The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1820-04-25 00:00:00

4).

r

which Fr should lave established for want of this
one n•ce.say link. Ho" Learned Friend had
deed said, that the►a was presumption of the pulite.
cation in Leicester: but it was his bovine's in a
reining, pail to hate traced the seca•ation clearly
►owe to the Defendant. He (Mr. Denman) hod
sieves before then heard of a Jury being called at
t• purslane that, for the reality of which no per.
son of honour would have undertaken to pledge his
►eputation.
11r. Jamie, Bear said. it did not appear that the
le•r.r came into Mr. Bickerotors hands in Loudon.
or that it came to bias sealed.

Mr. Dc•maw insisted that it was the boohoos r.f
the Prosecutor to Ind that out ; and unless he did
so, and aside good his charge, he ought not to have
had • verdict. Why had not dr. Brooks been asked
from ohom he rrceived the letter ? upon that Mr.
Bickerstaff might have been celled, and so on till
the Defendant had heen connected with the letter.
The place of publication might then have been de.
termined with acclsracy. whereas... at present it
was not only not proved to have been in Leicester,
but from his (Mr. Denman's) absolute knowledge,
he could say that it was not in Leicester. Sup-
position could not be admitted as evidence in such
a ea... where twenty other suppositions equally res.
seeable suit probable might be adopted. Submit-
ting, then, that the writing of a libel was no part
of its crienimility--
The Cam,' Justice said, that he must first be
esairinced of the propriety of that doctrine. He
had a ease before him wherein the decision was very
different—a decision by Lord Holt.
Mr. MINIUM WU aware that his Lordship
meant the King v. Vere. He thought that case had
ceased to he law.

The Cuter JUITICS asked if Mr. Denman was
aware of any case which had overruled it
Mr. DEN MAN replied, that he knew of none
which directly did Ws
The CHIRP hall= thought, with the autho-
rity of Lord Dolt, that writing with intent to
publish a libel, was a part of the crime of pub-
fibbing.
Mr. Dsuw*x submitted, that the case should
have so gone to the Jury. The question would
then have been the intention to publish, and the
place of publication must have been proved ; be-
ause it there had been no publication, the writing
would have been no crime.

The Cuter Justice read Lord Holt's judg-
ment in the ease of Vete, which holds the com-
posing and writing a libel to be criminal, and
points out in what invances it is otherwise, such as
in copying it into an indictment, and on occasions
arniTar. So that in the opinion of the Chief due.
tier, it 'Would then be on the Defendant to shew
that his libel contained no evil. Lord Holt's judg.
went went still further, as ale declared the writing
and sending a libel oo the authority of the Derv,.
dant, to be criminal. Calms some case could be
adhered to *hew that the case of Vere was no
longer law, it must be the role of the judgment of
the Court, because here was as admitted writing
in Leicester, and so order to publish.. ,
domier HoLaoirb instanced snail* ease (the
King o. Knell), wherein a ama had been convicted
of pr bbbb and not of publishing, Rh. rein the pub.
baton% was neretived, and the verdict given for
prnifing only, which might have been so, as the man
might have done all the work himself.

Mr. DUMAN felt obliged to their Lordships for
their assistruce in ezattnaing the gueouon. He ap..
pealed, however, once more to their forbearance,
because the doctrine now held forth was one of the
moot important and appalling ever pronounced in •
Court of Justice; sod us it mode no part of the
preciae cage in which he was engaged, he begged
their Lordahips would not settle it then, but grant
the rule that it might be argued iu the fullest
INNS lier.

'1 be CHM/ Jut Tics ooderstood that Mr. Den-
man annotated the writing amt composing, with
it.tr•at to *rod the letter to Mr. Brooks.

Mr. Dinilean again admitted that.
The COIIIII JUSTICII said, that then the CSMNII
010(11 lied beet, meutioned must be the rule of
thri► conduct, except Mr. Denman was prepared
to argie segment them or their applicability to the
case unenedistely before the Court.
Mr. DUMAN said, he wee not then prepared to
argue ou the ease suggested, because it was out the
cose put at the t►me.
The Cuter ANTICS offered to great • rule he
spew cause why the verdict should not be narrowed.
ulArerving. et the same time, that he supposed that
would not do.

