The National Register.
London, England, 1822-11-17 00:00:00

KINO-111. WADDINGTOK.

The next judgment moved was that of Samuel Waddington.
The defendant, addressing the Court, said he stood there
claiming Ins right to be beard on a motion for a new trial, and
he should insist on that right. He was silenced by the Court.
The Lord Chief ;khaki, read the libellous passages selected
from " Palmer's Principles of Nature," and the evidence on
the trial ; and observed the defendant urged strongly to the
Jury that the witnesses were sot to be believed who stated that
he was the publisher.
. _ _ _

The defendant proceeded to comment upon the term special
and petty jury.
Mr. Justice Bayley cited Blackstone to show that a petty
jury meant a special jury, as cuntradistingaished from a grand

Jury.
The defendant then referred to the Unitarians being sanc•
tioned by the Legislature, and the Judge's answer to the ques-
tion of the Jury.
The Solicitor General explained, referring to the short-hand
writer's notes. His Lordship merely declared, that to speak of
our Saviour as be did, was against law, and a libel.
The Lord Chief Justice affirmed the truth of this interpreta-
tion of what he meant by the explanation.
Mr. Justice Hayley—The Act of Parliament for the relief of
the Unitarians was merely as to penalties for denying the God-
head of the Trinity. It appears to me what his Lordship said
ass perfeday legal, and the ireediet of the Jury given upon that
answer ought to stand.
Defendant proceeded—The labels attached to the books sold,
es well as the books themselves, might bt brought there by the
Bow-street °dicers, and sold in conspiracy with the person who
kept the shop.
Lord ChielJustice—You have concluded ?—Yes.

Mr. Justice Bayley (bought it perfectly clear, if such pamph-
lets were sold in that shop, that the person keeping the shop
wee answerable ; such person lending himself to the publication
was guilty as purticeps mimesis. It was for the Jury to deter-
mine the fact that he had lent himself to the publication.
Mr. Justice Ilidroyd was of opinion there was no ground for
• new trial, and that the ob lion of the Lord Chief Justice
to the Jury was perfectly correct, " that to deny the truth of
the divinity of Christ was a libel," and the Jury, under that di-
reciion, had given that verdict. which was also perfectly correct.
There was no doubt of the evideuce warranting the Jury in
finding defendant guilty.
Mr. Justice Beat concurred with his brother Judges.
Defendant being asked whet he bad to any in initigation, pro.
ceeded in an audible voice. He called their Lordships atten-
tion to .be recollection, that for the judgment they passed upon
him this day, they would be called itlion to receive the judg•
went of all nations before that august Being the Author of the
Universe, who was outraged in his character of eternal truth
and wisdom by this prosecution.

The Solicitor General rose iu aggravation. There never wan
• wore infamous, libellous, or blasphemous work, on soy former
occasion published. The defendaut Ltd biumelf given it thin
character in his label.

31r. Justice Bayleyprooeeded to pass atotence. He th,,u4lit
the Jury could eut here come to eituthei cutraissou. The lee.

Agaftai


s[tß.

.

'?

