The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1820-12-06 00:00:00

f.AW INrzu.thikcE.

a •
COURT .OF CHANCERY, Locours
TUMODAIN DICCIOIIIIEII S.

This was the first seal day after Term.
The LORD eIIANCELLOR came into Court at a

quarter past ten o'clock.
PRACTICE.
WETHERBT P. nicit.us, STUBBS. AND OTHERS
DICKSON AND OTHERS E. ANSI STUBBS AND
oTtians.
Mr. WETHERELL stated this was a motion on
the bt hell of Mrs. Anne Stubbs, the Defendant in

the last cause, requiring of the Court to stay the
proceedings, in the cause; and that the Solicitors,
Messrs. Vandercom HIM Comyu, might be dis-
missed from having the nianageuient of the cause.
Ifc. the Learned Counsel, having read the affidavits
in support of the motion, thought it was a duty he
owed the Court and those most respectable Solici-
tors, to state that he abandoned the hitter part of
his motion, as he did not see that the least blame
was attached to them. The first part of the motion
he had no doubt hut his Lordship would grant; it
was grounded ou the fact that ten answer,
purporting to be the answer of 451 rs. Anne
Stubbs, filed in the last cause, hail never
been seen or signed by her, although it pur-
ported to bear her signature, unit was signed
by Mr. David the managing civic of the
solicitors, Messrs. Vandercont and Comp', as the
attesting witness. The affidavit of Mrs. Anne
Stubbs set forth, that she gave instructions to
Messes. Vandercosn and Corny. is file a bill

against the Plaintiff., the executors of her father,
instead of which they had filed a bill against her,
and put in the answer in Question as her answer,
which she swears she never signed or sow until she
saw it iu the Six Clerks Office. and that the signs-
tore was not hers, although it was a close imitation
of her writing. David Creagh had filed an Bifida.
vii, in which he admitted that he did not see Mrs.
`Stubbs sigh the answer, or that he ever heard her
acknowledge that It !ma ber signature, although he
had signed it as the attesting witness, and that he
had done so knowing the answer was sent to her for
her signature, and its being returned with a sign.
ture, winch lie believed to be hers. Mr. Creme!'
also, in hie affidavit, set ford► that he could give
such an explanation of the transaction as would
exculpate his employers, for which reason he (the
Learned Counsel) did not press the part of the
motion against them. This Lady had. however,
sworn most positively that the signature to the
answer was not her writing, and she was joined in
that affidavit by her bully...tad, Mr. Richard Stubbs,
who swore he believed it was not her writing.
Front the face of the answer it appeared to be filed
op the 9•h of July, 1819; and Creigh swear* it
war retinue(' to hum, with the signature of Mrs.
Stubbs, on the 19th of Match previous; and it
also alipearet: that the order of the Court fur the
answer being received without oath was not made
until the Ilth of March, two days dial the sop.
posed aignatiare of Mrs. Stubbs; and even if it had
been her signature, such a proceeding would be
contrary to the known practice of the Court. Un.
der throw circornatanera he liad no doubt but his
Lordship would grant that pat of the motion which
asked for the proceed:llga to be stayed.
Mr. WAKEFIELD followed on the same sides and
stated that Cre.igh had admitted that he had also
pigned the answers of Mr. Downes and wife. as the
attesting witness, without seeing them sign the

answers.
Mr. HORN t, Cnunetl foe Messrs. Vandercom and
Comyn, and also for their clerk, Mr. Cresgh, stated
the he was at a loss to know on whatigrounds his
Learned Friends sought to stay the proceedings: if
it ....9 account of iv regolarity, they ought to have
stated what the proceedings had been, and they not
having done so, it became incumbent on him to pot
the Court in possession of tiwir history. The to
Mr. Neathby, died in 1812, appointing Dixon,
South, and Stubbs his executors, avid the t xectitors
appointed Messrs. Vatidermn and Conijn their
solicitors. A lady of the mane of Squires filed a
bill
.against the executors for the recovery of certain
Parliamentary stock and. foods which had stood in
her lame and that of the testator's father, which
the testator had drawn oat and applied to his own
use. Mr. Wetherby.who was a legatee under the
will of the testator, also filed a bill ',Kanto the ear.
cntors and Mrs. Anne Stubbs, in the year Iftl4.
Mrs. Squire. in the first suit obtained a decree,
giving her 4,000/. in the 4 per cents. out of the
property of the testate!. Ice the suit instituted by
Wetherhy..the Court ordered an account to be token
before the blaster, sad en his report there did not
appear to he assets sufficient of the testator to pay
his debts, and there was no fund to pay the legatees.
and Of course nothing was corning to Mrs. Stubbs,
as the residuary legatee of the testator. abe being
his natural child. The testator had devistd iu his
will that his executors should call in the sum of
9,5001. due to him by Richard Stubbs, the husband
of Anue Stubbe, sod one of the trustee', which
the testator devised to such children of Anne
Stubbs which might be living at her death ; a ques-
tion trose whether the interest of this sum should
be advanced fur the maintenance of the children,
during the life of Anne Stubbs, which Blade it
twcriaary to institute a third snit to take the opi-
nion 01. the Court. Messrs. Vandercom sod
Cowin laid the !stew before Counsel. and they ad-
vised that the executors should be made Plaintiffs.
and Mrs. Stubbs WWI her childreto Defendants; and
on that occasion the answer in dispute was pat in,
and on the hearing of that cause the Conrt ordered
that Mr. Stubbs,. the husband of Anne Stubbs, one
of the executors of the testator, and a pother its
the house of Stuart, Ahsoloti. and Co. wholesale
grocers, to pay Hilo Court the sons of 9,5001.
hich he was itidebftd to the estate of the testator.
Mr.'Stubbs and his partners paid in 7.0001. and
wished the executors to allow the other 2.5001. to
remain on mortgage on a freehold of theirs, but
which they refused. On the :tdviee er Messrs.
Vandercom and Compri. and imperatively called
on Mr. Stubbs to pay the balance in, on which.
for the first time. the objection was made by Mrs.'l
Stubbs to her 31111 W, on the ground of the want
of her signature. The affidavit of Cretigh, and of
three other peisons. clerks to Messrs. Vandercom
and Cosnyit, set forth, that the draft of Mrs.
Silthblo'd answer was delivered by Creagli to Mr.
Stubbs, for the purpose of his carrying it to
Clieshunt to his country seat, for Mrs. Stubbs to

