The National Register.
London, England, 1822-11-18 00:00:00

r. Lt:%. Sun. v. sitoUGIS.

_ .
This was an action to recover damages for assault and battery.
'the defendant pleaded that be kept a public house, and a
hide before the assault the plaintiff came iu and conducted him-
self in a riotous and quarrelsome manlier, and on his refusal to
1,0 out, the defendant put his hand upon hint and turned Min
out. The cease was hied before the Lord Chief Justice, at the
Sittings after last Term, in 3liddleses; The plaintiff is the son
of an auctiounr, and the riefendant, who is a respectable licensed
victoaller, keeps the Swan, in Bury-street, St. James's. It ap-
peared on the trial, that the plaintiff and another person entered
the J. femlaiit's parlour, and not only lung the bell with violence
hut be.tati to stir the line in a moot off. naive way. The defein
d.out Cutting there wan a dispositiun to behave in • disorderly
manner, requested his visitor.. to leave the bouse.—They re-
fused, and the defendant turned the plaintilf out of doors. The
tads of the case were !wood in a very able manner by a little
boy in the sera ice of Mr. 'trough, and the Jury found a verdict
fur the defendant.

Mr. Chitty this day moved to act usitle the verdict and ob-
tain a new trial, on the around that the justification by Ate de-
fendant had not Levi's itle nut.
Mr. Ncarlett also said he bad some recollection that his
Lottlshiii at the trial intimated that the joint:keit:Wiwi Was Mut
made uut.

The Lord Chief Jsistice observed, that he could not have
chugtil the Jury that wuy , because the evidtuee in support of
the itistthea:in , 11441 some weight on his mind.
Air. t hilly then adverted to the evidence, and patticularly
to the uct of stirring the lite. The Ocular an his friends
were driven into the defendant's house, be said, by the pellin4
rain. They willed for beer, and the defeialant refused to supply
them, on the mare ground that they had stirred the lire. lie
nest assaulted the and turned him out. It was the
li,sl time Le had limad that stirring the lire in a politic house
was sufficient to instil). an assault committed by the landlord.
The Lord Cisitl Justice said, Mr. Chitty was not warranted in
that cunclusion. Tile evidence proved improper conduct on
the pit of the plaintilf and his comps .In ease the July
fd 1.4.114 d a I dt,lict fur thu 11114461 r tiot dun ages 0111111 ha, e

THE NATIONAL REGISTER

been trivial. His Lordship, under idl the bearings of the case,
allowed Mr. Chitty to take a rule to chew rause ; but recom-
mended, fur the benefit of the pubes, a ski precessme.
TILE ICING v. HAIL. .
1111/1 was a proceeding on a writ of q..ir imirranio, calling upon
the defendant to sheYY by what authority he chums to be Regis-
trar and Clerk of the Court of Requests at Bristol. The
question was tried at t.wi K.:sixes, and it mime before the
Court in the form of a special case.
The Judges bad tu decide whet:ter several commissioners of
the Court of Reqn:sts at Bristol were resident
told qualified to elect tile defendant to the office.
Alter the case had been a!ily ar4aril by Mr. Selwyn and Mr.
Adams, the Court took lime to deliver Omit judgment.

ThURIDAY, NOV. 1-i.
At half past nine, Mr. Justice Bayley name into Court, and
immediately after Mrs. Susannah 1\ right entered, with a child
iu her anus, and another in the arms of the nurse, supported by
two mule friends, and three females in her train, and imme-
diately following entered Waddington, with a yuia n.g glass
suspended from his neck by a bright purple riband, and Black-
stone's Conutientariem in his band. At ten, two 11101 C female
friends of Mrs. Wright, young ladies of genteel appearance,
whose father, we understand, presented her with live guineas
on her trill, jollied the part), cud took their seats facing the
King's Counsel.

TIIE ILINU, ON THE PHoSECCTIoN OF THE SOCIETY FOR THE
SUPPREs,,IoN 01 ICE, O. sUsANNAII U RIGH r.
Mr. Gurney nan.ed the judgment on SuAannan 11 ri,ht, who
then stood up ; rife at caned rather eledwute in her health—
genteely dressed._

The Lord Chief Justice read the libel and sword of eon-
vi-tion, being a letter addressed to the Rev. Mr. Wade, of
Bristol.
The defendant being asked if she had any allidavit, answered
in the negative.
The Lord Chief Justice—Have you any thing to say in your
defence t—A great deal, my Lord.
The Lord Chief Justice—Then proceed.
. . . .

