The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1818-06-04 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, WESTMINrEnt,
WEDNESDAY, JUN K 3.
JUDGM ENT.
?ME 1111140 V. JOSEPH K CIICKRON.
The Defendant waa this day brought up to revive the
judement of the Cowl

Mr. Justice BATLFT, in pronouncing sentence, stated,
that the Defendant had been tried nn two indictments r the
fist charging that he had, in his capacity of Treasurer of
the Pour's-rate of the perish of St. Matthew, Belton!l gr. en,
fraudulently, clandestinely, and unlawfwll3, appropria e to
his own use the sum of Mt. la Id.; 11w section), that b.:
bad, its his Character of Magistrate for the county, licensed
certain disorderly and ill-conducted public-houses. To these
indictments he had pleaded Not Citify—but, after a toll
consideration of the evidence. lee had been ertieteted. The
Defendant's Counsel, in the dlacussion It hICII took Islam on
this subject, in that Clout, on Monday last, lesion:11cl.
strongly that the verdicts of the Joey were perhaps in.
fluent:eel by prejudice. It was, therefore, neeessary for horn
shortly to advert to the circiimstmee• of each case, in
miler to remove the undue impression which such an
insinuation was calculated to pri.duce. l'he leonine!
Judge then went over the principal facts subsisittiati
before the Jtirv--and observed, that, looking to all tee
circumstances disclosed, lie Court had no doubt of the
propriety of the verdict in each case, which bad been the
result of clear evidence. and not of arty prejudiced fitelinig.
The first case weft one of a very serious nature—test of sp.
proprialing to himself a large arm of motley, raise), for the
use of the poor, by a rate on the parish. This art bid aVI -
deafly been meditated, and was the subject of for
a any king period--comencecing in the month of August,
IPI.I, and continuing down to October, 1814. Since the
conviction the Defendant had, howyver, !refunded the 511111
abstracted from the parish funds, with Interest—and, is that
respect, had, in a great degree redeemed himself from the
pecuniary punishment which the Court would otherwise
have inflicted. It was, however, a matter of Leap ri-gret,
that an individual, holding the rank of the Defendant in
society, suit possessed of his knowledge, ahuold have so tar
miscooducted himself, as to commit so gnat a breach of
trust. The other case was of a more eget seat.
nature. It was for corruptly lending his :..it, in
his character of one of the Magistrates for the
county, in licensing a number of public-honsea, In .
which licenses should have been refused. The duty of is
Magistrate. in this respect, was most iu.rortant, ken4llow tiu.:
gown/non of guilt in a parish was generally in proportion do
the norther of ill-conducted public-horses within its Mine .
duties, suit the facilities that were given to them. It wa',
therefore, the duty of the Defendant, in his magisterial es.
'racily, to have procured all the information he could wills
respect to the state of those hosiers. The Learned Ju c'e
did not mean to say that the fkfeitilant eras i./ la fleet terry
idle story that might be told him about horses, or
that he was tint to exercise a merciful disci, faun when com-
plaints were made; but merely that he origin to bare tend
proper attention to the statements of those permits. who.
from their situation, were likely to he accurately inforni,
as to the manner in which houses were conducted, Tie.
Court, however, took into its consideration the previous
good character of the Defendant, and the deVcadatam
he must necessarily suffer, in 0111141queure of such scrims
charges bring proved against I • by unquistionalde vv..
dence—R Cis CllMPtallei that would probably Mintier his
future life--aa points that operated in mitigation of pit 5...11.
went. They also took into consideran )))) , the task witte:t
their Lordships felt it their bounden duty to perfortn—siitleit
of staling to the Lend Chancellor that those CIPIIV IC iOlll4
taken place, together with the present judgment—in ortirr
that his Lordship, looking to the public service, soir.fit
decide whether it would be proper to continue the Defend-
ant in the Commission of the Peace. The sentence of the
Court ass, that, for the first offence, the Defendant alhoti:it
pay • fine of 20Of and be imprisoned in the custody of the
Marshal of Ate Marshalsra, tor six calendar months—and,
for the second, that he should be imprisoned for 12 calendar
months, to commence from the expiration of the turner men-
lent!.