peruse ; that he returned it with some wining at.
tesations; en which it was engrossed, and Mr.
Stubbs carried if to Cheshunt for her signature;
that it was returned by her ton, signed by Mrs.
Stubbs, accompanied by a letter from Mr. Stubbs,
pointing out a clerical error, Mrs. Squires's Chris.
flan name having been written Samuel instead of
Sarah; after which the word Samuel was erased out
of the answer, and Sarah put in its place by one of
the deponents, and on the fare of the answer the
alteration was perceptible. The reason the answer
was put in without oath was to oblige sirs. Stubb-,
for the purpose of preventing her being forced to
come up to London for the purpose of sweating it;
and the deponent Crea!rit most positively swears that
he believed then, and iteheves now, the signature
to the answer is that of Anne Stull;., hating oriel;
seen her write, winch caused him to six!) hispanic
to the answer as the attesting witness, mod that lie
had done so without the privity or knowledge of

Messrs. Vandeicom and Comya.
The Lotto CHANcot.Loo—" I have read the
will and the 'opposed answer of this Lady. and
cannot help saying that she could not have been
advised to hive put to a better answer. Iles
Richard Stubbs made any affidavit, for lie must

know how this answer was signed. es he took it
awry from the tare of Mesiwo. Votidereout and
Comp', without a signature, and scut it back
signed ?" •

Mr. HORNE said there were affidavits of several
persons who had been in the habit of seeinv...Anne

Stubbs write. and they all swore that they believed
the signature to the answer to be her writing.

The LORD CIiANCELLOR—" Before the time of
Lord Alranky, answers used to be put in without
signatur-s, and from that time the attesting took
place—for Malawi., if this Lath was prosecuted for
prriury, it could not be proved except by the at-
testing witness, for the answer hissing being attested
by a witness, no other permit could be examined us
to that fact. lam convinced this will he sufficient
citation to Mr. Creagh not to attest another answer
under the same circumstances. If the signature of
this Lady is a forgery, it is a forgery of sonic person
at (Neshunt, as it was taken out of the Office of
the Solicitors by Richard Stnbbs. and sent back
by him with the signature. Why has he not made
an affidavit as to that bwt ?"

Mr. Holism, in continuation, said. that Mrs.
Stubbs had made mother affidavit in answer to that
of Mr. Creagh. in which she admits the signed
something. hut she believed it was the draft of the
answer. and not the answer itself. The drat was
in Court, and it bore no s;gnsture, but the answer
did, and this was an admission in the fare of her
former affidavit, where she had sworn that she had
signed nothing. fie would ask. then, what credit
was to be given to this lady ? He was convinced
he had •hewn sufficient to his Lordship to induce
him to dismiss the motion with costs.

