The National Register.
London, England, 1820-11-27 00:00:00

THE KING V. HYMN BARNET.

Mr. Barnet moved for a rule to shew cause why Mr.
Elias Isaacs. an attorney of the court, should not pay
back a certain sum of 2001., and answer the matters
contained in the following affidavit. The affidavit, which
Mr. Andrews then read, stated these facts :—Mr. J. Ca-
pua, au orange merchant iu Houndsditch, on the Ist cf
July last, possessed a certain bank note, value 3001. and
upon the 4th July, either by accident or rubbery, lost the
same. Knowing the number of his note, the loser
forthwith stopped it at the Bank, and advertised, in I
Mims newspaper, a reward of 1001. to whoever should
restore it. Alter some days' anxiety, Mr. Capua received
intimation that Mt. Elias Isaacs had something to com-
municate. and waited upon that gentleman at his house.
Mr. Isaacs received his visitor with much formality;
Miss Isaacs was desired to quit the chamber of confe-
rence; and Mr. Isaacs then said, " I have heard of your
note: within these few days it would have been at Leg-
horn; but if you will give 2001. instead of the 1001. you
have offered, you shall have it, and that will be a saving
of tool. to you." Possessed with the merits of this
ingenious calculation, Mr. Capua left the house of Mr.
Isaacs, and took advice upon the course which he should
pursue; he returned, and consented to give the suns
demanded. Mr. Isaacs then said, "Give me 20 im-
pound notes, and you shall have your bill." air. Capua
observed, "As I have stopped the note, it is hard I
should pay so much ;" but his interlocutor remarked,
that " against a bona fide holder the Bank could not
stop payment." The 2001. were then paid; Mr.Capua
was desired to go hoine,and to call again in a short time
for his note ; but he had scarcely reached his own house
when the note, wrapped iii a piece of paper,was brought
by a man of the name of Yates, a clerk of Mr. Isaacs.
With the result of this transaction, Mr. Andrews conti-
nued, Mr. Captia, as the Court would suppose, could nut
be satisfied. He applied to the Lord Mayor; Mr. Isaacs
Was summoned, and called upon to account for having
the note in his possession, and to give tip the name of
the party on whose behalf he had been actinic. He
refused to do so, and it was not until he was threatened
with committal, and informed that, under the Act ulth
Geo. 111. commonly called Jonathaii Wild's Act, he
would probably be liable to prosecution for felony, that
he said lie had received a note from a man of the name
of Solomons. To Solomons Mr. Andrews proceeded;
no application had been made either to confirm or to
disprove the truth of the statement made by Mr. 15240;
but there was one particular circumstatice about that
gentleman's conduct especially desciving the attention
of the Court. The 3001. tit was in his hands. How
did he know that it lilongetl to Mr. Capital Not front
the advertisement, for the advenisernent gave an A. B.
address at the house of another person. How, he wished
to know, and from what source, mild Mr. Isaacs get his
information ?
Mr. Justice Best thought that the rule hid better be
drawn up with the alternative "or be struck oft the
rolls."
Mr. Justice Bayley agreed, as it was possible the Count
might think that Mr. Isaacs had acted contrary to his
duly as all attorney, by lending himself to SUCH a tra:3-
action.—Rule granted
wenaissuav, Nov, 21.
ARGO/SENT SOIL • NSW TRIAL..-1111L SING S. SIS
I. SOtDLTT.
The continuation of the argument in this case in sop-
port old new trial,canie on according to special appoint-
ment.
Mr. Blackburn, who was i.artly heard on Thursday
last, again addressed the coon, and resumed his former
line of argument. The Learned Gentlemen on the
other side had contended, that writing 2 libel without
publication was a crime. They haul contended also,
a libel might be written in utie county and published
in another, and that the parties were liable to be
tried in either county. 'fo this proposition of law Mr.
Michbarti could not accede. The authorities decide
the contrary. The crime was not complete without iwo
acts, namely, the writing and publishing. Writing
without iiiiblication was no crime. The proposition

