The National Register.
London, England, 1821-12-16 00:00:00

THE NATIONAL REGISTER

LAW INTELLIGENCE

COURT OF KING'S BENCH,
MONDAY. DEC. 10.
SPECIAL JURY.-LIREL ON THE KING.

THE KING V. N. HIGHMONE, LL.D.
This was an interination filed by the Attorney General
aoainst the defentlatit, for a Ebel on the King, in a letter
addressed to Sir Benjamin Bloomfield, his Nlajeaty's pri•
vale secretary.
The Attorney General (with whom was Mr. Raine and
Mr. Shepperd) stated the case for the Crown in an almost
inandifile voice. We understood him to state, that lie had
thought it his dots to file this infinmation against the
defendant for publishing it most ntieneive and indecent
libel upon his Majesty. The defendant had, for a consi-
derable time before the publieation of the libel in ones-
tion, been in the habit of addressing letters to the King,
upon the anbject of some hardships of which he com-
plained. These applications not being attended to in the
Nay lie wished, by way of enging himself, he had re-
course to the publication of libels of* tile 111051 indecent
character upon his Nlojesty. These being taken no notice
of, he at last endeavoured personally to procure the letter
in question to be convoyed to his Majesty, through the
medium of Col. Bloomfield, his Majesty's private se,rr.
tart'. The letter was delivered for the colonel at War-
wick House; and, in the wool course, it was handed to
that gentleman, who, upon opening the envelope, foimil
ano'licr letter addressed to him, the superscription of
%staid' was in the following grossly offensive teems "To
the most ignoble, lying and cheating Duke of Cornwall,
since become George the Foorili." On opecing the letter,
its contents were fOund equally offensise. It complained
that after two years employed in applications to the King,
lie had now unanswerably she •14 his j esty's
dcparture from his honour and engagenclitm, to afford him
redress for the gi ievanees of which lie complained; and
affirming, that lie could show the troth of what he asserted,
by appealing to the laws of England. The letter Was
dated " Surrey-stieet, 6th May, Ifiz I " The object of
this prosecution was to teach the defendant, by the result
of it, that he could not be permitted to persevere in ehh.
duet su utiensive and ittile.•ent to the Sovereign on the
Throne. There could he no doubt what the verdict of the
„Tory es mild be, and the only tilij,ret of this proceeding was
to prevent the repetition of this ofteilee..

!humus Capes, a footmen to his Majesty, proved that
he had received the letter in question 1.10111 the defendant,
at Warwick
House, on the 9th of 'May last. Col. Bloom.
ti Id briag from b ((((( e, he put it into his private bou.
Sir Benjamin Bloomfield proved, that he had opened
the letter iir questions erartaiuing the libel. The defendant,
who was without Gomisel. cross-examined the Colonel,
touching repeated u l P
applieatios he had made at Caon
House, upon the sithjeet of memorials he had preseitted
to his Majesty. The witness admitted that he had emi.
versation with the defendant, butt did not now particolatly
recollect what passed. He had never given any opinion,
nor had lie ever formed any, as to the dfendant's claims.
The midi Navin;: been read by the officer of the court,
The defendant, who appeared to be an elderly and
venerable looking man, proceeded to address the Jury at
considerable length, ill dcfencoof the alleged libel.
Dining the greater pat t of hi. address be was Mandible.
We collected, that he was a Doetoa of Laws, and had
studied the civil law for eleven years, and had obtained
an academical degree to enable him to practise as an
advocate in the et, ,1 law colitis of this country, but had
been closed admittance, on the ground that he was a
clergyman, having taken deacon's orders. This was the
hardship of which he complained, and having sought
redress in the courts of jted ice in vain, he had petitioned
the King to he admitted to those rights to w Itich he was
entitled. lie alleged that the King lead, through his
atithorived agents, faithfully promised him redress; but,
after dancing attendance at C4lllOll House fur two years
and a quarter, without obtaining the fulfilment of this
promise, he had written the paper in question, but not
with the object charged in the information. He professed
the utmost leyalty and revel-trice for the King, and denied
that his object was to bring his Majesty into hatred or
contempt by the libel in question, which his eudeas noted
to she* could not he consulted nits a libel of the descrip-
tion chat:T(l in the informatior.
After a speech of three hours and a half, the defendant
crateluded at half past two o'clock.
The Attorney General replied.
The case was summed up by the Lord Chief Justice,
and the Jury found the defendant Guilty, but recom-
mended him to the merciful consideration of the court.
PAN NE V. •—•-• /ONES, ESQ.