Mr. GARRETT followed on the same side.
Mr. HART, Counsel for the executors, said ite
knew but ono way of deciding the question as to
whether Mrs. Stubbs had or not signed the answer,
and that was by sending it to a Jury, iu a way that
sass Hot necessary for born to melting. but ho had
is. doubt if her Counsel pressed 136 Lordship for
such a direction. that he weidel.geont
The LORD CRANCILLOR—" The only wag I
could bend it to a Jury would be on Mr.. Stubbs
waiving the question that Mr. Cresgh did nut see
her sign the answer. and if she did that. cud the
Jury found it was her signature, ;t would then
become my duty to send another proceeding to a
Jury."
Mr. Wrrszatu. replied.
The LORD CIIANCELLOS--" Titus motion has
occupied a considerable part of the Court, but it
has been very properly employed, as it is a case
of very greet importance in every view of ir. I
give ibis Lady credit for wishing to have a main-
tainance for her children during her lifetime, but
that kind of anxiety often makes persons think that
a testator has done more by his will than he ever
intended. If the decree of the Master of the Rolls
iu this case is wrong. it can only be set right by an
appeal; and not by a motion ; if the interest of the
9.500% could be supplied for the maintenance of
the children. this Lady's is not the hand that would
be entitled to administer it. It has been Mti-
mated to me by the bar, that no opinion of
mine will satisfy this Lady ; that I am not surprised
at. as male lawyers are not easily satisfied nr con.
vineed, much less should female lawyers. therefore
I will not attempt the task; but this I can tell her,
that I have reed the mustier which she objects to
with great care, sod if I
_um a practitioner at the
bar, it is the very answer I Would have advised her
to put in. If the motion only aimed to stay the
preceedings be
would be doing nothing, as they
could only be stayed until she pot in another an-
swer, °aid if she was admitted to do so. no good
end could be obtained by it. Notice of this ono.
tints au served on Messrs. Vandercom and Comyn,
and on the executors, and if it was only served on
the solicitors foe the purpose of making them an.
swerable for any irregularity of their clerk. I should
see no abjection to it : but when I find their names
coupled with the charge of forgery, where there is no
foga:fallen fur such a charge, and knowing them to
be Dips 'nigh character in their profemion, I dipinno
the motion against them and the executors with costs.
As to the order for the answer being received with-
out oath, after it was signed, I have desired the re-
gistrar to inquire into what the practice is on the
subject, and let me know to-morrow morning, fur if
the practice is so, I have no hesitation in saving, that
it is high time it ought to he altered. I trust it
is not necessary for me to tell Mr. Creme)) that his
conduct wits highly irregular in attesting to the sig-
nature of this lady without having seen her sign
her name to the answer. at the same time it was
ostural for him to suppose that it was her signa-
ller lions what is stated in the affidavits before lite.
I am compelled again to ask why Richard Stubbs
has not made en affidavit whetker he did or not
Feed beck the answer signed by his wife Anne
Stubbs ? I will allow him now to make an affidavit,
if he idolises, to that fact. 1 do not invite him to do
it, but if he does, I will read it, and we will stop
here to see whether he makes the affidavit or not."
Mrs. Stubbs attempted to address his Lordship
from behind the bar.
The LORD CHANCELLOR—" I have heard year
Counsel, Madam, in the support of your motion,
and I will not hear ycu. If you think proper to

Lase your motion re-heard, on ti ring proper notices
then I will hear you and not your Counsel."
Motion dismissed with cools.
A SUPPOSITITIOUS CHILD.
SZROESIIOII V. SRRORIISON.
Mr. HART stilted, that this was a ttlolion cer-
tainty of a novel nature. and one that he could nut
flied any precedent for, but which was made neces-
sary by the peculiar circumstances of the case. It
was to request of his Lordship to ipply to the Chief
Justice of the Court of Kink's Bench for a copy of
his notes on so issue directed by this Court, fur the
purpose of their bring lodged with the M istet for
the information of the Court. It would be in los
Lordship's recollection that fur tunny years the in-
fant defendant was supposed to be the legitiMeste
daughter of the late Cul. Sergesson and his trite.
nod that it was only Lindy it had come to the know-
ledge of the relations of the late Colonel that she
was the child of other parents, sod that she was im-
posed on the Colonel as his, and us such wan lett
.heir by him to his vast property. A bill was filed
in that Court stating those circumstances, and hie
Lordship had ordered an action to be brought to
try the question, and the Jury had brought in 11
verdict that she was not the child of Col. Sertorogon
it was tried at Guildhall before the Chief Justice
of the Court of King's Bench. On the last day of
Term he, the Learned Counsel, had moved the
Court that the order for allowing the infant 300/.
per annum for mainiemince and education should
be discharged, which was granted, it not being
opposed. There was no opposition to the present
motion, as it was grounded on the apprehension
that the infint might hereafter stir the question
again in that Court ; and some of the witnesses
who had beeu eximained on the trial being far ad-
vanced in age. they might die before the case was
again agitated, and if the notes of the Learned
Judge were impounded, by being lodged with the
Master, their depositiosis taken at the trial might
be used.
The LoRD CHANCEI.I.OR—u I do not know by
what authority I could order the ileitis of the Chief
Justice to lie impounded in this Court. It would
be a difficult matter to get the 'Kites out of the
hands of the Chief Justice, fur the Judges never
put with their original notes, and • copy would
lie no evidence. I will see the Chief Justice to.

morrow. when I will have • conversation with bun
on the subject. and afterwards let you know the
result of it. The usual way now it i 0 such cases
to call on the short-hand write► to prove his notes."
Further consideration postponed.
THE ♦TTORNEY-GENP.RAL P. HARTLEY.
- GORDON V. GORDON.

The LORD CHANCELLOR" 1 promised to give
lodgment its those two cases to-morrow morning,
but I find I shall not be able, as 1 have4st very heavy'
Recortler'a report to consider. which occupies at
resew my chief attention ; but I shall hr able to
state to-morrow morning what day in the week I
shell pronounce them."
His Lordship rose at four o'clock.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, WM3IINITER7
TUKIDAY, DICIIMBUL 5.