Joiner BUT hod said to the lorry on the trial
Ann Sir Francis Burdett ought to hare called Mr.
Ilitlerstall; as the prosecutor could not have known
iiiin.jiremoissly to the trial ; and as to the witurin
&swim. there wash! • have been the utmost die-
ciity iss getisog soy funher inf./caution from him.
ise said nod nossud, in au incoherent mouser. He
thrmere, of opinion that there was prime
/kis evidence. sue` as was oulleient re go neer
J 'Atte

Mr. DIMMAIIII mid. that was the goestion he
route in ensue. lie differed from his Lordship
ulnae that topic. so also on the dillculty of obtain
from Mr. Brooks.
Javier Bun read over batman of the trial. sod
venesieded Mr.:Demme'. that he hod stated to the
Jet). that if they were of opiisitio that the letter
was eteliorreid sealed in London there would hare
Leen Ink proof of publiestino ise Leicester.. But as
tar lever was open when delivered to London there
was nu lemur of ita • mot haeitmg beets publselead IM
Leicerei. r.
Mr- Miffing said. andoubledly such was the
wsy to oleeck.he had understood the case. and a*
bile') he sou prepared to argue it. Two-other views.
1.441. heels offered fir it by their Lordships. One
. new derived huts the case of the *nig aid; Veie ;
.the •fililtf was she distioctiou of while iu
.l.nictetre...the.publicatian.
,
Tipt. (alter ANTICS said. that mere writing; its'
4.416111k,d4C11 foe Waco a meatoPe desk - woo robbed of
• i.ausisslotand • shore not• attlifilowed. shesstog .
.teAsecia .jetitelisk, too* be crirsionel. because;
• bode Ow litre :loy.;Ble4otus ..usiffinitts 'Sobel
;so:l.,,waelear.lisulie • later the isethwesauleistioss.
• • • by* tow miaow.
•- • • •• • loe Wooer obefrais • iratet litt. tlilorooos ie hi
loolk oily as' ierillissisaido
• air • ammo .4•111, shriiiike -10 d Oat .gmhsit
came tutu Louis, st was solely to MIMI the NI&

eievicy or ininsfficksery of pm( of the publication
is Leicestershire.
Justice BAYLIS' said, that as the Court held itei
writing itself to be criminal, the o.finelosit,eqg
hound to *hew that the matte, of the libel tau inn
nicest.
Mr. DCWISAII was afraid te tote km slob sa
argument then, es it might compel tom Itit Mai
rime ...pions dangerous not only So Me caws bill In
the interests of the public.
The Gegcr Justice said, thee there hods. not
sufficient tense 'hewn for setting *ride the verdict.
There "sonic', however. be an opportunity on the
judgment for pressing his objection. He had con-
ceded the feet of publication by the Defendant.
Mr. DiwMAn said, that there was abundant
proof of a publicatiso in Middlesex. Bat the
whole question for the Jury was, had there been •
publication in Leiceoter, or not ? Ile had next to
meet the distinction between publishing and causing
to he published. These terms were lewdly quota.
mous. and he did not believe there was a single rive
in which any distinction had ever been set up he.
!we'll them. The whole sentence W 44 to be taken
toget het, and one of the expressions was used merely
to strengthen the other. Ifs maw received the stroke
in one county which closed his death in another to
which he might Bee, there could be no verdict foe
soisider in cession Jaw. Causing to publish was
the same thing as publishing. If any act could
be picked out end distinguished as causing a man
to publish, the least important of his actions might
be punished, as the desiring his ink-stand to.
words him, which with other triatsig actions, was
necessary to he performed in order to enable • loan
to pobloh. There was no evidence of any htsmsn
rye having seen the publication in Leicester besides
that of the Defendant himself.
Mr. Justice BASTLIT said that there was pre.
sumption of the Defendant having been ,in the
county of Leicester at the tune of the publication.
Mr. DENMAN said that it would have done, if
there had been proof that the Defendant had not
been in any other county than Leicester. But the
proof was that he was fillisiK about on the beird.ia
of the county, and it was as easy to suppose that
he had been into Northamptonshire or Italian&
shire. With deference to Mr. Justice Best, there
was no difficulty as to getting evidence even from
Mr. Brooks. The question then WI,. as there was '
sit admitted publication in Middlesex, why pre.
sumption should be taken that the pablication wee
in Leicestershire. without the Jewel evidence to_
prove in ? The writing itself. if a crime, was not
cognisable by any human jurisprudence. lie next
adverted to the case of the seven Bishop., which
he had weed in his argsimei.t at Leicester. It was
there held that there was no proof of publicatiun
in Middlesex, though the Bishops admitted having
{impend the piper then in question at Lambeth, in
Surrey. Lord Sondelland was then called to prove
that they had delivered the paper to the King at his
Palace mu Middlesex. and that was bell to be a
publication. Lord Sunderlsed stood in tilt same
relation to that paper as Mr. Bickersbdi did is
the tine ill 4111010141 M, and Mr. Ilickenstoff should
have been celled by the proseestor OS LAW Sondes,
land hod been. If. it had ilwei been proved that be
received the letter only ill L.eicestenihire. the De.
'indent would hose been.brought within theca,.
primp 'A the present indictment. There were other
cases which he- bad quoted at Leicester. Una of -
them would he tumid in the let of Comapbelrio4
the case of Gwynn and %Valenti ; the libtllons letter
had beets received at Windsor The Counsel fur
General Otiyiin urged the Islington post-sort as
evidence of the place of publication. Lord
Elleuboeough pronounced this insufficient. These
vies another case in which a libellous letter had been
received hoes Barking by the pro...rotor.
at his apartments he the Kong's Mews, gamete
Lund Ellionhor.mgli was of opinion, that there was
solleient proof of publication in the Plaintiff
having received the letter. There was another ease
ice the ed of Campbell's. page 506. wherein
ii_ong_ _or ar_. petting an
Lord Elle bar d drat
iosulting letter into the post.ofice, with intent to
publish and cause a bleach of the peace, &c. was
proof, if establi•lied. of publication.