The defendant then proceeded to runt her defence in a clear
and audible voice, from a manuscript.—l ant charged with pub-
lishing a blasphemous libel on the Christian religion—what in
that religion ?—it in an anomaly.
Mr. Justice lispey—W hat in it?
Defendant—A non-entity—an anomaly--
Court—We cannot pursuit you to reVile the Christian religion
in this Court.

Defendaut—l am accused of disturbing the peace of our So-
vereign Lord the Kiog—now no libel uu religion can disturb his
peace, whose conduct is itself—
The Lord Chief Justice—We cannot permit you to go on in
this course of senile. Mrs. Wright, attend to me—a greet
deal of what you have attempted to read the Court canuot allow.
That Christianity is a non-entity, is what we cahoot, as Judges
and as Chriatiaus, sit here to hear, 11 you choose to go house
and reform what you have written, you way come up another,
day, and address the Court as to that which you think may
avail you in mitigation of punishment.
Mr. Gurney—That is written by some wicked adviser of her's,
who bits behind her.

Defendant proceeded—The thirty-nine articles of the esta-
blished church—
Mr. Gurney—As that which the defendr.nt is reading has no
more to do with the subject before the Court than the History
of England, she ought not to be permitted thus to waste the time
of the Court.

Defendant (raining her voice)—But I will proceed.
Lord Chief .1 ustice—We cannot bear you.
Defendant—My Lurd, you refuse to hear me.
The Lord Chief Justice—Let the defendant stand committed
to Newgete for time to reform her address in mitigation of
punishment ; and for the purpose of bein4 again heard, let her
be brought up the fourth tiny of nest Term.

3G

alibi* country tolerated any men following such relishes as he
approved, or to discuss temperately the truth of all dontrimea.
But this was a libel on the Bible in general, and impeaching
that which we were taught to look upon with reverence. Ho
had no difficulty in sayisig, this was properly described as a
MO; and there was the judicious •.cotence of this Court, in the
car...! of Carllie, that it Visit. The sentence of the Curt is, that
you be confined for twelve months in C. Idhatti-fields, and to
find security fur good helms iour fur lire years, youistlf in
5001. and two sureties in IUOI.
IVais.dinglon-1 hope sour Lordships will allow me the use
of pen and ink there.
Cow Lave uothing to do with that.
NV addington.—( kietiiing in custody.)—Thongh I Sid not
tell this Look, I will bow to the sentence of taia Court wheu
the Bishop of Clogher i, brought to justice.--(Laughter.)
tIIAM ATTORNEV.—TiIi ILJAQULS.
The defendant uppeartd to s.,ew cause a by the Court should
not commit bins pursuant to the provisions of the Act of Par.
humeri', fur having practised as an attorney in the name of
Thaekeray without qualifica.ion, lie being only an attorney's
clerk. The facts have been several times stated in our reports.
The Court ou this occasion, read as much of the allidarits es
appeared necessary to make them co.mimuit of the fact, which
was clearly proved against the defendant, nut only on the re-
pout of the ouster, to whom the mutter was origii.ally referred,
but on the defendanCa own I kn. which contained entries of
money paid to Tharleray for allowing bins to practise.
The defendaut alleged en this occasion that Chia was not a
proceeding against him in open Court, and that witnesses
►hould hese been examined ri. a truce as before a eiai;ietrat,.
noel the Court on that account atteuded with great patience to
all the defendant had to °Kr.
The Lord Chief Justice, after the defendant had concluded
said, the Nitrate gave the Judges the power to commit fur any
term not more than 12 mont.is, and the only question was,
whether they ought to commit for that period or for less. The
dukedom had submitted an alfid,vit, in which he represented
the distress which had fallen on himself and family, by a vio-
lation of the law. The practice of acting as attorneys without
qualification, was much cutuplaiued of. The ►entence of the
Court was, that the defendant he committed to the prison of
this Court for six calendar mouths.
FUIDAY. NOV.
'this being paper day, the Court proceeded with 01115011 on
the Special Paper.
cunt: o. COLRIDGI •SD ANOTHCa.
This (muse came before the Court upon a demurrer to the
plea.