Before the Loup CHIEF JCSTICE•

CLEARY R. CORBETT.
This was an action for a libel published by tl e
Defendant in his Political Register.
The Plaintiff having► read a letter purporting to
be written by the Defendant to a Mr. John Wright,
and dated the Ist Ap il, 1806, which reflected on
the character of Mr. H. Hunt ; this letter was reud
by the Plaintiff from the busting' during the
Westminster election, in July, 1819. Oil the
28th November, 1818, the libel now complained
of first appeared iu TI.: Political Register, in
which it was intimated that the letter was a forgery,
and that the Plaintiff was concerned in forging it.
Mr. CHITTY hiving opened the pleadings, stet.
log the libel as shave. to which the Defendant had
pleaded not guilty of publishing the libel—.
Mr. BROUGHAM said, that after what his Learned
Frieoll had opened. it was necessary for him to 'Mew
them who the Plaintiff was who came to a•k a re-
paration in damages at their hands. It was only
necessary to mention the mine of William Cobbett
to call to the imagination the name of the man who,
of all others. was the most to be feared for his at.
tacks as a writer ; the man who was most to be
dreaded • fur his great talents—talents which it was
hardly possible to overrate. and which were only
exceeded by the zeal with which he exercised them;
but that zeal was even less remarkable than the
want of scrupulosity with which lie exercised them.
The Geutleman who brought the present action
was comparatively an unprotected individual,
against whom► the great talents of the Defendant
had been so zealously, so powerfully. and with so
little scrupulosity exerted. Tl►e Gentleman had
come front the sister kingdom, and was here in a
respectable situation, lie wa■ now studying the
law, and intending to take a higher station in
that profession. When he arrived in this coaatry
he immediately took part in politico, and being au
elector of Westminster, he had exercised that valu-
able franchise : lie had early been connected with
Major Cartwright. of whose opinion, whatever might
be thought, no man could entertain a doubt of the
Major's consistency in maintaining them. Con-
'weird as the Plaintiff was with that Gentleman ;
in habits of intimacy with him, and partaking of
his hospitality, ►t was very natural for Mr. Cleary
to be foremost in his cause. Another candidate
was Mr. Henry Hunt, and it having pleased Hunt
to attack Mr. Cleary, and go beyond even the usual
license of such occasions, cud having read a private
letter of the Plaintiff intending to sow discord
between him and others, the Plaintiff retaliated
upon Mr. Hunt. by reading a letter purporting to
be front the Defendant, but which Mr. Cobbett
had since thought proper to deny to be h►s. It was
not necessary to read that letter at this moment ; it
might be sufficient to state that it wasa letter in
which Mr. Cobbett spoke of Mr. Hunt in terms
very different from those he subsequently used when
speaking of him. That Mr. Hunt stiould have com-
plained, would have been natural, but why the De-
fendent should feel himself aggrieved did not seem
easy to be accounted for, since of him the Plaintiff
had always spoken with reverence and admiration.
That he should therefore tun► with such vehemence,
not to say ferocity. upon him. did appear rather
unaccottatable. Why should Mr. Cobbett com-

' •
plain of the pahliealiciri or a letter in which he spoke
differently of a man from whit he afterwards did?
Woo . that the only instance of the kind ?
Mr. Mut the only mina wimns he had abused.ere
'ay and lavishly praised on the twat ? Th+sr'who
hail the pleasure of ►eadling Mr. ecibliett's winks,
and had pleasure in observing tl•e servise I:•a
great talents, must have •ern that thoo•r
were steel common with him, and 'fiat in fart it
would he ■ great inconsistency in him if such violent
changes rlyl lint fAk.
I.OltD CHIFP JUSTICE—" You ha►e not

come to the inatter of charge yet."
M. Colslrett—i• 1 wills Ili, Levrard Gentlemen
le hove full seope, my Litrd."
Mr. lkoustuaat.— lit consequence or !II- Moja.
tiff hiving used the letter as he hart stated, there
appeared in the Political filegizier a
*lokh, thoegh Written in America. was polo-
halted, And cli•t.msnord iu tide erountry. I t that.
Which wqc adderstred to the F boo of 71te Mere
York I•eeniag Post, the Defendant said, •• I de-
(lace thst you hare republished a forgery. I de-
clare this letter a forgery. I occuse Cleary hefore
all the poreple of America of forgery. I arrow
hint, am I have done, 114 reall the people of Eng.
laud, in a Itegister whit h I have sent there, of
having forged that Irner ; or. what is the same
thing, in point of baseness, of having obtained it
from a man who had forged it." This libel Mr.
Cohltett had, a. wits his manner. reiterated mud re-
peated in all the ways possible. in verse and iv
prose; sometimes varying the word,. and mom...
times repeating the •atue. until ultitnorly reel
one who read hi. work, naturally associated in his
mind the idea of Cleary end fort-Ty together, soul
SO the purpose of the coltimny Wag COMlP'eted. In
another part of the paper in which the libel was
first published, the nowise for the forgery woos
sssigned ; he was 'tressed of upholding Sir Prince,
Burdett, whom lr hod formerly abused. for no
other motive which the Defendant could devise bat
for pecuniary reward from his opulent and hate
employer. l'Re Learned Couture, then proceeded
to argue, that as the Defendant lied put nn joi•tifi.
cation on the record he must be taken to ackitow.
ledge the falsehood of the accusation of foriery,
though he had repeatedly charged the POsintlfr with
it. It was ittipostoble. tad, to anttciiiiite the
line of defence which would be ad..pte,l ; all topics
were open to the Defenitrini ; liberty of the press
and liberty of discossion mieht I.a allutle'l ID by
him; but they would remetulser that the widest
advocate for the roost unlimited freedom of the
preas never was insane enough to centrnil that 't
ought to include the tight of attatAing pr vite
character with impunity. He put it to the Ju yto
say for what aunt they would have been corrsit to
be exposed to the snarl which the Plaintiff had
sustmoned, and estimate his dtem,ges arcuiditiely.
Jelin Wright seas called and examiged by :11r.
CHITTY.He said I am orquainted with the 1).-
Tendon' ; 1 received a letter from him dated
8, 1808 (a letter was here .litsvn to the "its ;
that is the letter: I have no doubt it is the De-
fendant's hand-writing.
Crors-ezaraixed by the Dere truant:-1 never was
your clerk; I Willi tour agent. It was nut a pri-
vate letter. I 'hewed it at the time I received it to
Dr. Nlitford. There were accounts to be settled
between us in 1810. 1811. nod 1812. I never
said 1 would publish your private letters, if you did
not give wny to rut in the settlement of tho.e ac-
counts. I mode no such threat, nor instructed uny
one elm to do it. The letter was out of my hand's
at different times; it wee so In 1808, and also in
1818, at the time of the election. I gave it to
Mr. Place, at Charing-cross. I was directed by
you, in the letter, to take it to the Westminster
Committee. which 1 did, I believe, on the 11th of
April, 1808. The letter was produried again in
1818. In consequence of your witting letters,
abusing Ste F. Burdett and praising Mr. Hunt, I
thought it my duty to go to the Westminster Com-
mittee,

