The National Register.
London, England, 1809-11-19 00:00:00

THE NATIONAL REGISTER.

Defendant Pohlimo referred to the Custom-House Office; and
as to what the e%idenre had stated about dispensing with the
Custom-him-e oath, tons the Defendant s‘vore himself to have
understood lo refer to the oath about the age of the party. It
had also been stated in the evidence, that the Duke of Portland
had received money on account of the sale of places; all the
Defendant Poithruan had intimated was, that persons about the
Duke had received malt money. The Defendant further stated,
that nth a single public place had beensold at his office, and that
he had received no emolument from the present negociation.
The Defendant Pohlman was a stranger to this country and to
its laws, and the learned Counsel imputed half his guilt to his
ignorance of our language and our laws, and urged his impri-
sonment from July, on the surrender of his bail, in mitigation
of his punishment.

Mr. Dampit.r, for the Defendant Key lock, urged that no trans-
action had taken place, and that his client and his partner were
the dupes, and not the duping. Mr. Hesse, the negotiator for the
place, had got his money back, and it was Keylock who added
the clause in the negociation, that no money should be received
from Mr. Hesse, unless he obtained :As ituatio n. Notwith-
standing all the clamour which hail been raised about these
things, his client had lost between 611. and 701. by this concern;
and it could not hut go out into the world, that when these ne-
gociations did take place, they were losing concerns. The
Learned Counsel concluded, that notwithstanding all the flip-
pancy about oath- which the evidence detailed, that obligation
was never mentioned before .his client without his expressing
his acabc of the seriousness and solemnity of the °blip-
tiro.

Mr. 'Gurney, on the part of the Defendant, Sarah Harvey,
trged that she was the mere dupe of Jeremiah Reding-, whine
• name had been introduced into a negotiation in which Lord
Castlereagh was implicated, and who introduced himself to his
client while he was in prison for debt, as a person connected
with gentlemen of high rank in the State. if Reding could im-
pose upon them. then the Learned Counsel contended that it was
not very improbable that he should impose upon his client. He
shelved her letters, which she believed to he genuine, and she
negociaied his business for him, at first believing him to be a
man in distress, but was afterwards persuaded to accept of a
remuneration for her great trouble, and actually accepted of a
promissory note In:- 501. which was never paid, and of which
she had never received a farthing to this day. She had never
bent concerned in any prior transaction of the like nature, and
did not know the present to be illegal ; res,tl.ing advertisements
to its effect in the newspapers every day. She had but a slen-
der income and two small children to support; and these circum-
stances the learned Counsel pressed in mitigation of her punish-
ment.
The Attorney Ceneral, in support of the prosecution, said
that a good deal had been urged on the ground of the frequency
of place-advertisements: the fact was, that such advertisements
were by no means common ; and though they might appear to
be not illegalan the face of them, when you cause to the enquiry.
they could not appear °therm There was not a single per-
son who did not believe, after enquiry at the Defendant's office,
that a very scandalous sale of +Ares was going on, and the
extent of the mischief which their impression produced,
'was, that" all public offices were objects of traffic. By
this Rivals, tile Government was brought into disrepute; and
-thus the mischief was effected. The Attoruey.tieneral re-
joiced in the assertion, that since the present trial, this traffic
had ceased; but it would not cease if a preventive punishment!
Was not awarded in the present instance. The Defendant, Pohl-
man, the learned Attorney General contended, was not entitled.
to indulgence after his present evasive affidavit ; as to his note
knowing of the illegality of his proreding, he urged that
gality, and the proceedings of the House of Cotnatous, as an:'
excuse .for his not completing his undertaking: and as to his
retard for an oath, the oath, i the present instance, was stated
by him to have been only a trifling oath, that the party had not
purchased the place; a circumstance, which at owce shelved;
the Defendant's knowledge of the illegality of his proceeding,!
and his connivance at perjury. The Defendant Pohlman, too,:
conversed at Mrs. Harvey's, with a third pewit), who talked
aboot another place, as a qualification for which, the oath had,
been stiff, but swallowed. When persons who were brought up
to receive punishment from his Lordship, defended their conduct
instead of apoligising for it, they were Opel' to the Severest
censure. The conduct of the Defendant KeAtck had not beets.
so bad, but it wan farfront heir* blameless; he knew what wat
going on, and shared the pro Ats. The Learned Attorney-Gene.;

