The National Register.
London, England, 1821-11-18 00:00:00

THE NATIONAL REGISTER

defence, I most abide by the consequence.'--The de.
fendant was not allowed to proceed, and therefore had
out the right of making her defence.'
Mr. Justice Bayley.—lf mischief is insinuated into
young minds, punishment will not remedy the evil. Is it
not better to mop the reading of improper matter ?
Mr. Cooper.—l contend, my Lord, all a judge can do
lis to say, caution you against repeating offensive state-
ments, and if he persists, the judge may inflict punish-
ment. Here the defence is stopped altogether, anti I
contend the defendant is entitled to a new trial.
The Lord Chief Justice.—The struggle in the present
case is, whether a person charged with the publication of
a blasphemous libel, shall be allowed to state openly in
time hearing of the jury, as much matter of the same kind
as any friend to the accnsed may think proper to prepare,
and a Court of Justice be made a theatre for blasphemy.
—" It appears that a passage of this kind having been
found in the written paper, which time defendant, from
her sex, should have abstained from reading. It was dis-
graceful to a Court of Justice to hear it.
Mr. Justice Bayley and Mr. Justice Holroyd were of
the same opinion.
Mr: Justice Best said, after stating time facts of the
case, lie should take no further part in the question.—
Rule refused.

WEONZSDAY, NOV. 11.
The Grand July this dr') came tutu Court, and Mr. Jus-
tice Bayley charged them in the usual terms; they then
retired to consider the business before theta,

KIIE KING V. SUSAN WRIGHT.
OM the motion of Mr. Adolphus the defendant was brought
up to plead to an indietmeni preferred by the Society for the
suppression of vice, charging her with publishing u blasphe-
mous and seditious libel. The defendant pleaded nut guilty.
Jsmits V. WILD AND RIIODESON.
This was an action tried before Mr. Justice Park, at Lan-
caster. The plaintili• sought to recover damages for false
imprisonment. The deem ants were tw•o magistrates.
It appeared they committed the plaintiff for re•ezamina-
t ion, on the 12th of September, 1111 a charge of cutting down
heft standing on the road side. They continued to re-commit
him from time to time, mail the end of December, refusing
to commit hint fully, and he was prevented from applying
to he admitted to bail. 'r oe plaintiff at last made applica-
tion to the Lord Chief Justice, for an order to he fully coal•
milted, abut lie might he bailed. lie was consequently
brought up before Mr. Justice Bayley, and admitted to bail.
At the assizes, the bill .if indictment was thrown out by the
Grand Jury, and the plaintiff brought his actior
Both magistrates were included in the defence, but at the
trial the evidence applied only to one. It 0144' affected Mr.
Wild, and Mr. Judge Ptak held that the plaintiff must be
nonsuited.—Both defendants being found mi the record, it
was necessary the evidence should affect both.
Mr. Denman moved this day fora new trial. lie contended
that the evidence was sul6cient to convict Mr. Wild, and
therefore he ought to have been found guilty. The di
reetion of the learned Judge to nonsuit the plaintiff was
wrong mid consequently there ought to be a new trial. The
Court h-tritied a rule to stew cause.
CRIMINAL. INFORMATION.—THE, KING V. WILLIAMS.
Mr. Searlea moved to Me a cambia information against
Mr. AIIIIIINWe %Illinois, printer and proprietor of a news-
paper, published in the City of Durham, for a gross libel out
the established clergy.—The learned counsel said he should
read the libel, and the Court no doubt would feel disposed
to grant the motion. It was dated Saturday, Aug. the Bth,
1821, and the subject was the death of the Queen.—The
article stated that general 'respect had been paid throughout
the kingdom on the death oilier late Majesty, with the ex-
ception of the Lpiscopal City of Durham, ss Inch, not% ith-
standin4 it load aux chin clies, did not sound one bell to an-
nounce the departure of the spirit of an injured Queen.—
Dad the gemlemen stopped there, no application perhaps
would have been made to the court, but be went on to libel
the clergy. The writer knew not where the order for
keeping the bells silent came from, but it was a demonstra-
tion of the unchristian spirit pervading the clergy. which
made the establi.lied church rot object of derision, and the
public consider the beneficed clergy as usurpers of those pos-
sessions with which they are endou ed. There was a sensi-
ble decline of spiritual feeliii,, which led the clergy to lend
theinselses to temporal maims ity. It aas impossible the
present state of thiits could last ; sooner or later the whole
fabric would fall. Upon an occasion like the death of the
Queen, the defembtet bout tienight it right to make an attack
tilt the established clergy tit England, and particularly that
of Dui ham. Was it to be endured that the great hotly of
the established choir Is were to be treated with so little les-
pect.-1( attacks like this could he permitted, it would he
impossible that the reverend body could eser expert to rind
the respect doe to their sacred rotations.
The Lord Chief Jostice.—Take ri rule to slaw cause.
Tll2 KING V. R. IIIORBIIILL, EsQ.