Q. by Defeterlint—To the Hump Comenitaer ?
Toe LORD CHIEF JUSTICE—" I know ARANO(
of any Rump Committee."
ern's-examination resunied.-1 think MV: Misty
was nut prevent when I delivered the lettetito the
AVestrninster Committee.. I begird the letter read
at the hustings. and I believe, but am not sore shot
the whole weir read with the exception if taro line
of postscript. I never carried a bundle of your
private letter to 'hew to the tote Mr. Whitbread,
but 1 have been cautioned by that gentlersien
against you. I have 'hewn the Wert to- Mr.
Brougham after you charged me with family ; I
never carried a bundle of your private letter.. M
Brooks, in the Strand ; I remember Sir Richard
Phillips coming in when 1 was there; we were twit-
paring the hand-writing, with one or two otheiVrt
your letters. The letter was put between two .glaiirs
for the public to inspect. and to convince theta it
was not forged by me. 1 did not receive i regriest
from your sons to see the letter. heard they s44s
applied, and 1 gave directions intake esrelt stsbold
not be snatched. The book of letters *lf lit the
Court of Ring's Bench last winter, and was so
the hands of Mr. Scsrlett arid 41 ro Gurney.
John Paul examined-1 know • Mr. Cubism's
hand-writing (the letter of April 1. Mb, rhesus to
witness). 1 have no doubt that is Mr. Cubbett's
writing.
J. Place examined-1 was preseLt at the eh-cCun
for Weatminvter In 11118. (The letter 201,',4f1 lo
witness.) The letter was produced by Mr. Wright.
and I gave it to Mr. Cleary. The letter w.is to be
read at the hustings.
Cruss•examined' hy As Defendaiit.-I 'gave ehe
letter to Mr. Chary. to read tare whole of it ut <tin
hustings, and 1 did not tell hits to leave out any
part. The letter was read. its 11518, sad was lot the
purpose of excluding Hunt frogs tin confidence of
the hump Committee, and it laud th it effect, •
IVm. Adams examined—l was ptereut in 1818. at
the Wertinitister Committee. I saw the letter is
1808. I heard Mr. Cleary read it at the hinting,.
I can't say if all was read, as there was such a tioise
nod confarion :, there was the same language. mud
I have uo doubt it was the.letter whirti be read.
eriist-exornined by :lir. Cohbett.—l war a
member of the Committee in 1818. awl adr:sed
the letter to be read, becaue•lltrut had made
violent attacks on Slf Francis Burgett, nod I
thought it necessary the public should know that
you had not abgays entertained she same opinion
Of Hunt. I believe the whole of letter wrs

_....a.

