The National Register.
London, England, 1811-06-30 00:00:00

THE-NATIONAL RECII-STER.

The Court objected to his reading it, unless it really tended to
mitigate the Defendant's punishment. It was in vain for him to
endeavour to shew there was no malice in the publications; de-
famation imported malice; and he admittted he publishe the
libels advisedly and upon inquiry.
The Defendant then confined himself to an attempt to do
away ari idea, that the latter part of the last libel might be con-
strued into a ridicule of Mr. Hallett for not breaking the peace.
Lord ELLENHOROUGH-It states that Mr. Hallett had pro-
mised to give his brother-in-law satisfaction; but had cowardly
declined to give him a meeting, where he would have received
the summary chastisement he merited. I don't commend your
disLretion in drawing our attention to that part of the libel.
The Defendant said, the libels were on Mr. Hallett's public
conduct.

Lord ELLENBOROUGH—But still that is part of his conduct ;
and you have no right to drag his private conduct to illustrate
his public.
Mr. PARE supported the prosecution. Had the Defendant
relied upon the judicious conduct of his Learned Counsel (Mr.
Garrow) at the trial, he should not have pressed this case. But
now he felt it his duty to call the attention of the Court to the
circumstance that the first libel was pubiished in May, 1809, and
t hat it was not till the appearance of the second, in September
1810, that the prosecution was instituted. It was true, that the
Defendant did not write the first libel, but he adopted it; and
be actually penned the second, from the composition of which
Mr. Park should not gather that l►e was that man of education
Mr. Garrow described him to be ; for it descended to down-
right ribaldry, calling the prosecutor a dug-butcher, and trump-
ing up a story about his wantonly killing a lady's dog. Mr.
Park knew nothing about the lady in the King's Bench of whom
the Defendant talked.

Mr. Justice GROSE, in passing the sentence of the Court, told
the Defendant, that the law was open to Mr. Hallett's relation,
if she was aggrieved ; and that the defendant had no right to
deal justice. between the parties. This being a private libel, the
Court sentenced him to 3 months' imprisonment in the Mar-
ehalsea, and to find security for 3 years, himselt in 5001. and two
sureties in 2531. each.

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 26.
TIIE KING V. NIACDONALD.

The ATTORNEY-GENERA L moved the judgment of the Court
against John Macdonald, a printcr, in Oxford-street, tor
pr i:tt-
ing and publishing two libels against the Rev. William rreland,
Vicar of Froome, Somersetshire.. He was sentenced to three
months imprisonment for each offence, and to find sureties for
good behaviour for three yearss.

sivroanar, JUNE 23.
John Roope was brought up for judgment, having been con-
victed of a libel upon Thomas Pack, Fsfl. late Mayor of Nor-
wich, vilifying his character, and holding hurl up to public
opprobrium and disgrace. l'he libel complained of was con-
tained in a publication of the defendant's, called Mt. IV Ally
Letter, and purported to be a speech of the defendant's, spoken
at a Corporate Meeting, convened to return thanks to the then
late Mayor (the 'prosecutor).—The defendant put in an affidavit
of one of the Magistrates, stating that the Grand Jury, before
whom the indictment was preferred, was chiefly composed of
persons who had served the office of Mayor and Members of
the CorpSration ; that upon the trial the defendant did not state
this circumstance, least it should there aggravate the case
against him.
The Court held that this affidavit was a great aggravation of
his offence ; and he was sentenced to three months imprison-
ment in the King's Bench Prison, and to find security fur his
good behaviour fur three years—himself in 3001. and two sure-
ties 1n 1501. each.
Mr. Garney, on behalf of Baron Keinrulph, moved for
liberty to inspect certain papers which had been in the posses-
sion of Mr. Sedley, and which papers, he stated, would com-
pletely exculpate him from the charge of conspiracy, preferred
against him and Mr. Sedley ;—one of the papers alluded to, was
some confidential communication with Government, which he
did not desire to inspect.
Mr. Gorraw, on the other hand, opposed this application,
which he contended was a novel one, and not such as the Court
could grant, according to the practice. As to this important
Government document, which had been alluded to, he believed
no such paper ever had any existence, except in the imagination
of Mr. ,sodley.
The Court refused the rule; but it was on an understanding
that the Learned Counsel should have an opportunity of looking
into the papers alluded to.
Tint KING v. De You oz.—This case being called on for
Special Argument.