This was an action against the Marshal of the King's
Bench, to recover the expence incurred by the plaintiff,
ill executing a warrant under the following eirctionsidliCeS:
—ln the stammer of Itits, a person confined tor debt in
the King's !tench, named Parsons, made his escape. lei
November, the plaintiff bride in Dorsetsltire, saw Parsons,
and gave information to the Marshal, who wrote to him,
and promised him all reasonable expenses, and a reward
of ten guineas if lie emu miended him.' Au escape warrant
was obtained, and forwarded to the plaintiff. In the
mean time another person had applied to the Marshal for
the job of apprehending Parson; the Marshal, however,
informed hint he had employed Pay tie, and this individual,
in revenge for his disappointment, wive information to
Parsons, who absconded. Payne and his man pursued,
and traced Iris route fair upwards of 2no tat lies. and then,
after being engaged ill the pursuit twenty.eiJit days, lust
hint at Brillpert. In the iiiiiiitit of April ludo% ing, how-
ever, he again obtained intelligence of 'domain] gave fresh
information to the Marshal, who renewed his promise, and
sent a new escape warrant. %%lilt this the plaintiff ap-
prehended the plitioner, and, as the warrant directed,
took him before a magi•di ate, where lie entered into
recognizance(' to appear to the indictment fur an escape.
Payne then applied to the Marshal for hie expenses, boot
the Marshal said he wanted the prisoner brought hark to
the Bench, and granted a warrant for mat purpose. The
on-aslant was exectin d, and Parsons was !nought to the
Bench. For the expvitces of this second excursion Mr.
Jones paid the plaintiff, butt when he delivered his bill fur
she expellees of the pier' pursuit and apprehension,
namely, a guinea a day for his owe mud his man's time, and
a guinea a day for the keep of himself, man, and liaise,
with other expenses, amounting in all to 861. Ws. the
Alarshal said lie should settle It when Mr. Parsons settled
Isis account. Upon this refusal the plaintiff brought his
action.

Mr. Gurney, for the defendant, contended that the
whole ease of the pursuit was a fabrication, and that Mr.
Parsons was at West Camel, within three miles of the

16

plaintiff's residenee, and might have been arrested at any
hour t that the plaintiff had already had 801. which was
full compensation fur his trotuhlr.

The learned Counsel called witnesses to prove these
facts, and the Jury, tinder all the circumstances, found a
verdict for the defendant.
WEDNESDAY, DEC. 12,

DISPUTES IN BETIIN A L-G REI?.N PARISH.
MAY v. Gwlt NNE, Esq.
Mr. Scarlett said, this action was brought by the plain-
tiff; a solicitor and late vestry etc' k of St. Matthew,
Bethnal Green, to recover a compensation in dinn,,R,,,
from the detilidant, a Doctor of Laws, resident in that
palish, for the publication of a scandalous libel, inserted
in a newspaper called The Sunday Monitor, with intention
to injure the plaintiff's; character, and defeat his rewire-
lion as vestry clerk, which office he had held for 30 years.
—lt appeated from the statement of the learnt d Counsel,
that the libel had its origin in the squabbles which have
lately divided the above palish. Mr. Merceron had been
treasurer of the parochial funds, and was prosecuted for
MiliaPlifiratiOUof the loonies coining to his hand. The
defendant was one of the most active in promoting inquiry
into Mr. Merceron's conduct, in the hope, perhaps, of
Piling the office of treasurer. That object, however,
failed, for the parish resolved in figure not to vest their
loud in any one person, but to place the money in the
Bunt, of England, in the name of proper persons having
the management of the poor. Previous to that detertaina-
tiaii, Dr. Gwylme, at a vestry meeting, hail proposed a
"le of threnks to the plaintiff for his conduct as vestry
clerk, hot afterwards finding himself disappointed with
respect to the Aire of treamtrer, lie declared against hint,
and became a violent oppoiselt. Varimis parish transac-
lions took place, and on the 2,1 of May, 1821, appeared
what purported to be a report of a committee, in The
.Sundry Monitor. It imputed to Mr May that he had been
trying to Blake up the accounts of the parish in a insnuer
exactly • •lar to that of Mr. Niercermi, and for which he
had been punished. The defendant caused 2,003 copies
of the repot t to he printed, and distrbirted among the
Parkhtuelera in a pamphlet. By this circulation a preju-
dice was raised against the plaintiti. He lost the election
fur vestry clerk, anti the !warty in the interest of the
defendant was elected. Mr. Scarlett entered into a long
and minute statement of the parish accounts, and con-
tended there was not the least ground for aeensation
hgainst the plaintiff, whose reputation hail stood high in
lily Polish upwards of thirty years, during which lie had
held the situation of vestry clerk, and to justify his
tarter he was tinder the neeessity of bringing this action.
A number of ni•tienses were called to prove that Dr.
Gw. nue was the author of the alleged libel, and that lie
had elucidated a pamphlet, from whir, the libel had been
Copied. The witnesses also detailed the proceedings at a
meeting to secure the election of Mr. Brown as vestry
clerk. Dr. Gwymie was present, and a committee was
formed, consisting of Messrs. Ball, Tilly, Watson, Gable,
UIIWill, Smith. and others.
The Rev. J. Ring, rector of the pariah, stated the part
taken by the defendant, at the disrmasion of the ailairs of
the park!' iii It-11, when a subscription was entered into
for the purpose of commencing a prosecution against Mr.
I.llerceron.

