-
ed the book. No one could say lie sold the copy which was the
subject of prosecution. The Court bad no evidence of his
having published the book. The Jury fonud him guilty, not
upon the evidence, but in consequence of his LIMN tittered a
hasty expression.—The defendant was proceeding .l a strain
of violent abuse, directed to the Judges and Jury wilts tried
him, when
The Lord Chief Justice said--" If you forme the Court to
hear whet it is our duty not to hear, we have tasty one course
to pursue."
The defendant then said he was not disposed to mask his
principles, which were like those of the philosophical work he
had sold. The defendant complained, that he had ant had a
fair trial. lie Was weltered to make a defence, which must
have made an impression on the Jury, had lie not been inter-
rupted by the Judge. Their Lordships, as Judges, had nothing
to do with religion.—Lord lisle said the Courts of Law La
Ho poweeto take cognizance of religious offeuces. The duty
of defending religion devolved on the Church only. The
Church, in early times, burnt heretics without the Court of
King's Bench. lie was one of the heretics of Om present day,
and he complained of a religious inquisition, which was now
as delusive as witchcraft its the 16th century. Ile had been
stopped on Lis defence by the Judge, on the ground that he
was not taking • legitimate course. The word legitimate itself
was so odious that he might almost apologize for using it.
The Bolicitur-General said, in aggravation—l shall nut make
one observation on the general topes introduced by the defend-
, alit, but with respect to one pond, 1 merely wish to advert to
wLot had occurred at the trial on the fact of publication. The
ilerendast said at the trial—" 'I lie sale of the hook 1 do not
deny ; 1 was bound to sell it in the discharge of the duty I
owed my employer ; Palmer's Principles of Nature was no
libel, but au honour to every persou who might have it in his
possession. !"
The Lord Chief Justice.—l called the attention of the Jury
to that point.
Judge Bayley then delivered the Judgment of the Court.—
W' Tunbridge, you are to receive the judgment of this
Court, after having been cut icted upen information tiled by
his Majesty's Attorney General for publishing a libel. The law
of this country tin the subject of religious opinions is ax liberal
as the law its any other country in the world. It allows every
man to judge for himself. It prescribes for no mail. It leaves
every one to adopt any particular species of worship, but it
does not suffer that any men in a court of justice, or elsewhere,
shall enter into argument to sliew Christianity to be an abuse,
when it is the etitehlislied law of the land. Yuu may not be
aware what mischief you may do, and huw high the religious
crime stay he you will hive to answer for, if you shelie'die
religious principles of young persons who have no opportunity
to study red confirm their inuile of faith. if you take from
their minds all moral and religious impressions, you may be
the author of all the crimes they conouit. This is nut a.pheoe
for the discussion of principles of Christianity, hut I may say
the best and the wisest nieu who have applied their minds to
the subject have the honied belief. No man eau have attended
to the reading of this libel, without feeling it is an abuie,
that it is likely to contaminate the minds uf youth. The 000 rt
taking iutu consideration the circumstances of your offence,
and believing it to be their bounden duty to protect p
who have not the opportueity to obtain information sufficient to
rebut the effect of there publications, do order and adjudgb,
that for this offence you he imprisoned in the House of CIO%
remind Coldlnith-fields, two years that you pay a Sue to the
King of 1001. mud bud sureties fur Gee years, yourself in 1001.
and two others in 501. each.
'the defendant.—lt is a sentence worthy of a Christian court.
It is worthy of a Court that—
The Lord Chief Justiee.—thgeer take him away.
The defendant then kit the court in custody.
TIM KING o st'ssNNAII WRIGHT.
Mr. Gurney moved the judgment of the Court on this de-
Content.
Mrs. Wright, attended by a female friend came into Court.
She proceeded to tend an address—in effect—that after some
months' imprinonntent, among felons, shelled cause to complain.
The Lord Chief Justice refused to bur her defence, which
had compelled her to get it printed, and seed it to their Lord-
-011111%, suit hoped they bail tend whet she intended to teed as
bet deteuce. bite Lurid to contend uuw, as slit did thew, that