read. 1 do not recollect if the name of the person
to whom it was written was mentioned. As you
had abused Sir F. Burdett and others, 1 left off
reatlito.: the Register.
Question by Mr. Cobbett.—So Riot as I had
armed at that stage in which you could no longer
tolerate my public writing., you took to reading toy
prit.do letters ?—A. 1 'regarded it as a letter for
the use of the Couturiere, and thought they were
not restrained front making any use of it they
thought proper.
Mr. Cobbett proceeded to cross-examine the wit-
ow.a from the contents of the letter of April I,
1808.
Mr. BIOUGB4II submitted that the letter should
he put in and read, which was done accordingly.
The cidsmexaminstiou of the wittiest was then
it-rousted, and cret.;:ttied for some time, but nothing
(Luther was thcititl.
Willmar Jackson examined by Mr. BRoUGHAII.
—I was acquainted with the Deleuilant w March
luf7, when he went out to America. He left
with toe the manuscript of his Farewell Address.
It n hi. hand.writiog...-[The letter shewu to
o 'lovas I—That is the leUrr.
The letter was read ; it was dated 20th March,
1817. 11 contained directions to the winters for
printing and publishing the manuscripts which the
Defroslant should send over from time to Pine from
America, for which he was to have one In:If of the
dear profits. The letter contained the following
pantgeoplts;-.." If you get into prison. still the
imaincsa eau be carried on."—"'l shall mod you
the manoseripts of reel), thingl write. for the imr-
pose of bring published here."—(The letter was
,hated Londou.)
E xamiaatioss of Wahine resorted-1 dill publish
the Farewell Addicts, und 'received and published
oliervoirds till the itt January. 1819. 1 paid the
I)efesidant's4woportion of profits to his son, for
Iris use. The Yrimesiethen proved the publication
of the various number of the Register iu which
the libel was. repeated.
Crots-crodaiisCd by Mr. Cobbett.—lt was in the
Kifig's Breech pinion I first saw you. Lord Cock.
rant was with me. While Lord Cochrane was iii the
liisio's RenCh prison I came down on a manage to
you from his Lordship. I think I received the letter
read just nodyfrons Ina Lorchthip; he said you were
ohont to.go to America, and wanted some our who
haecthe courage to publish your Register in
venue absence. Lord Cuchratst did not say any thing
about fidelity ; ate had no doubt I should be faith-
ful. The manuscript came to Liverpool. sod from
'Name to me by the !writ. 1 had atliocretiossary
itower as to what 1 should publish sod what I
s!i.ititil tint publish. I received a letter from you
sysessive of such powers, and atatiag. that the
whole responsibility was to rest on me. The mann.
scripts were under my sole control, and I had ab-
solute power to expunge, but I did not think my.
srlf warranted to put in any thing of my own.
The crow-examination of the witness continued
:it great length, and went to ,hew that lie had pub-
lished something tint transmitted by Defendant,
sari that he had altered passages, by expunging
stiong worth.. and at the time be was intimate with
the Plaintiff. The wittiest§ refused toauswer to the
queatiou, if he had not assisted Cleary in the writs
tog of the pamphlet which be had published against
the Defendant, entitled " it Letter to Major Cart-
wright." Ho did publish a letter from Cleary in
the Register, thinking he was entitled to it as an
act of justices after being an attacked. He accom-
panied the Plaintiff when he went to mike an affi-
stairii. the object of which was, he understood, to
keep the Defendant in this country till the present
section could be brought. The whole of the Sc. 4
rents of printing and publishing were kept in :lie
witnesit's name.
Re-examined by Mr. BitouGnam.—The original
manuscripts were left with the priuter. The De-
fendant never objected to my insertiou of the ar-
ticles.
By Me Jusait.—lie never made any complaint
rs.a,tectiug any thing.
-- Mobsters: ezonsistevl.—l primed the Re-
gisters; I received the copy from Mr. Jackson.—
nistiuscript was Oren up to W. Cobbeti, jun.
Cross-examined by Mr. Cabbett-1 think I could
distinguish between the hand-writing of you and
your son. I saw you once Wilte a note :o Tipper
rod Fry, the otationers, for paper. about there
years ago. The witness afterwards added, " be-
lieve I then saw you write."
The Plaintiff's ease being closed. Mr. Cobbett
rese and addressed the Court. He said lie had hot
tree malty to suppose that lie could defend himself
with the ability of the Geotleman who sat near
him, but as befoul to deal with a particular descrip-
lion of men, Ite.was doubtful if he could have pre.
seded on any of those Gentleman to deal with
them as he had thought it iieceosary. Mr. Ca b-
heti observed, in very animated terms, on Mr.
Browghsta's opening, and said, so for was hr
most being of the character he had described,
south to be dreaded, mid of so much seal
sad with no few scruples, that lie had been a writer
opwarda of 28 yeses, and yet this was the first ac.
Ulm for damages in which he had tear been the
defendaut--which he believed was more than any
vt the Paper. Reviews, or Magazines could
sac, but even excepting the Evangelical. In
the first criminal prosecution he had sustained,
he received the copy from a Judge ; it was
hooded to him by a Member of Parliament,
tad verified by a harquis. The writer. was
~scled,bur bur he suffered no impriouunient ; on the coil.
Val. • petioion of 1.4004. •-year was fixed on him
far life: io that could not have Leen a tery
daogerous libel. As fur the thing for which he was
linprieonett by the Attorney General. it did him
16a horn:, it gave him a great deal of leisure, which
lie profited by • he pent iu «mud sod came out
sound. He had mentioned all the eases in which
ne had ever been concerned, because be hail been
held up as so pre-eminent iii hi. mil; but let them
look it any other publication. Even the Clish mu
easer llebierr had been elturged. but they had
crept out by humili4lloll6, which the gentlemen in the
ionviliern part of the kiugdom knew how to make,
the stupid southern rail their heads into • gaol.
IVlr. Cobbett next ridiculed Om idea of the Plaintiff
being coentectztl with Major Cartwiiglit, and asked
that gentler/1.,. who had been sublicenard to
give lain a I.ltaracter. had not been put in the
though Ise hod beru sitting in Court all day. The
Plaintiff might be as intimate as the Learned Conn.
sel had represented with the treueesble Major, even

sia" Bog is our bed-fellow." fie would give the
Jory the true history of the Plaintiff. He came to
tins country in 181 e, and was then Sons Secrettiire,
as the French would call it, to the Hampden
Club—(in Ireland he had been writer to a active.
ner.)—He was the last man to reflect on any one
for the lowness of their origin. hut such wie the
fact. When liege, he became instead of a servant,
Ames Seesetaire to that Club he had mentioned be.
fore, of which our Davis was the Secretary, and he
remembered seeing hint at Bury-street, perched
behind his desk, like :Matthew at the receipt of
custom. The Sons Secretaire had told him that
he travetied as a sort of apostle of liberty, kith his
packet of instructions for the formsbon of Ileum.
den.Cliths. Ile mentioned Ibis to spew what da-
mages he was entitled to.
_ .

