The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1820-11-28 00:00:00

'been rentasittrd there or aot; aid that eabelelmatioa pets
eat of the creation the authority .ekr the ease of the Kiag
against Horse, htesnae there the offence imputed was net
triable matter its this country. H. could *oppose a case,
which it might be admitted to give evidence of the
1.-otb of the lib. I. Suppose any ose were to state ha
a public paper, that on a certain day be was tried
doe/ convicted of peijery. If it were true it would
h. no libel, and in such a ease the truth would be an
a.swer to a proseentiorn on that grouted.. It was, in his
noinion, right also, that the Judge shookd intimate his opt-
Ant on the law, and that the Jury should tithe the law from
r'•.l Judge aides. they had euperior knowledge. In the pro.
et case hi• Learned Brutlim had rightly put it to the
trv, that if he were wrong the error they would commit
-ssler his op' might he er rtified, hot if they were erns-
and found wrongfully • verdict of acquittal, it could
ii-ver be wt right. He agreed also with his Learned Brother's
is rvation., on man eunl.l doubt it was a libel. In all those
dots be tweed with the rest of the Court, hot the difficulty
F. lend was upon the direction of the Learned Judge Mt to the
t. ibliratioe in the county of Leicester. It was a technical
no doubt, loot Ind at all inlerferiug with the merit.
f the ea-e; but if it wove %old, an object Wu as he was nut
..le to overcome, he .11.110.1 he flying f his dusty if he
3 not avow tool give the D. feuslent the benefit of it. The
whiting of the letter was avowed by Sir Francis Burdett, in
h s letter to laird Siduionth, and there was evidence that on
the 24th Brooks received it In Loneun, or Middlesex,
Mei Bielerrstaff. There was Bleu an envellow, which
. eitainvd • atria-tot ',urn the Defendant to Bickerietalf
. pass the libel to Brooks. How it reached Kicker.
of there was 1111 evidence; that gentleman was not
es:tiled to prove liner it tame to him, nor was there
:thy te..itkoire that hr lived in, or um even near
:lie county Leicesi,r at Ike time. The Learned Judge
.hi the Jury at the trial, Chet they might prerome the let-
!, r was delivered open to Mr. Bicker:staff in the county of
I...iicestre. The objection es Islets he hail to that eltiection
...is, that it lett to the Jury what there was no premises to
warrant ; and in delivering it to Bickerstaff, it supposes no
other species of delivery. At far as keratoid judge of the tin.
deuce, there were nu ground. foe that direction. Presumption
rrtainly might have piece in criminal as well as in civil
; and, as far as be could judge, more than half the
s sea in which parties eerie convicted, wete founded on pre-
y ;minion, and prestimption only, but t het presumption
as founded on sufficient premises. In the instance of
theft, the gouda beitsg found its posoission of a person, you
Itiew presumed that he committed the theft. So that he
thought it impossible to say, that its criminal cases pre.ump.
tion might not hearted open. The question wree,whetilm r there
were an ffis ir tat premise.v to warrant the p.reuto pt tun. There
'broth] be o prima Ark cure mail. mint. Here was a double
reposition ; Ist, That a valor delivered to Blekerstsif was
it, hewed personally in the county of Leicester; 2elly, If that
paper were delivered open. It was for the Proweeitor to
make out the primeeforie case, and did he advance any evi-
dence on either of those points Did it follow because lie
was seen with it in London, that he received it in Lewes.
Lei...hist.; and because st was found open, that it was
therefore delivered open Suppose 4.n such evidence
the proweisturs hol gone before a Grand Jury (that
Issas the mink be wool.] propose, to try if there were a
y rhea foie case), nail they did nut call Biekerstaff, but
they detheil the Geoid diary to come to the conclusion, that
because the I.ller was dated in Leicestershire it was there-
fore written there. He should thick the Grand Jury
would hardly have been satisfied without fliekerstaff had
been called before them; without loos evidence, he should
imcgisie they never would say there lied been a pith.