The plaintiff is a solicitor, and the defendants are magistrates
of the County of Lancaster. It appeared, upon a statement of
facts, 'lint a person named George brown was charged wills
felony, and being essusaintd before the defendants, the plaintiff
presented-himself as the prisoner's attorney, fur the purpose
of cross-examining witnesses, and producing opposing testi-
mony. The magistrates refused to permit him to be present,
and not only prevented him from cruet-examining the witnesses,
but turned him out of the justice MIR. The plaintiff then
brought his action tor assault. The defendants justified and
alleged that they bad a prisoner in custody, and that by law
the plaintiff had no right to be present at the elimination.—
The plaintiff, in his replication, said lie had a right to be pre-
sent. The defendant demurred to that, and the demurrer canto
en tube argued. 'l he question was, whether at the easitainatioa
before a m. gistrate of a person charged with felony, an attorney
has a right to insist upon admission as a legal adviser of this
party accused.
111 r. Colridge, in support of die demurrer addressed the
Court, and contended that the magistrates' court was not a ju-
dicial trammel. They had only lower to enquire into the
nature of any charge Nought under their cognisance. A ma-
gistrate had a right to examine privately, ■nd consequently go
admit such persons only as he might consider necessary for the
ends of justice. The magistrates in this case were justified is
turning the defendant out of their Whet, and the action avoid
not be sustained.

The Common Sergeant, in support of the replication. treated
this as a question of great importance to the public, imuniuch
as personal liberty was deeply conceived in the reboil. A ma-
gistrate was bound to bear both parties with strict impartiality,
and to allow the accused MI opportunity of proving his inno-
cence. The question *Gaul the liberty of the party, and
every charge ought to be well investigated before the defen-
dant was sent to prison• lie contended that every perm' cc-
cured had a right to receive the assistance el his attorney, am'
to deprive him of that right would be snaking a deep inroad
upon public liberty. The phoutill, in the discharge of his 'MU.
lessioturi duty, Mt muted the prisoner, and the magialrates were
not justified in turning him out. The assault having been coin •
muted under such circumstances, the plaintiff was entitled to
judgment.
The Court gave judgment ■t considerable length on the main
question, mutely, whether an attorney had a right to be admitted
to a ningistrate's room, as legal adviser of the accused under
evainination.—The Judges were deafly of opinion uo such right
existed. .1 magistrate was not judge of Lis coos. ; hu busi-
ness was to enquire, not to ilekrmine, mid that enquiry w•ta
necessarily private ou some occasions. Income cases it might
happeii, that the object of the magistrate was to discover thieves,
and that object would he defeated if the attorney of the accused
was peraiitted to Le ',rearm, because he might Bite the thieves
notice of the measures taken tut their apprehension. if attor-
ney s had the right to attend before the magistrates, they would
a!so has e a right to attend before grand juries. hider all the
circumstances, the Court gave judgment for the dekudanta.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.
rei DAV NoV. L.

Mr. Justice Pork arrived i• 110.11 • few minutes before oa•
o'clock, when the J•ry being sworn the following eawbe cam•
on for trial.

• NI:11)1AS 14 Day{Nor/.
Sergeant Pell slated, that it wag an action, bronght by the
plaintiff against the defendant, for money b. d and reeeit e. 1.--
that the plaintifr had gnat anfeett the payment of • hill of es •
ehanNe..l.ll. 3s. lid. which the defendant not lionour,d,
the plaintiff had p. id. The dt.fclidant in the action pleaded •
the general ia.ne and sA otr. It appeared that the plaintiff had
had cone good.. lodged in his h.dida, to the amount of 201.
and upwards, but whi.li the !admit] had wrote defendant a
tetter In take away, hut which lie had cot done.

Jlr.J.oehua Wallace p.0,,t1 the aelbouledguteut of the de•
fen.lltot to a letter put to, of hi. owing the phdadiff the money.
The learned Judge directed the Jury to 1.11,1 for the phiihtifr
damages 221. 3s. the Odic rence betwixt the amount of the hill•
mot the Arnow:a or the goods iu the t.ossession of the
leidad seesolliogly.

Nlr. Abraham Nloore, bturister at low, Who left
Engl tut abruptly al,out a year ag,n, died lately of
tee yellow fever at New York.