After the case on flip part of the plaintiff had been
proved, come con6nltation took place between the Counsel
on both mide,.

The Solicitor General, on behalf of the defendant, then
said, it was clear that his client could not justify this
publication in the Monitor; but it was possible he might
have acted ender t mistake. He did not insist for a mo-
ment that the charges against this gentleman were true,
and upon that admission his learned friend, Mr. Scarlett,
lied consented not to proceed further, provided the de-
fendant would pay the sum of 501. to a public charity.
That his client was willing to do au, and he would also
pay the costs incurred by Mr. May.
Mr. Searlett said, in accepting the offer made by his
learned friend, he furnished the strongest proof of for-
bearance on the part of Mr. May.
A verdict was then taken by consent for 501. damages.
DEI.AYNu V. WAITHMAN AND ANOT1112:1t,

This was an action against the late Sheriffs of London,
to recover a compensation in damages fur a loss sustained
by the sale of goods, which the defendants levied tinder
process sued out irregularly, by a person of the name of
Williams. _ _

The Sheriffs were merely nominal defendants, being
indenmitied by the plaintiff in the snit under Which they
acted.

After the cause had proceeded to proof of the plaintiff's
right to bnpport the action, a verdict was taken by con-
sent fur ',M. damages, subject to a reference.

TUE RING V. THE MAYOR OF CAAIRRIMGII.

This wan a prosecution against the Mayor of Cambridge,
for refining to comply with the terms of a mandamus, com-
manding I to admit Mr. Nash, the son of a freeman of
Cambridge, to the. freedom of that corporation.
Mr. Scarlet t, who stated the case, said,he was prepared
to prove, by a linother of early documents relating to the
power given by the ancient borough of Cambridge, that
the usage of the corporation in former days had been to
admit the younger sons of freemen, as well as the eldest
son, to their freedom. The cm poration, it appeared, had
made bye-laws, and they said, with reference to the pro-
ceeding, that no custom, admitting the younger sons of
freemen, was in exigence. Mr. Nash, the prosecutor to
this case, was a younger son, and lac claimed the right of
freedom upon the ancient usage of the borough. The
ditty had to decide a question of considerable importance
to the corporation of Cambridge as well as the public at
large. It they decided that the eldest eons of freemen
only were entitled to claim the right of freedom, it would
restrict the fn eedom of election, as none but persona free
of the corporation could vote to eeturn Members to Par-
liament.
'

The learned Counsel produced a deal of documentary
and introie evidence, upon which the Jury, after the trial
had occupied some hours, found the defendant Guilty.
THURSDAY, IDLC. 13.
KING V. KNILL.
The defendant, one of the Barnstaple voters was tried
upon an iliformation filed by the Attorney General, for wil-
ful and corrupt perjury, committed at the Bar of the Howe
of Lords, during the euriiiimit.on of witneams before the
Per rte, to.iehio..., the bribery transactions in the Borough of
Barii,iaple, doling the erection between Sir E. Thompson
and Sir \I. Lopez. The naiginnetit of perjury charged the
defend:lcl with giving utisocrs before the Lords, in direct
contradiction to his aniners in the Goose of Commons. In
the !louse of Commons he stated, that an agent named
Gribble, offered him money to induce him to vote for Sir M
Lopez. In the House of Loros he swore that Gribble made