I caii..n in Leicestershire ; they might sae. we fiad •
putsiicatioi, in al oldlesec, but they might also say,
.• Jou'l loisig it before ass as a Leicestershire publication,
when you offer no evidence of any pablication in Lehrer.-
tershite." He tried this as a case before • Grand Jury, be-
cluse, altheugh it was a criminal infoi minion, yet that dirt
eat racy the rule of evidence, fur the Atiorney-Gencrel
would nut file such sit information maces he thought
he had evidence to satisfy a Grand Jury. Where the
matter Ins peculiarly within the knee ledge of one
of the parties, that may vary the 01110 ; here it did not
so rest, because emit, knew from *horn he received it, he
-knew lie had it from Bicki rstaff; and granting that Brooks
was uuwtlh g to disclose from whom be bad the letter, a
process might Wee issued to call hint before the Grand
Jury, sod hr must have di.clused it. t%•11 it fin-reline 'um.
cteut to say to the Jury, Bitherstaff can tell you to me
absolute certainly if the letter was deliver.d to him in
Leicestesshire or not, and if delivered opi n or not; but I
won't cell him, but desire you to presume those facts. il.s
subjection was, that there was no evidence to go to the Jury;
rand it did see m to him that the Learned Judge was mistaken
in supptieing that in the absence of Biekerstaff there was
try such cud. nee tu go to the Jury. There was tau evidence
teat Brooks had ever been applied to to know from when
be receive) it. They acre equally ignorant whether any
attewpt had b.voi made to have Itickerstaff on the
trial or not. But as far as he could judge, it was the
duty of the Cross to lave hint there as a witness, as
is was part of their case to sheer that Bwkerstaff receiv-
ed the letter from Sir FraliCif Burden, sod there was then.-
fo. e no grounds laid fur the Jury to form • presumption
tither one way or the other. The prosecutor should have
"pealed ilw Jury to act upon knowledge said not upon con-
jectuee. It eopeated in him that there was nut a sufficient
petite facie c.ce 'Hideout to warrant the jar) in presuming
a deiive.y m the county of Leicester, and that was the
promo, of the conscieutions difficulty *loch he bad elides.
owned to expo ss. It was said there was evidence euough
to thew that the libel was delivered either to to, or
put into the Post Office in Leicestershite. If the Jury mast
have presumed they le n there ought to he no tee • trial, bill if
it *loud ou suiphi,ou'y be thought there should. It seen,. el to
loam that of it acre to be suppased,although not personally de.
livered to Birk, rstaff, it yet left the hand of Sir F Burdett in
Le/seat...shire, flint was never distinctly pot to the Jury.
That brought on the question if a dose coniuninicat ion were
a publieethiss. On that lie would give no opinion, hut lie
mould say, that if a Judge were to sell a Jury that • sealed
eosnmutin so ion was a publication, then the Defendant had a
right to ask fw • spiieial verdict, to order that he might
have the opinion of a Court of Error. The word publics.
tion might have difft rent meaning., but there was no slothw
city on this subject to hike away the right to a ern of error.
Here be most say of Lord Eilenborutegli, that although un-
doabiedly • malt of strung mind and great capacity, be
was not always right at Nisi Prins, yet lie must do
hint the justice to say, that no man was ever more ready to
recede from an opinion, when mature, consideration jinn.
bed the change. le the case of the King v. Wat.oo, be had
on opportunity of reconsidering his opthion. In the case
of the King r. Williams, the charge was eroding a clod-
lenge, and although the word publish was used iu tlint case,
the crime was the act of seniiimg, mid there was to doubt
that a man sends where he parts with it from his baud.
The Learned Judge then cited the case of the King against
Cullinson to thew that the question of publicatiun was so
far of doubt as to entitle a Defendant to the eousirleratiou
of a Court of Error. Ou that poi.* he had fur a consider.
able space of time been of opinion that the composing,
welting, aud publishire, were properly proved, and be bail
eestseated to have the rule discharged uu that ground;
but in the course of these discussions he hid funned
the opinion thot tier ease was by nu meas. so etar as
to preclude the Defendant from having it oil the
record. He thought that the whole corpus detitii
should be in one county, and in that respect there was uo
41.ffen oce between felony and misdenteauur. The Learned
Jnolge then cited the opinions of Lord Hate and Mr. Juetiee
Blethstoue, and several caws from the old books, in support
of his opinion; and concluded, that if there were teisouable
doubt on the point, a vs relict which went to cadmic the
Defeenlant Irons the benefit of that doubt, ought not to
A question bud been raised, as if writing per se
were an off. nee; but ibat sot being * question on the re.
cord, it was essat y for him to declare au opinion ; but
stn the ground" which Ise bail already stated, he was of opi-
nion, that the verdict in its present form ought nut to stand.
'I be LOAD CHIMP' 'UPTICK will, he was uf opiwiun that
the rule for a emir trial ought to be discharged. The mean-
ing of the word publication had been debated, and the Court
had been referred to Dictionaries for the • xpieustioa, but
in law, as is other wieners, some words welt used it, a
muse Merest fium the popular one. His Lordship ri fined
to the pahlicatims of 'Muds awl wills, which were before
inentionedi and said, in like manner is cues of libel Mie pub.