The National Register.
London, England, 1819-05-02 00:00:00

L.IIV INTELLIGENCE.

GUILIMALL, WKSTNIINGTER.
mowituoirsz AND w* Iy L. I.:E COMMUSIONICIIS or WIZ

X FAY STRELT.

-.....—..
Ao -inquiry sank place eri before the Deputy-Bailiff
of Westminster t Mr.•Smedley), and a Special Jury, as to the
of the phentiff,. in this case. to •entopeintiti,m for their
interest in the freehold pren•ises, situate at No. 77, Swnllow-
stre et. which are to be removed in consequmee of the progressive
improvernenu In that neighbourhood.
Mr. Cummins, Mr. Adolphus. and Mr. Platt, eppeared sn
the part of tt.e claimants; and the Attorney-General, Ma.
Noarisca, mu Mr. Grainy, supported the interests of the Com-
missioners.
On the part of the claimants. it was proved by Mr. Robins,
the auctioneer, of Warwick-street, that the value of the premises
in question, allowing fur every fair deduction, was 3494)/. The
Itidgnient of Mr. Rotting **at supported by the testimony of Mr.
Ilundad. an architect, and Mr. l'hormis. a builder.
The Jitturney•General, in his address to the Jury. expressed
his surprise at Me manner in IV!liCl/ these CMS were got up; and
remarked, thrt the parties asking compensation w•ually went
about seeking those persons to put a value upon their property,
who were meat likely to estimate it at the highest price. The
business was in fact car-!NI e* after the manner of a sale by auc-
tion, and lie who was the highest bidder Wes the person most
hkely se hi eho.eniks fit to appear As a witness before a Jury.
Thus, i 1 the.present CAS:, three indiarlesis were selected to up-
hold the platiitifi"s chin', while it fourth, .1 the name of Wd-
buns, who had been appointed by one of the two plointiffi (he
tr.eant Mr. Ward) upon whine estimate a claim had actually been
made upon the Comminioners, and which was far below
that of Mr. Robins. was stud, -only avoided. He should put in
Mr. WiliOams's estimate. which. although of itself somewhat
extravagant. was much nearer the real value of the premises in
dispute than the others of whic't they had heard, and to these he
would add the testimony of other rzpectsble men, from which
• the Jury would be able to come to a fair conclusion.
• Mr. Willock. Me turveyor, was then examined for the Crown.
His valuation of the premises •was arias/. —tit hie ewas.esamin►
tier. by Mr. Platt he said, lie consideted Mr. Rubins tu be as
e a man as any hi London.
reTg.tateper considered the premises to be worth 33631.
Mr. William% estimate was lastly put in, which atnounted to
5741 L
This was the cause for she Crown.
•Mr. Adolphus now adeiessed the Jury in reply. He said
that Le thought he had much more reason to he surprisedist
language of the Attorney-General, than the A ttorney -Genet% had
at the Manner in which this case had been got up.—Persom hod
been calLden the part of the claimants, to whose respectability
and honour the witnesses for the crown load borne the roost flat.
• terieg testimony ; and upon the judgrnmt of those person" did the
.gilamtifretest their claims. There was no proof whatever of im-
proper selections being ride, and he was sure the Jury would
siva with Jinn in thinlen:g, even if the plaintiffs were disposed to
tale *step which was not consistent with fair daliog ; that Mr.
Robins would not, to answer any private end, bony Ms character
as a man, or warp his judgment, to suit the purpose Of hand.
These insinuations were neither fair nor well feunded. But
laying aside all allusions to this topic, how did the matter really
stand ? what was the essential difference between the intimates
4::.r the crown and for the claimants? The first penis! called for
the Crown gave his valuation at 3054 L The next bidding. at one
jump wen; up to 33631.; aad then came Mr. Williams, who, he
was entithaita call a witness on the same side, and whose esti-
mate reached 5.558/. lle had no hesitation in believing, that if a
fourth had been called, he would have gone still further, and
:rime at once to the estimate of• Mr. Robins ; and, indeeds, when
it watemoilected that the persons who had been cullsd were the
consult: s•nveyers for the crown, and consequently not' likely to
bvar too hard upon iitt.:r employers, he had no doubt that the Jury
would, in a murnentoceme to the conclusion that the sum claimed
by the defendants was fair and moderate, and such as ought not
onamentiously to be disputed.
[dr. Cummins made on ilmmams speech on the same side;
and Mi. Smedley having summed up the evidence, the Jury
found, by their verdict, the value of the premises to he THREE
.THOUSAND EIGHT HUNDRED POUNDS.