Mr. Cobbett then reviewed the conduct of the
Plaintiff at the IVeetminster election, and contended
that he had given the first provocation, in publish-
ing his private letter, ten years after it was written,
and not then giving the whole of it, hut omitting the
date, the name of the prison to when it was ait-
dressed, and other nuptirtent particular+, which
fully justified him in calling it a forgery; for as he
lied seen it in that girb:ed shape it was a forgery ;
since they called it ■ forgery if a figure wait added
• to a bank-ante or she name altered or added. The
forgery had been dwelt ou by the Learned Conerel,
and the breech of trust and confidence slipped
over; but he. wee CUllfildelli that no man who
beard him, not eves excepting the Plaintiffs
Advocate himself, hut would say that the act of
publishing • letter after a lapse of ten years, was a
most atrocious one. Yet though the Iwgisistiorg and
end of the letter were left out, be was only sorry
for one expression in that letter—he meant that in
which he alluded to the lady with whom Mr.
Hunt hid been living for twenty years. Mr.
Cobbett then animadverted with great severity
on the evidence of the witnesses, which he compared
to that of Majocchi and Deflated, and conteud-
ed that Mr. Brougham would find it a difficult mat-
ter to draw any tangible distil c ion between them
and the Plaintiff and his witnesses. Mr. Brougham
bad said, that thawed. attempted to pick locks;
but for what purpose did he do that? Did he
expect to And the Queen and Bergemi in one
of the drawers ? No, certainly, but he expected to
find letters and other docuineuts. Now. though
°mote& had died with the blessings of a Cardinal
on his head, vet he, Mr. Cobbett, believed him to
be a great villain, though he hail not been guilty of
a greater villainy than the publication of a private
letter. The Leonard Gentleman had told them
that the White Horse champion was now a student
at law, sod haimided to be called to the bar. " I
was," continued Mr. Cobbett„ " alarmed at that ;
and knowing how scarce Gentlemen of that pro-
fession are, and how difficult it is to get law for love
or money ; so to have subtracted one member from
that profession would be a very great offence, and it
has lain heavy on my conscience ever since I heard
it." Mr. Cobbett went on to state hypothetically
(being prevented by his Lordship from stating it di-
rect 4), that Kite had on his lending in England re-
ceived a challenge from the Plaintiff which he took
no notice ot; and if that challenge was afterwards
published in all the Papers, in addition to two pam-
phlets before published, in short if the Plaintiff had
taken every means to revenge himself, for what he
had himself said was no injury to him, what damages
could they think small enough to award him ? Mr.
Cobbett again reverted to the conduct of the wit-
nesses, and charged two of them with the grossest
ingratitude towards him, and begged the Jury to
look at the state of insecurity every mail, and every
woinsu too, would be placed in if breaches of trust
and confidence were to be reckoned justifiable.
He justified his changes of opii.ion as being opi-
-11101/16 of men, not measures, and were changes from
had to better, whilst some near IRS) had changed
from bad to worse. He concluded a very long and
forcible address by an exposure of the wardship of
being held to bail for such a ni atter as he was charged
with, because a man could be found to swear lie
believed he was shoot to leave the kingdom, though,
-ut the same time, it was notorious he was just at.
rived in England, and was going down to Bosley to
reside. He besought the Jury not to sanction by
their verdict a system of espionage and treachery.—
He did not ask them to consider him or has family,
but to convince the world that there still existed in
the breasts of Enelialittieti an irrecoucilesible anti-
pathy to every thiug base awl trlicherous.
Mr. Cobbett concluded his address after being
several times interrupted by the Defendatit's Coun-
sel, mid admonished by the Court, for opening
matters which he did not intend to prove by evi-
dence.
Mr. BROUGHAM submitted that be was entitled
to a reply under the circumstances, as Mr. Cob-
bett had gone so largely into matters, of which he
had offered no proof ; but as Ibe Defendant's speech
was only in aggravation of the libel, be was con-
tented to waive his right.
His Lordship then summed up the evidence to
the Jury with his nceu,tumed discriminution, and
told diem, if they were -ati-feed of the proof of
publication, they would find the Defendant guilty,
as no ins., could doubt the matter published was
hibellous; and then the nest question was, as to
the amount of damages. on which he thought one
observation of the Defendant very material—he
meant the fact of the publication ten years after the
letter was first written. and for a purpose which the
parties must have kinotii the Defendant would not
have sanctioned had he been present.
The Jury retired for an hour and .6 quarter, and
at tight o'clock inturneil a verdict for Plaintiff,
damages 405. costs 40a. ; and a verdict fur the
j Defendant un the last coma of the declaratiou.

• The iris) occupied the whole of the day. The
Court was crowded to excess durnig the whole
period.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER, TUFSDAT, DICEMBIR S.

THE KING V. SIR JOHN HILT, BART. 41110
SIR JOHN KTNASTON POWELL, LINT.

