The National Register.
London, England, 1820-02-27 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, FRIDAY, Fen. 25.
INFORMATIONS AGAINST 'VENDORS OF PERIODICAL
WORKS.
THE KING V. SHORTER.
The defendant, who had been convicted yesterday of
publishing a libel, by. selling the 2d number of the
" Kepoblican," was this mooting tried on another infor-
mation. charging lout with publishing the 3d number
of the saute work; coniatning a gross and scandalous
libel nit the character of the Prince Itegetit.
The defendant read from a paper the same defence
that he had offered on the former trial,
Toe Jury, without hesitation, returned a verdict of—
Guilty.
THE KING V. WATLIK AND SAINSBURY.
These informations were tiled against these defend-
ants for selling the same publication. Tne Attorney-
General, however, declined to prosecute these Minima-
tions,as he trusted the ends of justice had becu answered
by other convictions.
THE RING V. DOLBY.
This case having been called, the defendant put in an
affidavit, stating that Mr. Sherwin, a material witness,
was at present at Nottingham, and was not expected
back to London before Sunday next. The defendant
deposed that in the :device of this witness lie did not
think it sale to go to trial : and thetefore he begged that
his trial might be postponed.
'Toe Attorney-Getieral said, under the circumstances,
which had been stated to the Court, he should not ob-
ject to the postponement which the defendant asked.
THE KING V. VFEDDEREURNE.
This was a erimitial information, charging the de-
fendant with having used blasphemous language with
the intent to excite impiety and irreligion in the minds
of his Majesty's subjects, and to vilify the Christian
religion.
Mr. Sheffield opened the pleadings ; and the Solicitor
General, in the absence of the Attorney-General, stated
the case to the Jury.
The defendant suggested the propriety of the wit-
nesses being examined separately, which was readily
acceded to by the Solicitor-General.
William Plush was then called. He knew a place in
Hopkiiis-street, near Windmill-street, where debates
were held.
The place of meeting was called Hopkins-street cha-
pel. Witness was directed to go to that place. to hear
a debate, out the 25th of anober last, and went ac-
cordingly. The sti*et of debate was. " N'tihether
the refusal of Chief Justice Abbott to allow Mr. Car.
life to read the Bible in his defence was to be attributed
to the sincere respect he had for the sacred writings, o
to a fear lest the absurdities they contained should be
exposed?' Two persous spoke ma the subject before the
defendant. Robert Wedderlitutie then rose ; and, after
complimenting the two speakers who had 'preceded him,
begged leave to ta I their attention to a few of the absur.
dices which they had not opoiiced. He then said,
" Christianity, it is true, has been introduced, but it
has never been billowed. Judge Abbott, no doubt, 1131
read ihe Bible. and knows pretty well th.: absurdities it
contains." The witness went tin to detail a great num-
ber of blasphemous expressions, disgusting to read or
hear.
Cross-examined by the defendant —Did you commit
this account of what 1 said to w g?—l did ; part of
it that evening, and the rest on the following morning.
Of what religion are you ? Of the Christian religion,
and bred in the principles of the Church of England.
Seriously, and 011 your oath, you say the question
proposed for discussion that night was worded as you
have stated ? Yes; the question was read by the person
in the chair.
You have sworn that the words were " lest the ab-
surdities it contained should be exposed." Now. there
your memory tails, fur the words were, " lest the sup-
posed absurdities," Ste.
The Lord Chief Justice toformed the defendant, that
he might put questions to the witness at present; but
ttis was not the proper stage for making observations on
st se evidence. The
at tine to nukes his defence.
Defentlasit.—llid not I say that Christ taught his dis-
ciples that they mould not call or ackn
owO ledge them-
*elves kings. rabbis, priests, or fathers? rdo you
believe that I said what you have related ?—You said
what l have before related.
Matthew Nlatthewson was then examined by Mr.
Littledale. He accompanied the former witness to
llopkitts-street chapel on the evening in question, and
.corroborated every part of his evidence.
The defendant. being called on for lits defence, said,
he was the offspring of a slave. Bud had been neglected
by a Christian lather. As he was a 4 'Westgate himself;
lie thought, whets at home, that if he could once geth to
a Christian country lie should be happy; but, ou is
arrival here, he found the member of sects so great, that
his mind was distracted with doubts raised by the
opinions which were entertained by them. lie first
belonged to the establishment; then he adopted the
Caleinistie opinions. and Afterwards fell into the Uni-
tarian persuasion. He inquired into the subject, and
found that by the laws of the country lie could he
licensed as an Unitarian preacher. When he obtained
that license he certainly had no suspicion of being
called to account for what he was nosy charged ooh.
As he was but an ithiliferetit reader, he begged that the
Court would allow a written efnce to be read by
some other person who was bettdere qualified than him

off.
He then gave in a written paper, tvliich was read by
Nit'. Abbot. the clerk of Nisi Prius.
The Solicitor General replied, and the Lord
Justice briefly tionhilled Up the et Ocoee.
The Jury retired for .ebout titree quarters of an hour
and on their return they stated, tinent.l,ll their ioreman,
Mr. Ald.C. Smith, that tiny had fottlikt the tleletidato
guilty of the charge bryught againA lino, but that they