Mr. Justine 'llact.ur melted if then OWNS did DM
shew the the publication might be prosecuted iu
either of the counties?
Mr. DammAm submitted. that uo such inference
could he drawn. The publication by putting a
letter into the post, was. it► the Cafe of •Yu
mem, for sending a letter of a particular descrip.
_ _

• .

Ms. Justice Bay LIT .ate sight for mud.
ink, not far pebb.listsg.
Mr. Denman admitted. that sending.' threaten.
ing or insulting letier, oreu to an fitment way if
proved, ',mew be liable is possisbenefiti es wincing
Cu intentims to break the peace. .It lb. case of
Judge Johann* (Bases Reports). milso.enme its It,.
laud. sad had mimed she publication of • letter in •
Ceiheles Hegister. it. Englaad. the Court held,
itriesdnetnesmaseess 1(44. Urreaselaiit.were ;we.
sent, se he !smeared ihopoldiesasias by memo of hie'
agents. It happened that the Court gave no ornamii
as in publication in Irelead. Theo tberemns the
of Harris. whose the poatimisses opened the denser mid
read it. in which.Jodge Abbott held that there was
as publiessiaa wish she introit charged, eacept the
Defendant had intended stud the postmaster shoold
read she letter, which was a question left by the
'Learned Judge fur the Jury to decide. lit WSW
led that the last was Not a case of .~sure. He cease
to the second paled of his argasseeid. which. formed:
itself an a division groused. The information
charged particular weeds, impolite; that ibe.Ki•O•
. troops cut Jima, trampled mi. and assailed certain
of Isis Mfierety.e peaceable and nessiffeadiug sub-
jects. Evidence had been prepared .at Leicester
.to lime the fact of this past of, the libel. though
.he had usit pressed this pert a See armussest very
strougly. The Leagued Serjeaut (lAlughsof. ,had
stibinit tett, 0,64 supposing. gait's, facts le be
use, atilEit was au-offensive kW la ease them....
The Learned J edge (Bed) mould Net go ms fate sods
aditker appeased is slunk that. kin F. Burdesi ism
eirmaiiisl es recesnag .such an raaggeisted reletion
of Citellinstaisers Waphettly. Power was Su. (W.
sSillseuee tendered of she facts having tidier place
es Sir Frannie Botitett Uri slew rased them:
elle. beds* reurselnitsk ease seaposse ism imepsidit of
salssapewereembeg. *high, world b.. limed ins Cogrees
Mess grid.. vole as. It was the Es% it. Hammy
It rot assent reiensignl the mend ease. The De.