Mr. Gurrow observed, that it had been already ar 'sued in tke
Exchequer Chamber, and the Judgment of that Court was now
pending. He therefore wi,hed the case to stand over until that
Judgment should be pronounced.
Lord ELLENIVIROUGH sold, he should communicate the
Judgment of that Court in the course of the Term. The case
was accordingly postponed.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.

TOZSDAYN, JUNE 2S.
WARDEN V. BAILEY.

Mr. Serjeant Frere moved the Court, on a former day, for $
rule to show cause why a nonsuit in this case should not be set
aside. It was an action brought by a Serjeant in the Bedford
Militia, to recover damages for false imprisonment. A nonsuit
was entered at the trial, on the ground that the Judge had no
jurisdiction over the military proceedings against the plaintiff,
who had been confined previous to being brought to a Court-
Martial. The facts, as state'l, were as follaw :—Mr. Whit-
bread, who is Colonel of the Bedford Militia, had established a
military school for the insrruction of the soldiers ; they were to
read and write, and pay eightpence a week. The plaintiff, who
was described to be incapable of writing out his returns as a
Serjeant, was arrested for refusing to attend the school, and
confined several weeks, previous to being brought before a
Court-Martial, by which he was acquitted. A conditional rule
having been obtained., Serjeants Salon and Blosset this day op-
posed it, and contended, on a variety of cases, that the nu so=t
could not be removed, nor a new trial granted.
Mr. Serjeant Lens was heard at length in support of the rule,
but the Court refused, in consequence of the lateness of the
hour, to hear Mr. Serjeant Frere on the same side.
Judge MANSFIELD observed, " 1 take it for granted, by the
length of these proceedings, that what has been suggested by
the Court is not practicable. Nothing can be more unkind
than a dispute here between Officers and soldiers, and this leads
us to think it is not the imprisonment that is the foundation of
this dispute, us two actions (one has been brought against Mr.
Whitbread) could not have been brought for one imprisonment,
and no disputes can be so unpleasant as those which tend to re-
duce discipline. Without that no army or military force can
be of use. Disputes of this sort tend to produce the most mis-
chievous consequences, and every body who is a friend to the
army and the country would not wish to hear any of this.
Victory appears to be what the parries want in this case. Sup-
pose the order was for the plaintiff to go one day in the week
' to read and write, at eight-pence a week, we cannot believe
this was felt as a grievance by the men, so ignorant as they
were ; it would be advantageous to them. They might read
and write, and eight-pence a week is money next to nothing in
value. These considerations make me think, and every motion-
able man, that the object of these actions is partly to gratify the
prevailing passions which agitate both ponies. The Colonel
must think that it was a desirable thing to instruct these men,
and in the opinion of Officers it is useful: but some men% ere
found not to obey the order of any Officer, useful or not. I
should wish you to come to an accommodation, if not justice
must take place."
Mr. Serjeant Lens said the plaintiff could not take any other
steps.
Mr. Serjeant Sellon observed, that he would communicate the
observation made by his Lordship to the f.illicers.
Serjeant Frere—" The injury we complain of is not the school,
but the imprisonment width we suffer; and we say, that before
the strong hand of power is exercised over the subject, the par-
ties should be governed by law."
Judge Mw NsF I e en.—" Every order should be according to
law. I cannot say that the order for merely learning to read
and write can be a great grievance. If it did not break in upon
military duty it is of great use: to a suklier when he is not a mili-
tary man. There is another point in the case as much to be
lamented as the orders, namely, seditious expressions uttered by
a man who disobeys an order. The expressions may not be
made mutinous, yet they may he improper to use to an Officer.
Mutiny is any word or thing that excites disobedience to as
Officer."
The Court then rose, and the argument will, of course, be re-
sumed, unless the proceedings are ebanduned by both parties.

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 26.

BP OMB "iCK V. TAYLOR.
Mr. Taylor, of the Opera House, in the year 1798, borrowed
of the plaintiff the sum of 600 L and accepted bills for the py-
rnent, and as a further security, gave the plaintiff several silver
tickets of admission to the Opera. It was also covenanted toat
in case the produce of these tickets amounted to more than the
money borrowed with the interest, the surplus. should be pau.: W