W

laying it down to be an offence, was unsupported by
any legal authorities. That being, as he contended. the
fair construction to be put upon the nature of a libel, he
had next to consider where the author or publisher was
amenable to the law. He contended that the defendant
could not be tried in any othcr country than that in
which the libel was written and published. The King
is. Butters proved that the mew must be laid, and trial
had, in the county where the offence was completed.—
The case was tried re
IBM before Mr. Justice Graham,
at Hereford. It was an indictment for obtaining money
under false pretences or threats. The threat took place
in one county, and the money was hail in another, yet
the venue was laid in the county where the offence was
completed. The money was received in Hereford, and
it was held to be the proper county for trial. The
Learned Counsel insisted that this trial ought to have
taken place in Middlesex, where the offence was com-
pleted, and where the publication took place. After
using other •lar arguments in support of the motion
for a new trial, he said, that he had a duty to perform
which he was sorry had fallen to his lot, but however
painful it was in hint, the ditty he owed to the Mrs,
not only as his advocate. but his personal dilly to him—
and his duty to the public, compelled him, regardless of
consciences, to honestly discharge it, fairly, openly,
and fearlessly. The Learned Counsel then strongly
commented on the conduct of Mr. Justice Best at the
trial of Sir Francis Burdett at Leicester. He said, that
the constructions of the Judge upon the writing and in-
tentions of the defendant were not warranted by the
libel, and unfair. He was surprised that in this country
a Judge, 011 whose heart mercy ought to be engraved,
should have put constructions upon the intentions of a
defendant, to obtain a conviction, when au opposite
construction could as fairly and more properly have been
put upon the: libel. The Learned Counsel then read
the libel, and Mr. Justice Best's comments thereon. In
one part the Learned Judge stated, that " he never read
a more mischievous production, or one in which was
condensed so much matter of an injurious and libellous
character." In another part he stated, that" the defen-
dant had said, that his intentions were good, but he
(the Judge) knew of no way of judging of a defendant's
intentions except by his acts, and he must say the
writing was a most dangerous libel." After the Livened
Counsel had read the above from the printed trial, and
toe AAAAA ented upon the unfair inferences drawn by the
Judge, he insisted that a new trial ought to be granted,
also upon the ground of the improper summing-up of
the Judge. He had not the least intention to otter of-
fence to the Learned Judge who tried the cause, but he
should not have acted towards his client justly had he
flinched from performing that duty which he had en-
trusted to him.
Mr. Justice Beat.—" I can assure you Mr. Black-
burn, that I. am not offended at any thing that you have
said."
Mr. Blackburn.—" I did not intend to offer offence
to your Lordship, but was determined to discharge
toy duty without considering who might be offended
at at" _ _

Mr. Evans followed on the sane side, and in a speech
replete with legal knowledge,ably supported the doctrines
of the Lamed Gentleman who preceded him. The
Court. he contended. in the fair exercise of its authority,
were called upon to put a liberal construction on the
points presented as 5o round for a new trial.
The Attorney General, at the conclusion of the
orrtuenti. for a new trial, waived his right to reply. and
the Chief Justice intimated that the Court would
defer its judgment.
It is expected the Judges will deliver their opinions in
this term.
_ _

...._
After hearing several motions on points of practice,
the Court rose.
TUB 4111,41 V. H. EUNT.

141 r. Chitty said he had to bring before the Court the
affidavit of the defendant, made with a view of obtaining
same relief under the hardships and restraint he suffered
itt 11chester Oaol. He did this upon the expectation
entertained by the defendant that the Court would in-
terfere to procure him that treatment which the circum-
stances of his case required. The defendant complained
that the order of the Court had been violated. When
he received sentence, the Court stated that the defendant
would not be subject to solitary confinement, notwith-
standing which he had been confined from nine in the
morning to four in the afternoon, and kept in a close
dungeon. without the power of seeing his friends. The
defendant was not sensible of any impropriety of con-
duct, having never violated the decorum of the prison,
but had conducted himself peaceable on every occasion.
Mr.Jurtice Heat.—What is the cruelty he complains
of?-1t1 sh g him up from nine its the morning to
four in the afternoon, without the power to see his
family. He states also that his life is in danger.
Chief Justice.—We are anxious to put the matter in
ouch a course that ass investigation may take place, for
the purpose of ascertaining whether the defendant has
just came of complaint. Only point out what the Court
can 110. Habeas Corpus will not answer your purpose.
We have not power to alter the Order os
Mr. Chitty then observed, he would move fur a rule
to thew cause why the defendant should mil be allm%ed
the same indulgence prisoners received itt cases of rum-
enlea 111101'.

Chief lustice.—Very well, take that rule to 'hew
cause. IVe must hear the other side. 'lake a rule callus
oil the Gault'. or Magistr.:te, which you pleab:.
Mr. Chitty accordingly took a rule to skew cause.