The National Register.
London, England, 1821-07-29 00:00:00

CLAKZE V. STEVUSOA•

The plaintiff, an atturoey, rattsght to recover from the
(kleinlaut, ho carnet on business in BOW-6111e, Cheap-
side, time amount of a boll of costs incurred in proceedings
Uh.lvf the bankrupt, y ul \lessrs. Nicholson and Brown,
or Boa-lent. ti r. Stevenson was the landlord of a house
let to Nitho!son and Bross it, who became bankrupts.
Tile ass.gitee,,Cowiter and Cuthbert, as it appeared from
tile es;clencc, made application to the defendant to per.
nun the Ku..ds to be sold 011 the premises. The niaintat,
v.no acted as attorney, at last obtained the deientlant's
consent to sell upon the premises, having first satisfied
the rent. A person of the name of Thirlwell was pat ut

• *'•
I •.A-J.ll • 4.

as tenant, and, as it was suspected Thirlwell was about
to sell his furniture and injure the premises, the plaintiff
advised the defendant to snake a distress. The goods
were accordingly taken, and an action of replevin was
afterwards brought, wnich occasioned proceedings on
the part of Mr. Clark, which constituted his bill,
amounting to 2171.
The business done was proved by several witnesses.
Mr. Gtirtiey,, for the defendant, contended, that his
client was not liable to the plaintiff's claim. Mr. Ste-
venson being applied to by Mr. Clark, denied his consent
to the sale of goods oil the premises, and the subsequent
proceedings, unless he was released by the assignees from
all costs and expencies. The assignees in consequeuce
signed a guarani, by which Stevenson was to be at no
ll expeee. The defendant had done no snore that lend
his name to the proceedings of the assignees, and the
plaintiff, who acted as their attorney.
The guaranty signed by the assignees was proved, and
as it did not appear that the plaintiff had the least
ground to sustain the action, the learned Judge directed
a sunsuit.
TUESDAY, JULY 24.
THE KING C. BELE, alias SERE.
This was an information filed by she Attorney-General
against the defendant, for a seditious libel published in i
the Republican paper, on the 26th of October, 1820,
printed by Jane Cathie.
The Solicitor General stated the nature of the libel to
the jury. It ran thus—" There is not one vice that the
King put his hand to his heart and say ' 1 am innocent
of it.' Be has inherited the gross obstinacy of his fa-
ther, and the avarice and meanness of his mother, with-
out any of their domestic qualities ; to this he has added
all that vice has taught or conjectured." The defendant
stood in the situation of servant to Mr. Cathie, and sold
the number of The Republican in which this gross libel
was published, and could not be ignorant of the stature
of the work. Evidence was then called.
Sam. Holditch, messenger of the Press to the Stamp
Office, proved having purchased the number of The
Republican of the 20th October, 1820, containing the
libel, from the defendant, who served in the shop in
which witness had seen him for some months.

Mr, Prendergast addressed the jury for the defendant,
and urged that he was merely acting as the servant of
Carlile, and could not know the contorts of the papers
which he sold. He trusted also that the jury would
consider the extreme youth of his client, who was now
only 19 years of age, and was inertly in the exercise of
his lawful calling, endeavouring to procure an honest
livelihood.

H. T. Willis was called and examined; he gave the
defendant a good character for moral and religious prin-
ciples.
Mr. Justice Best charged the jury, that the publi-
cation was a most gross and scandalous libel. The jury
imutedialely found the defendant guilty,
TI4 KING V. MARY ANN CAR LILE.

This was an indictment by the Society for the Sup-
pression of Vice, against Mary Ann Carlile (the sister
of Richard Cartile) for a blasphemous libel on the Holy
Scriptures.
The libel was put iii and read, and the sale of it by
the defendant proved. It spoke of the Bible as a "book
so full of wickedness and contradiction, that it could
not be the word of God."

the defendant had no counsel, but she put in a long
written derelict', which was read by the officer of the
court. It justified the pamphlet as a moderate and ar-
gumentative examination of the Christian religion, from
which it could not be the intention of the law to shield
it.
:Or Justice Best interrupted the reading of part of the
.cloice, which stated the " common law was a com-
mon abuse," and said he could not allow that part to be
read ; but the defendant, though repeatedly requested to
expunge it by the judge and jury, declined doing so.
Mr. Justice Best charged tile jury, that in his opinion
the publication could not be considered as fair reasoning
in moderate and respectful language ; but, in the terms
of the indictment, a scandalous and blasphemous libel.
The jury, without any hesitation, found the defendant
guilty.
" CONSTITUTIONAL" PROSECUTION.
THE sin• V. mmtv ANN CANLILE.

This was an indictment, at the suit of the Bridge-street
society, fur a scandalous and seditious libel.
The Jury being in the bus, the learned Judge requested
to know it' any of them were members of the Constitu-
tional Association. The reply was in the negative.
Mr. Tindal their opened the pleadings.
Gurney said that the present indictment had been
found by a peed jury, at the instance of the Constitu-
tional Association, against the defendant, Mary Ann
Carhle, for libel. Tie learned counsel then commented
upon the obstinate guiltiness of Mr. arlile and his fa-
mily. The libel poi ported to have been written by K.
Cathie in Dorchester gaol, and it was entitled " A New
Year's Address to the. Reformers of Great Britain."

James Rignall said—l purchased the libel in question
ou the nth of March last, at Car!ilea shop in Fleet-street.
I saw the defendant, Mary Ann Carlile, herself. Several
other pamphlets of the same description were l)iug upon
the counter at the time._

Cross.examined by Mr. Cooper.—Who are you ?—I
ant an agent to the Society for the Suppression of Vice.
Din you are also employed by these constitutional peo-
ple, as they call themselves / Only in this one instance.
Were you employed to purchase the pamphlet iu ques•
lion put chased that and others.
You were employed by the Constitutional Society to
purchase them I—Yes, I was.
Who sent you ?—Mr. Alurray.
The Attorury ?—Yes.
And be directed sou to purchase this pamphlet, eh ?
He did not particularize any.
Did lie state his object in the purchase ?—So.
What wages are you to have ? I have no wages.
Then you perform this agreeable duty gratuitously 1—
Nu, I du not say that.
Then how are you paid ?—I made a charge for my

Peihaps you belong to the Society ?—No, indeed, I do
not.