~ _ .

ferniest wee Cheesed with defaming the King's
troops, by representing them to hove.committrd a
mesescre on the inhabitants of Lesington. in *me.
gee. The Defending offered ea alidavit to the
Corm by a Captain Ger Men, of the dragoons. its
which the feet was after tett, aad *feted to be proved.
The Court received the affohivit, for indeed the
thief gestation, ea in the present case, was, whether
the Defendant had Iwblished• falsehoods for the
purpose of excitement. arid to provoke diseffection.
or truth, with a view to obtaining justice for the
suffering party. The general 'sermon, that truth
was no justification of a libel. MIS true 111 Put"'
lar cases; hat in others, where e geoeral know-
tedge prevailed of certain eeto done by a particular
body, none of whom were individually {mown.
there was free scope for aniusadversios. In a case
which occurred formerly et Leicester. respecting
the conduct of a municipal officer of that place.
Mr. Serjeant Vaughan thought it necessary to go
into the history of the case, and did so. He did
not mean to sty. that there were tie limits to be set
to the terms in which subjects, if true, were to be
commented on; but certainly the truth or the
falsehood mast be the main ingredients for the Jury
to curs.ider of. He twat coed the case of the.
King r. Sten-held,. The Difeudasit was charged
with defaming certain parties, ...d representing
tlbeve to hove committed cruelty find injustice in the
island of St. Kitt's. TU. Couct allowed the De.
reorient to go into the proof of the slatenatut.
The Cuter JUITICI said that the-publication in
that case was a naked narrative of facts without any
commas.

Mr. DUMAN thought that the difference between
I Mere charge and an exaggerated charge would be
• eircuusstance which the Jury only could decide ou
sod it would be for them to say whether or uot due
Defrostlent had outstretched his privilege in cow.
meriting on ■ true fact.
Justice BATLEY asked. suppose this part of the
libel to be proved. would that entitle the Defendaut,
in the judgment of Mr. Monson, to acquittal
Mr. DSIIIIAN thought that he could not pro.
perly hove any judgment oo such a point. Nor
ems it for the Court to put themselves in the place
of the Jury. end examine as to what degree of
guilt they would have convicted the Prisoner. The
strut ground he moved ou was a misdirection of the
Judge. ND he conceived it to he. in summing up.
He referred to the Act nil Geo. 111. for regales.
ing.dte conduct of Judges, in charging the Jury,
in cases of libel. They were not required to with-
hold their opinions of the crimitiality of the sc.
cured. as in cases of felony; hat it certainly did
oat leave the whole power of deciding on the cri.
mimility of the charge. The Judge (11.0) hall
told the Jury. that se • wetter of law he felt
it his duty to state to them it was a libel.
Mr. Deimos submitted, that after such • charge
the Jury could not ensencipate themselves from
the direction of the Judge. any more than in
any other case where the law was explained to them.
Justice Barr added; 14 You will collect the facts
front the evidence. cud unless you are of opinion
that II am wrong. you will take the law from me."
He submitted that no subsequent dilation of the
expressions could have enabled the Jury to judge
freely.
The CAMP JUSTICE asked, was not this charge
each as was usually made its oilier cases : If you
are of opinion that such is the fact of publication,
and such the intentigo of the mother, you will give
such or such a verdict ?"

Mr. Duman submitted that the charge was not
given hypothetically. and there was great difference
'pewee', raying 66 if such is the care," and " such
is the case." His objection was against the geue•
sal assumption in the beginning °film charge.
Junk! HIST s..id. that the 3ld Geo. I 11. Wee pass•
ed because Lord Mansfield and others had decided
that if the inuendoes of a libel were proved, the
Defendaut must be found guilty. He thought he
had given his charge on the occasion in question,
as in Al case of murder or any other, only stating
whet he conceived to be the law of the case, and
leaving the facts with the Jury.
Mr. DINNAN said, that if he had been on the
Jury he should have considered himself bound to
observe the opinion of the Judge. The case was
not left for the Jury to deride on ; because
though it was said. " you are at liberty to decide
otherwise►" yet as ibis was accompanied with a dc•
claraiiou that by the law the publicatiou was a libel..
the offer of leave to decide contrary to that opinion
was very little different . from saying. " if you de.
cide otherwise you will dp wrong." As too case of
murder. that was a defined crime. and a Judge had
only to state the law, the Jury oily to find the fact.
But saying to a Jury that by the law of the case ■
publicatiou was a libel, was to take from that Jury
the decision of themily question at issue.
The Cutss JWITSCS thought it the duty of a
Judge to give the Joey his opinion of the libel, the •
same Net any other cow lie had to try.
Mr. Doniall simply recapitulated the three
grounds winch he hod offered fur his motion; first►
there was no proof at voiicsomi in Leicestershi►e;
snood. there was evidknetiyarered to prove the
facts of the publicotioir; Are, there was a salads.
rectiors in the charge aline Judge.
The Comer consulted So a fro minutes, after
which—