1

A

of this ociuntryfolo rated any maw fullesrieg snob religion as he
approved, or to dimities temperately the truth of all doctrines.
But this was a libel on the Bible in general, and inMelllehitor
that which we were taught to look upon with rem:reamer He
had no difficulty in saying, this was properly described es a
libt.l; and there was the judicious sentesoe of this Cant, ie the
case of Cathie, that it was. The sentence of the Court is, that
you be confined for twelve months in Coldbatiellelds, and to
find security for good behaviour for five years, yourself in
5001. and two sureties io 1001. each.
Waddington—l hope your Lordships will allow me the use
of pen and ink there.
Court-1i e have nothing to do with that.
Waddington.--(Retiring in custody.)--Thoogh I did not
sell this book, I will how to the sentence of this Court whim
the Bishop of Clogher is brought to justice.—(Laughter.)
sIiASI ATTuitat Y.—THE JUNO V. JAQUES.'
The defendant appeared to chew cause why the Court Amid
not commit him pursuant to the provisions of the Act of Par.
liament, for having practised as an attorney io the name of
Thackeray without qualificatiou, he being only as entirety's
clerk. The facts have been several times stated in our reports.
The Court on this occasion; read as mach of the aidavi
appeared necessary to make them cozetisant of the fact;,'
was clearly proved against the defendant, not only W the .
port of the waster, to whontthe matter mee.origiredly referred,
but on the defendant's owls hooks; white eenteined *sines of
money paid to Thackeray for allowing Mote prattle', • ,• _ • •..
The defendant alleged on this 0010611111 that this was not a
proceeding against him in open Cease, and that 'wittiest's,
should have been examined tie semi es before a i=ente,,
and the Court on that account anemia with Emu as
all the defendant had to offer. _ .
The laird Chief Justice, after the dekmdame he 4 eshwistalit- •said, the Italia* gave the Judges dee pew he mini& tae any
term not more than l 9 'months, and the only meadow mop, •
whether they ought to commit for that perkier for - •
defendant had submitted en affidavit,-fe which he • ,
the distress which had fallen on himself sad faun • y
ir-
latien of the law. Fite wartice of who
qualification, i 1.141 much ddaspdhi.wd j •
Court was, that the defendant be
this Court for six calendar asonthli.
rotoae, Nov. 111.
This being paper day, the Court proceeded with themes on
the Special Piper.
CUTE V. COLRIDOS AND •NOTHEIt.
This (muse came before the Court upon a demurrer to the
plea.
The plaintiff is a solicitor, and the defendants are magistrates
of the County of Lancaster. It appeared, upon a statement of
facts, that a person named George Brown was etarged with
felony, and being examined before the defendants, the plaintiff
presented himself as the prisoner's attorney, for the purpose
of cross-examining witnesses, and producing opposing testi-
mony. The magistrates refused to permit him to be present,
and not only prevented him from cross-examining the witnesses,
but turned Lim out of the justice room. The plaintiff then
brought his action for assault. The defendants justified and
alleged that they bad a prisooer in custody, and that by law
the plaintiff had no right to be present at the examination.—
The plaintiff, in his replication, said he had a right to be pre-
sent. The defendant demurred to that, and the demurrer came
en to be argued. The question was, whether at the elimination
before a mugietrate of a person charged with felony, am attorney
has a right to insist upon admission an a legal adviser of the
party accused.
Mr. Colridge, in support of the demurrer addressed the
Court, and contended that the magistrates court was not a ju-
dicial tribunal. They had only power to esquire into the
nature of any charge brought under their cogeisance. A ;na-
gistrade had a right to examine privately, and consequently to
admit such persons only as he might consider necessary for the
ends of juetioe. The magistrates in this case were justified in
turning the defendant out of their odic, and the action could
got be sustained.
The Common Sergeant, in support of the replicaC op. t. :
this as a question of great importance to the public, ioas..i eb
as personal liberty was deeply coactereed in the result. A ma-
gistrate was bound to hear both parties with strict impartiality.
' and to allow the accused an oppeortioity of proving his imp-
canoe. The question affected the liberty of the party, and
every charge ought to be well investigated h. :cis ilefae.
dant was sent to prison. He et:weeded the. e; ;:-taut. ac-
cused lisd a right to receive the assistance of his attonsej, sad
to deprive him of that right would be making a deep inroad
upon public liberty. The plaintiff, in the discharge of his pro-
fessional duty, attended the priaouer, and ibe magistrates were
not justified in turning him out. The assault having been coin •
mitted under such circumstances, the plaintiff was entitled to
judgment.
The Court gave judgment at considerable length on the main
question, utterly, whether an attorney bad a right to be admitted
tu a magistrate's room, as legal adviser of the accused under
examination.—The Judges were clearly of opinion no such right
existed. A magistrate was not
_judge of his court ; his bum-
neat was to enquire, not to determine, and that enquiry vies
necessarily private oar sonic occasions. In some cases it might
happen, that the object of the magistrate was to discover thief
and that object would be defeated if the attorney of the accused
was permitted to he present, because lie might give the thieves
Dunce of the measures taken for their apprehension. If attor-
ney., Lad the right to attend before the magistrates, they would
also have a right to attend before grand juries. Under all the
circumstances. the Court gave Judgment for the defendants.
COURT OP COMMON PLEAS.
FIIIDA". siiv• 13.
Mr. Justice Park arrived • DAN • mew minutes before one
o'clock, when the Jary being 1...4.“1 the (elbowing cans. cause
on for trial.
PIENSIAN e. DAWSON.
Sergeant Pell stated, that it was an action, brooeit by the
plaintiff agaiust the defendant, for money bud and received.—
that the plaintiff Lad guaranteed the payment of a bill of ex •
change, 431. 3s. Gd. which the defendant not having honoured,
the plaintiff had paid. The defendant to the acuton pleaded
the general issue and set off. It appeared that the plaintiff had
had some goods lodged in his hands, to the amount of 201.
and upwards, but which the plaintiff had wrote defendant a
letter to take away, but which be had not dose.
Mr. dit.llllll Wallas: moved the arluoaledgment of the de•
feutlant to a letter put in, ail his owing the plaintiff the moues.
The learned Judge directed the Jury to lied for the plaintiff
damages 221. 3s. the ditto/rune betwixt the amount of the bill
and the amount of the guuda in the pussessiun ut the
pluntihl -
Verdict Accordingly.
Mr. Abraham Moore, barrister at law, who luff
Engl and abruptly about a year ago, thud lately art
the yellow kver at New York.

:+ll

s

..).

'.'s •

1-..:,
-1
,
It::
,
,
, • I
1
I
1

~ ~~ ,~.

~'}-,

~r~.

~;

•