The National Register.
London, England, 1819-06-20 00:00:00

IC KIN('. V.•CARLIIILL.

The derendant.;; in; up to plead to twu informations for
profane libels, and an indictment fur a seditious libel pre-
ferred 1:14 tern.
Ite was tubed if lw was ready to plead, and he pat ma an
affidavit statiste, that the publication on which the informa-
tions were founded, were the stoned% these on which former
proceedings ageinst him were instituted. They were only
z..Joptco Nom a swim hear feeling.
:qr. Justice I.l.lyely asked it they were published at the
same lime. .

.......
. The defendant could not my theyirere published at the
acme time; bu they were the same subjei t to a letter.
Mr. Justice Barley said, they were distinct pnblicationa;
and if he went on pabilAing, they might exhibit informa-
tions for one •u published.
The defendant had been told on a former day that some
finbear..nce might be expected in case he did not publish
any more.
Mr. Carlisle said, he could not consider himself euilty of
an offence until the Jury found the pubh• ationntrensi.e.
Mr. Justice Bayley uln.earcd, that be might feud himself
mistaken.

The ChiefJegtice observed, that kill time had been given
to plead, and the court could give no more.
'1 betlefeadliat then pleaded —Not (Malty.
SPIIIIOIIT-U. OLIV•l112.

Mr. Gurney moved fora rule to chew came why there
should not be a ucw trial in this case.
It nes an action for seductiutt, tried hot iiirn.
Mr. Gurwey insived, 4111 the gruttud that the plaintif, who
14a, the father of the yowl, woman seduced, coo d not have
been deprived of bee WI vices. inasmuch ow *be was iu IllE
service of the defendant
The Milt granted a rule In chew cause.
LORD CNCRCIIILL ♦

%Mr. WILLI his moved for a rule to shoo came, why the
weedset which had heels found in this cow stmt.! not be en-
tered for the defendant, on all the (owns of ti.' dechrat.
This, Ise said, was all iiCtiflll (dr a libel, and the Jos y found
- .

that 'the accident happened by the furHous dtivininf the
plaintiff. All the couiita of-the de. Walton charged the de-
fendant midi a libel A. of rind concerning the- said accident,"
which happened without furious driving. The learned
atomise' cuutearled. therefore, that the Jury found fur the
defendant nu every none; for they found that the accident
happiirmd by the fur:uu, ;Living of the plaintiff. To fortify
rho argument, he cited the ease of the IliTeg v. Dome,
which was tried before laud Ilanolield. It stwoon.infro MR*
con fur '.libel concerutag iris Majerty'is Duversiment, nod
concerning the employroe.it of his troop. Ilse s.a.e. was
removed by a writ of curer to the llou,e of Lords; and
Lord Chief Justice De Grey. then said, that if the Jury
,Guni that thee libel was not up its his Majesty's Government
and the employment of his troops, 'the information was
false. In the ;totem ease, tae detlaiation stated, that the
siccideathiappeued *Wo't any negligence, default, fie fu-
ton:is deviling Quiche part of tae plaintiff; and the Jury
•

bad found the furious driving, it appeurtvi that their linditi4
amounted to an retire verdict fur the defendant.

'I he lerutied.Judgeb it appeared to then' that the
mord accident was used to signify the evciit that orcuried,
Lamely. the colliaiun of the carriage,. The alielcatioa•ta
the introdattory part of the declaration V. US a dieisibte al-
,lle,;ation, and the plaintii*Lb not bound to prove the whole
of his introductory matter.
9 he appli cat ion *as accortlini;ly refuird.

FIIIIDAY, JUI.III 18.

IRON COFFINS.

=non after Mr. Justice Hulroyd had taken his seat upon
Ow Bench this wornin:, sir. Clutt) .soved for a •unuanuu
to be issued to the acting 11l i t sows of the parish of nt.
Andress, Holborn, and the churchwardens and setton of
U.:: dirrotSog them to bury We. tonne of Mr 6.