The Cumit JUSTICZ timid. that .t room there
woo sot oulkiesot foutolotioN foe the role to slatw
•ewttre. Bet the Court would eoustder further of
it. owl therefore the case should stood over for
their deliberation.

*r V. Berdettsed N. liehheere were iu Court
deriug the .lettele of the Wriewsw.

Os Theesday the ,atit cermet. s sesernes
portrof the fronds shod admirers of Sir W SILTS&
SCOTT, Ban. sort at dierrer. to the • Greer loss.
Melte" Am repress thew reissue, it the disavowals-
td hoottor which hen lettly • been eoofersed by bes
Sosseilirt epee lII*. .About
thirty igestiroteu bet Moe to table. Comtism
. guts's. Eaq. the Chief •Nolgistriste of the town.
its the Choir i CeptsissMoset Vtaausos. cowrie,.
The straws ,our .eberveserist•l by • spirit of airs
dielity...kissee. mod itessil.essil. of *ISA it is
essootill ers say. that is who might lave beefs
.istp•seil hem is. eAtjeat. mud the reollitctis• of
ambiesst .4041.•se•i3ust Snare' abash- died
every Lard. :A.goorq. al wiromed seed .appre.
ram uposseuerimipookkg the elooll. Chung..
awl he assilessir said do Aillesea. Res showed kit
carte spirited sings.

7URP.

sarriNa AT TATTERSALL'S TEfTRRDAY•

......
The MOOD Way womb wog/died. awl ems Mary Mikes Not
bet, as fullves:—.

Dips,.
to to II opt Piodortio 9 to I not Abhor
114 t• I awls Wee 14 so I opt Ikeda*, t•
7 to I .p$ Kin Dorn Bisielter.
Ally 100 to 4 apt Arbotos

OAS!.
'I to 1 arl Deka of Rat. Ais I sot Mee.lamer. rei..e•• yC. 7to I apt UrSeilft
. ill! ram &sweat 7 lo I spa Manama

ST. LBGEII.
lb te I bid e. by Watson, NIS 0 Limns.

NEWMAINLIT FIRST SPRING MEETING, ISM.

savvaliat. snot.
Rewind of the Palate Stak►s of 150 p. yeah 100 p. fl
tolls, M. VW; Allies, Set. Sib. RM. Ties rising
3 yrs old.
Mr. Uduey's hr. e. Abjer, by Tenet, oil of grinds
ld Filley's eh. e by Soothaaper, sot of Merrpasker's darn
D. of Rattaild's e. by Haphazard, oat of Elisabeth....... 3
D. of Grafton 's hr. e. Lark, by Haphosard, out of Pigott
Sir J. Shelley 's brother to Conies
Niue paid furfeit.—The Jade placed but 3.
3to 1 apt Abjer-3 to I arm Ld reliefs e►. e.—II Is S
apt Lodi. _

Handicap Sweepotakos of 10p. earls, foe t.yr.olds .4 op
wards. It AL
Mr. Wyodham's e. by Deis/rim, I yrs old. ttst. 1116
Lord Grosvenor's A Wforst, 3 yrs old, 1151. 1111 b..
Mr. Mimes Harespro. 3 yrs u1d,1144. bib
Mr. Cbsrltoo'silissorock, 3 yrs old, list. 1116.
Cleo Grosvenor 's Sloe Ssockiwp,ll yrs old. Sst. 121 b.
Doke of Graffor's Evadoe,3 yrs old, hl. 1216.
Mr. l'ayse's f. by Cripple, eel of Lady irphia,, $ yrs old
1181. fib.
The hider paced bat 3. -
3to I opt Mr. Wyodbans s c.—a to 4 apt AWord-1 to 1