NOV. IL

rat could not comprehend how their .offices could be beset frogs
morning. to night, as they stated it to have been, and yet no
other instance of the sale of an office to have occurred, as they
,tated it. But supposing all these Defendants swore to be true,
the mischief to the public was done, in answering enquiries, by
professing to hawp the means of selling public offices of trust,
and the public mind had in fact been so impressed. As to this
comparative innocence of these Defendants, he had to learn till
to-day, that those who kept houses to decoy prostitutes were
less blameable than the prostitutes themselves. As to the De-
fendant, Sarah Harvey, ►s hose guilt, according to the defenders
of Pohlman and Keylock, infinitely exceeded theirs, that was for
the consideration of the Court. But she threw the odium from
herself to Reding ; the prosecution of the Court could be direct-
, ed only against the actors in the affair; and if it were not so, it
would be in the power of any per6on to place himself behind, to
the.evasion of public justice. The Learned Attorneys General
wished that Pohlman and Keylock had stated who applied to
them to open an office for the sale of public places, and what
those places were; but he was disposed to think their wholeu
pretended authority and power untrue.
Lord lillenborough adterted to an important document an-
nexed to the allislavit of the Defendant Harvey, in which 9001.
were said to be received by Sikes, Saaith, and Co.
Mr. Gurney.—" Which sum she handed to Reding."
Lord Ellenborough.—" She is not implicated in this ; the
bearing lies in three other directions. Let the several Defen-
dants be committed to the custody of the Marshalsea of this
Court, and brought up fur judgment on Saturday se'imight.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, WEDNESDAY, Nov. 15.

cciFro RD V. BRANDON.

Mr. Serjeant Sheppard, for the Defendant in this cause, which
was an action for an assault and false imprisonment, on the part
of the Plaintiff, who is a Barriter at Law, against the Defen-
dant, who is the Box-keeper of Covent Garden Theatre, moved
for a rule to chew cause why the action should not be set aside,
.upon a variety of grounds which he had to plead in justification
of the Defendant's conduct.

First, that the Theatre was duly
.licensed and authorised to
represent comedies and tragedies, and the Managers to demand
such prices as they should deem must expedient, for the admis-
sion of an audience tr. (tiller:A parts of their house. Secondly,
that the Plaintiff, accol pauled by three other persons,_ on. the
night stated, did illegally commit a trespass in thesaid theatr,
for the purpose of oblizing the Managers fa reduce their prices';
for that during the exhibition of the farce, the said persous
did create a disturbance and riot, to the interruption of the per-
formance, and the great annoyance of the peaceable persons
there assembled to enjoy the amusements of the evening; and
that the Defendant being a principal servant of the house, did,
as he conceived to be his duty, give the Plaintiff in charge to a
constable, in order to restve and preserve the peace of the
nose, and prevent the further progress of riot, Thirdly. thit
the Plaintiff did, on the same evening., instigate many other
persons by his example la make disturbance and riot, and to
interrupt the performance on the stage.
These were the principal grounds of the learned Serjeant's
motion. Ile regretted the necessity of urging so many dillvrent
pleasnn this occasion ; but they were rendered necessary by
the different objects of the riot and disturbance in question.
Sir James Mansfield readily granted the Rule to shew cause,
as being the, usual mode of proceeding adopted in such cases.
His Lordship said, that he had been given to understand it was
the declared opinion of some learned Counsel, that it was law-
ful to pull the
.theatre to pieces, and even knock the performers
on the head. Ills Lordship, however, (differing must essen-
tially from this doctrine) observed, that if the Managers, instead
of holding disturbers to bail, had hrought their actions against
such persons as were able to pay damages, the result would be
widely different from any that bad yet occurred.