Mr. C. Phillips inured to tit • a criminal information
against a reatleinan of the name of thou Mall, one of 1111!
klajesWs Justices ufthe Peace for the County of Derby, for
proendiug to admit William Dcittlrbank, jun., to hail, on a
charge of murder, and screeniog that person from justice.—
The facts must be in the ieecrilet lion of on, readers. A
duel nits fought between Mr. llrittlebank, and a gentleman
named Cuddie, upon the determination of the latter to pay
his address, s to the sister of Mr. Drittlebank. Mr. Cuddiz
was w tried iii the contest. acid soon after died. The con-
stable then neat in search of Mr. Drittlebank, the coroner
haviog found a serdit t of murder, as he was told the object
of his search teas in hi. futhei's house, and the officer under-
stood that the business WIIS arranged by the magistrate, Mr.
Thornhill, taking bail in WWI. for his appearance. When
the trial came on at the assizes, the accused did not appear.
De had lett the country. The affidavits further stated, that
no recognizance was actually entered into fur the appear.
ante of the accused, and it nits suggested that long intimacy
and fi ienchhip existed 11-111eell Mr. Thornhill and the Brit -
I lehank fancily, which had induced the former to screen Mr.
Wm. ittlebank from the ronwilueuce of a charge of wilful
murder.

Judge B iyky asked whether any of the affidavits stated
that Mr. Brit I lehuti k wn Well aitii Mr. Thin saliill.

Mr. Phillip. answered in the negative. They were turd
he was in the huu•r with the in.igiati ate.
The Lord ChicfJ❑*rice Said, e.ea wont in the affidavit
might be true, and yet the gentleman against whom Mr.
Phillips moved be utterly iminrant of the transaction.
Judge 11.tyley.—This Cnuit ran never giant a rule far a
criminal infurniLittou, wiles they have 'itch legal evidence
as would today a grand jar:,.
The Court finder all the c eum,tances, were of opinion
Mr. Milli!). Moran! pitolliec the alllll3 vii ul tlie magistrates
ckrk, ho,e tratimony might tlams a light upon the -übjeel.
Mt. Phillips 'aid, lie should fulluo the ,Lli4.gebiioll of their

M-

Lordships; nod the Coal Intimated that they would hem
him open' on the subject.
ORAL ACT.
Mr. Andrews obtained a aft taidiew cease why a man-
damus should out issue, commanding the magistrates of Mary-
le bone police-office to return to this court the proceeding.
against several persons piosecoted tinder the coal act.--
The object is to prove the points of law argued before the
Judges.
THURSDAY, NOT. 16.
JUDO/SMITS.

The Solicitor General moved the judgment of the Cnort on
Henry Collins, tried before Mr. Justice Burrough, at the
lam Sussex Assizes. fouud guilty of an assault mu Daniel
Sparshott„
Mr. Justice Best read the notes of the learned Judge taken
at the trial, from which it appeared the assault was violent
and unprovoked.
The defendant (who was formerly Lieutenant In his Ma-
jesty's ship Severn, of which the plaintiff is Purser), in his
defeuce, alleged that the first assault was committed by the
who rode his horse against him, as he was riding
the beach at Sussex. He produced certificates of good con-
duct as an officer fur II years.
The Solicitor General, in aggravation, descanted on the
unprovoked brutality of au assault committed oh a person
iu the situation of the prosecutor, advanced in years, and
Heady blind.
Mr. Justice Bayley, pronnarwed the sentence of the Court,
which was, that the defendant 1w imprisoned for three
calendar months in the King's Bench prison, and afterwards
enter into recoguiz4nces to be of good behaviour for five
years, himself in 1001. and two sureties in 501. each.

THE KING V. GEORGE BEIM
The defendant was found guilty at the London billings
after Hilary Term, last, under an information filed by the
Attorney General, for publishing a scandalous and seditious
libel on the King. The libel was published in The Repub-
lican. The defendant was shopman to Richard Cathie of
Fleetwitreet.

On the application of Mr. Cooper, the Court postponed
giving judgment till this day we. k, on the ground that t►eir
were two affidavits to be read In mitigation of punishment,
which had been sworn before the tungiarnte instead of before
a commissioner of this court, which according to the rule of
the court, they ought to be.