- I

to deny lbe troth of obrietiunity -was not spies. lair.
Jnatice Bayley referred to an act of Parliament which
r. side it penal.
Defendant proceeded.—You declare christianity to be •
divine system, toe act h,r tnleiatiug the Unitarians says it is
not so, nor against law to deny this.
The .Court iuteriuptcd.—lt saes against the oath of the
Judges to perueit a defendaut to read that which was against
law.
Befendant.—Your Lordship refuses me to proceed, but I
persist with my defence. Could any thing be called law against
an Act of Parliament which said what the law was?
Mr. Justice Bay ley interrui ted the defendant in these words
NV right, the sentence of lb.- 4..;oart is, that you be isms `
poisoned for 11:1 months in the House of Correction, Coldbatk-
. belds, to pay • fine of 1001. and to find two sureties for your
good behaviour for live years, in the arm of 501. each, and to
be further imprisoned until *rich fine be paid, and such sareties
entered into.
The defendant, on being ushered out of Court,
I hope your Lordship will give me a ,check on
,our banker
for the summit, as 1 shall never be able to pay it."
THE KI SG V. JOHN STURGES.
The defendant was brought up to receive judgment, having
been found guilty at the sittings after last term, at Guildball.of
making an indecent exposure of his person to several youns
female*, in Mouriielda.
The defendant put in his affidavit, stating that he had lest
the situation lie held previous to his conviction, and (halite bad
been smicted with a disorder in his eyes, which would deriti•
him of the means a supporting his family.
Other affidavit.; described the defendant to be a man subject
to paroxy snis of illnesss, which produced ietervals of mental
derangement, and that previous to the offence for which he was
to receive judgment, be was known to be • moral man.
The Lord ChielJustice said, there was a circumstance in the
affidavits which induced the Court to think it would be better
the defendant should come up fur judgment peat Term.
The defendant was accordingly admitted to bail to lie
brought up next Term.
FRIDAY, KER. 7.
This day 22 smugglers were brought up by writ of Bairns
Corpse from his Majesty's ship Severn, where they bad been
detained by the Commaiider on suspicion of the murder of •
man named Cullum.
They w ere marched along io double handcuffs, ironed, sad
in charge of constables, with au ollicer in military uniform,
whom came into Court with a letter in his hand, which lie
handed over, together with the key of their irons. On their
irons being struck of they were drawn up, 22 in Dumber, on
the flour of the court.
The letter which was here read, was from the captain of his
Majesty's ship Severn ; in it they were charged with nuogglitig
and also with the murder of Vi illiam Cullum, on whose body
an inquest bad been held, and a verdict of wilful murder re-
turned against some persons unknown. It appeared that Colima
was shot during the light between the smuggling cutter (aim
unknown) and his Majesty!' revenue cutter, the Badger, ot tin
coast af France. The smugglers lost three men in the coo-
lid, on whose bodies a coroner's inquest had bees bald, and a
verdict of Justifiable Homicide returned. The smuggler was
laden with tobacco and spirits, and armed with six-pound oars
'wades and • variety of small arms. On the Badger com-
mencing a warm fire of caution and small arms, the smugglers
cried out for quarter. but they afterwards bred upon the cutter.
by which tire one man was killed and three or four men were
ounded.
k.7Mr. Brougham contended that the defendants were estided
to their disclffigge, having done no more than this deka*
themselves on the roast of France when attacked. They were
only suspected of smuggling, and there was no ground to amigo
any individual with the murder of Cullum.
The court committed the defendants to the custody of the
blar.bal of the King's Bench, to be delivered over to • Mr
gistrate for examination on the charge of reorder.
THE KING v. DUNKER Y AND HILL.
Mr. Searlett moved for • rule, calling on two msaistralaaalf
the county of Suffolk to ahew cause why a criminal tuformedim
should not be filed against them. He made this application ems
behalf of the proprietor of a waggon which carried paresis be-
',peen Norwich and Thetford, and who resided at Norwich. Is
August last a quantity of genie was, on the road, taken up by
his servants, and seized before it reached its place of destbsa•
lion. Of this transaction lie was entirely ignorant at the dome
end when be was informed oflt, Ice dismissed every atm Wee
could possibly be implicated froni his aeryice: Tu kin ffreat
surprise, in the month of November,- he received • 011111111111111
from the defendants to Appear before them and answer inform.
tions on sth Anne c. 14. for exposing game for sale. He at-
tended, and produced evidence to show his entire ignorance of
the tact ; but he was convicted in penalties to the nisoinst of
1501. ; and the magistrates, iu drawing up the convictions
omitted to state the evidence on which it was founded, and ob
atis.ately refused to insert it. 'He was therefore left without
any means of redress; as the decision of the magistrate* was
fival.
The Lord Chief Justice expressed his opinion that the learn-
ed counsel had shown enough to entitle bins to a rule ; but sug-
gested that, as the magistrates had probably acted wider en
erroneous impression as to the law, that the better Course would
be to like a laumicamm, directing Mena to insert the evidence,
and to give nutiee of a motion for a certiorari to remove the
conviction.
, Mr. Scarlett assented to this proposal and took his writ of
nimilisuis.
In the course of the morning Sir Hudson Lowe name into
court to swear en affidavit, on which he inteirls to found a mos
flout for a criminal information against Mr. O'Meara. It is us-
deratood that the motion will be made on Monday. The pre-
sence of Sir Hudson Lowe excited mach curiosity in the body
and avenues of the court.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.
FRIDAY, FEB. 7.
TURNER V. MEAMOTT.
in thin case an action of *moods was tried at the last assines
•f Guildford before the Lord Chief Hawn; the plaintiff in
which bad been tenant of ■ small house belonging to the de-
fendant, at 3s Gd. a week. Raving received the regular notice
to quit from the defendant, the plaintiff removed some of his
goods to another house. At the termination of the period spe-
cified in his notice, lie landlord went to take possession, but
found thes, house locked up, and uninhabited. lie therefore
broke it open with a crow bar, and put soother tenant in pos-
session of it. The plsinfiff under these circuonstsnces brought
his action. The Chief Baron held on the trial that the law
would not justify a man to take possession of his house in tbis
way, 4. such violence might lead to a personal battery, and
perhaps murder. The Jury, therefore, gave • ♦erdict for
tie plainto tr.

Mr. Sergeant Tinkly having on a former day aLtaiued a rule
ni.i lot 1111tW 111,11.

1