The National Register.
London, England, 1821-11-19 00:00:00

• 7

LAW INTELLIGEACE.
COVRT OF CHANCERY.
MONDAY, NOV. 12.

SCALES V. LI AIELOWE.
The Lord Chancellor —" I have read the affidavits in
this case, Mr. Ching, and as it respects Joseph Rai kiwi.,
the person 1101 committed, I do not see that you. have
given me jurisdiction ; as you have not named hint in the
petition, he wearer* enjoin d by the order of the Master of
the Rolls from eonersing with the infant, and Ids having
done so cannot be considered a contempt of Court. Yon
must present another pelitimi,nantini the actetal contempt
committed hr hint. When IBM asked to send a man to
gaol, the actual offence must he expressly stated on the
farce of the petition, to give the pary accused an oppor-
t ity of answering it."
Mr. Ching said, he would follow toe course pointed out
by the Court.
Ibe Lord Chancellor rove at one o'clock.

COURT OF XING'S BENCH.
:JONn Y, NOV.
Tlir: LINO V. RInGLIPIAV.
This was au indictment prefci red by the Constitutional
Snide ty against the defesuluitit, a shopkeeper at I..aureatiler,
for the publication of a libelonamely, Cashiers Newel-ear's
Address to the Reformers.
The Counsel fur the prosecution called several wit-
nesses, but the priecipal person examined was a y °mug
nom, of the mutate of Miller, who stated, that seeing a bill
ill the defendant's window, with the words, "The Address
ht the Reformers sold here," lie v cot its, and asked if he
conk' have the New A'ral 're A ddr l'ks to the Reformers?—
'rhe defemlustit said lie had not got the work, but would
send to London fur it. The defendant was accordingly
iequeseed to get it, and bdving procured it from Loudon,
lie arterwald4 *Old it to the witness. This application
was said to be made in Match last, and Miller deposed
Ilia the saw a board over the ilek.idatit's silk), with the
following s4ii—".l)rvid Ridgeway, dealer ha 'rya, Coffee.
Tobacco, Suirti. die." The indictment was tried at the
its: Lancaster assizes, and the Jur., found the defendant
Mr BuougUatu miw moved for a new trial, chiefly on
the ground that there was no evidence to pious the defen-
dant %vas Ilse publisher of the libel in question. It only
appeared that the person w lio kept the shop in Lancaster
sold the Address to the Reformers, which was nut a libel.

The wink which was the subject of prosecution, namely,
the kew Year's Address to the Reformers, had been sent
to identify the defendant at the publisher. The witness
who had sworn that he saw the sign board over the shop,
with David Ridgeway painted on it, could not have Bourn
the truth. lie had au affidavit that the board was taken
down a: Christmas preceding. Independent of that cir-
comstanee, the leatneil Counsel coon tided that there was
no proof ut identity, and submitted that theme was ground
for a New trial.
TIP* Court granted a rule to chew cause.
Aomit two o'clock the Judges roar to attend the Privy
Council.

SWANTON V FILM

Thin WAS an action !nought by Susan Swanton. a ser-
vant, against the defendant, to recover damages for a
libel. The cause was tried before Baron Garrow, at Ox-
ford, and a vet diet found for the plaintiff, with .101. da-
mages.
The plaintiff had lived nursery-maid in the service of
the defendant, who is a magistrate and clergyman. On

quilting his service she applied for a character, and the
defendant wrote a letter, stating that her demeanour wits
modesty itself, but in tact she was vicious anti I 11111 l oilest :
that she had stolen several things in the fismily, anti had
been tit the habit of admitting a 110411 servant to her bed-
room night after night. The jury were left to consider
whether the defendant, writing the letter, had been in-
finenced by a malicious and vindictive feeling.
Mr. Ctoss now moved for a new trial en two grounds.
First, that at the time the defendant wrote this letter, hr
had not recovered train the I tfect proditeed out his mind
by the gross misconduct of the plaintiff; and secondly,
that it was a verdict against evidence. The Learned
Counsel adverted to the evidence, and contended that
there was proof of the mammal conduct of the
sufficient to justify the defendant in the observations lie
had matte. His character, as a clergyman, made it most
essential, that lie should express the greatest censure on
the improper conduct of the plaintiff in his tXmily.—
There was no proof of malice, and under all the eirettm-
stances, the question ought to be admitted again to a
jury.
The Lord Chief Justice was of opinion there ought not
to he a new trial. It was most obvious, that letters writ-
ten by a former master upon the character of a servant
ought to be a privileged communication ; and unless it be
sheen) that the writer of such a letter proceeded upon a
vindictive motive, be.was clearly privileged in what he
wrote; but he considered this letter to be written under
a vindictive feeling. The jury, upon the whole of the
evidence, had found a verdict fur the plaintiff, and the
court could not say they had come to a wrong conclusion.
Mr. Justice Bayley, • Mr. Justice Holroyd, and Mr.
Justice Best concurred, and the court refused a new
trial.

THE RING V. ANNE /ARLIL L.
Mr. Cooper moved for a rule to skew why the verdict
should not be set aside, and a new trial had. The
Learned Counsel said he moved this on an affidavit, in
which the defendant stated, that en the 24111 of July last,
blue was tried in this court, upon the prosecution of ail
weinlation, calling themselves a Society for the Suppres.
SIMI of Vice, for the publication of the Theological Works
of 'Ebonies Paine. Her defence consisted of printed and
written matter, and she was proceeding with the same,
when site was stopped by the lodge, saying it could not
proceed. The deponent was stopped at the following
passage :—" The defendant ought to have been tried
under the Statute Law, making it penal to revile and
scoff at the Holy Scriptures ; but her prosecutors were
tun vindictive to take that course. They knew the object
of the statute was only to disqualify the party convicted
from holding civil or military offices. They therefore
indicted this di ti•nd.mt on what .111131 be called the Com-
ihoa, Law, which is nothing but common abuse. The
Learned Judge, however, said, let it be read, I will not
stop it ; hitt, after gis log that permission, lie again in.
sisted that the deponent should relate to strike out die
ohjeciionable matter. The deponent refused to alter it,
and gave in the 'kittes Mg decimation This is my de-
Wore, and it the Count decide 411 Ell gli• 111'1.11111111 1414 $ll/
right to di elate that which she considers es-ential tir Let