The. ATTORNEY-GENERAL stated the case for
the Crown. lie Paid this was an ioforitiation
brought to rer•oser the penalty of th,ee bonds,
amounting to 100,000 /. each. entered into by the
Defendants, conditioned fur the faithful prrfirm-
mice of duties by -- Eros,. a Receiver-Getie-
'al of 'rases for Shropshire. 'luting the years 1813,
1814. and 1815. lie stated that Mr. Eyton died
iu the )ear 1816, at which time he was in debt to

the Crown in s sum of about 100,0001. on account
of the tree years for which the Defendants had
given the bonds in question as his sureties. The
defence which would be offered, the Attorney-
'General said he understood II" that Mr. Evtini,
who had been Receiver-General foe many -yews
before 1813, was in arrest. to the Crown in ti large
sum. at the time the present Defendants gave the
bonds no which they are now sued, and that during
the years 1813, 14, and /5, he ppid into the Ex-
chequer the amount of tex.s lie received. But, paid
the Attorory-General, n gent thin of his payments
during those years v ere InAcie to s•►th.faction of
former balances, which I'w proper officers will
prove, sod then the only question for the Jury will
be, whether Mr. Eyton had fulfilled the conditions
of the bond.

Si•rjenits PEEL awl TADDY, for the I)efendants,
submitted to the Court that the question *re not
whether any of lie conditions of the bond him!
been at till infringed, tar ►urrly the Court would
not say that if there had been a fa lure to the
■mount of a farthing, that therefote the penalties of
the bond were forfeited. _ _ _

Wm. Turner was exioniord by Mr. SHEPHERD,
for the Crown. tie awed that lie was Mr. Eytors's
deputy in the year IH 13, and to the tintr or tds
death iu 1816, and he rev.d a c•ery particular uc.
count. of all the rums received by lion us dimly
during the three years to which the hoods sillrity't
the total amount of 'lamb was 6.19,4103/. 4.. 6id.
pout of which sum he Indeed to the bank 1.1 .Vless:s.
Ruck, Eaton, snd Co. Sh►ewsbu►y, mid the ri-
mainder lie remitted to Alesiirv. Gu•ltngs and Shy, p.
Loudon, having done NU by Mr. Eytnn'il dirrchtm.
It was now admitted by the ATTOII.SIIII,-GEN ERA 1.,
that Mr. Itylon had received taxes in the yews
1813, 14, and 15. to the 'amount 0r639,4051. 10s. 3i.d.
emu' that he had pail lute the Exchequer ors an.
count lif the same years 511.9501., leaving a deli-
ei`nc/ of 127,4551. 10s. oat of which the
A!torney-General said there were certain allowances
to be deducted. to the amount of about 33,0001.,
which would leave his amount deficits.' 94.4551.

&firma PELL ewutended, that if .11 the money
paid by Mr. Eyton during the years 1813. 14 and 15.
together with 40,0001. which had been levied by
the Crown uttder an extent since his was op.
plied to the payment of the taxes I.r those years.
there would remain no ilrorasid oil the Defendants.
and if the public of6eess had not dune their dory
by causing him to make lii payments regularly as
received, then the Defendants might say they were
entrapped.
The ATTORNEY-GEN CIL/ 1, said, the fact of put
of the money received for those years having been
levied by extent, proved that the bonds were fen-
felted ; besides, Mr. Eytou might have had the
money that he was in atrear iu his hoods at the
time these bonds were entered into, and might
have misapplied die niatiey he received duriug
those years.,
Serjeant PELL said, he would be able to slew
that the money paid during the three years for
which the bonds were given, had been received
during the same years—ott which .vidrhee the
Jury, he trusted, would find fur the Delend.nits.—
To prove that the money paid into the Exchequer
on Mr. Eytou's account, in the pars 1813, 1814,
and 1815, was the same he had received in those
years, Serjeant Pell called Henry Morris, clerk in
the bank of Messrs. Rock and E) ton. in Shrews-
bury ; and -- Hamilton, clerk to Messrs. Gos-
ling and Co., London ; the former of whom proved
the sums lodged in the Shrewsbury Bank by Mr.
Eyton's deputy, and the remittances mule au his
account to Messrs. Gosling owl Co. by whom the
payments were made to the ExchNorr.
The ATTORNEY-G E 9 ERA 1. COlitt'udrd this evi-
dence made no change in the ca-e.
Serjeant PELL etth:ortted, that it ,Imulil 1). left
to the Jury to find whether the iriniiry thatitad
been paid by Mr. Lyton kw the yesr• 1813, 14, and
15, was the same he 1.e.1 leceiv. *luring those
years.
. . .

•
f he k.lllltlt BARON rigid, it WIC II) evidence, that
part of the money icceived fur those year. had
been levied by extent. which was lona that lie bad
not paid. and in his opinion the Defendants were
liable for the penalties of the bond; but their Counsel
would have au opportunity of arguing the law of
the question on a motion lot a new toinl. and Le
most sincerely wished them success; us he had the
pleasure of being acquainted with the Dereadout,.
and knew they were vs honourable men as any in
Eugland. but at present his Lordship said he could
not see any occasion to trouble the Jury.
The Jury inimedistOy found a verdict for the
Crown. the full p.riAlty of the bowls, 300;0001.

I