COURT OF Tf ING's BEN/11. Anitti. 2a.
This being that first day of Easter Tenn, the Judges took their
r,.•ats with the usual formality.
Tha stac of the citviets onboanl the hulks was reported.
L11REL5.....-TIIIE LINO V. RTCI4AIIII CA111.117..

The attendant on the• /notion of Mr. 1 Attleaale, appeared to
plead to six prosecutions ed -against ltd.] for distir.
alleged libls. Four criminarr7ftiations wer&tiled against h..a
last Term fur blasphemous impious libels, of and concerning the
Holy Scsiptures, published under the title of htin's .‘ Age of
I..cason.'—To duns a., defendant took time to plt.tal, and on this
occasi.in he pleaded Not Guilty. Lie was then informed his trial
would oomean at the Sittings at Nisi Prius. ofterTnnity Term.
lie was Illso called pi plead to an indictment, .tharging him with
•Istblislii-t,^„ on the lath of Detcinher, in the City of London, a
seditious libel, calculated to provoke And incite insurrection or
j.„:beilion against the King. Lords, and f:ontiotans The title of
the public...time way " Killing co Murder," To this.animoother
pc.o ....orlon for publishing the defendant retmeeted
t.n? to consider his plea. which was allowed. He then left the

FRIDAY. APRIL RI
l'/IT alma D. xitirrn, RINNEMI, AND OTHEP.S.

Searletrapplied to the Court to rrant • new trial in this,
cm.. It will be recollected tk it was an indictment iv4ainst the
diliervlants for a conspiraey, in having set u!, certain ofthern. who
,littrally beggars, fur opulent merchants, in order that, by
f.ic means, they might fraudulently obtain large quantitiati of
gc-;xl,.- The case was tried before the Lord Chiet Justice. -a.
Guilsiboll, on the ,Ist tilt. and was very fully reported in our
Paper last week. A ver,ict of guilty wu returned against Kin-
sir at, Woelf.and levy. The I 'earned Counsel said, the first ground
on wisielrlsa matte the application was, tha. the Jury, after gyring
sworn to trythe defendar ts. Mot left the box at eleven o'clock at
tight, and Canto agaiwto continue thin proceeding tlvi next morn-
ing. Whilst they were awe they naturally fat the effect ofpre-
jtalce which prevailed against the priioners,..nntl they did not
came hack to try them welt that uribiused mind whi.h justice
:re tired. The ].earned Counsel cited various cases in support
of aw tfi lieation, and contended that the Court ought to grant
tl.e nineor..

TL, Ccrurr.or. fierimint and Mr- Denman followt4 on the same
41e..., centtz.,:ing that it Ras at,: a 1eg.,1 verdict, atm the Jury had
.di-perse.;,. ••
frliQ Chief luttice said, if there had been the least doubt on
;:tl.O leiii:ity of 42 ceret.cr, as given,by the Jury. the Court would
rot hate hesitated to crant the,m-,ttein ; tut his clinirtn was, that
*ere was not the lemt yrettnce for di:.turhing the verdict. With
1,
reaped to the Jury retiring fro n the cot belt re r the conclusion of
e.... trial, it was a practice le n_^ vta,' htd. and in this ibstanee
c<. a•.'. net le hm..r4chf e. Ti *e feu, !tao, tat 60T11 Dille in the
int asLig to elt.:tit at t. 4314 on ectbrts ery of the trial, and in