The National Register.
London, England, 1820-11-19 00:00:00

-

374

L AL-

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
COURT OF RING's BENCH, WeassatiesTert, Nov. 15.
THE NINO V. DAVISON.
pd gulliffend a t appeared in to receive judgment,
Mr. Coeval.
publishing a blasphemous libel.
for a rule-to shP.O're judgment was pronounced, moved
verdict
set aside and a new" iif..-riV the ver
observed, it was a singular IPSllirtrlo should not be
o,e.
arnaenddCihoteticercirl.
cutustances induced hue hi to regret that the t.
porting this apnlication had not fallen to a pe.°l 11110)-1.
snore experience. On the trial of this proseculk..
which came on at Guildhall on the 23d'of October, the
defendant stated. that being unable to fee Counsel, he
was obliged to plead his own cause. He proceeded to
read nisevritten defence, and the observations he made
gale offence to the Learned Judge, who imposed fines
upon bins to tbe.amount of tool. The defendant, being
intimidated by thesdread of irretrievable ruin, was nu-
..able to proceed with his defence. He omitted many
facts and statements which might have been beneficial
zee his cause. The Learned Counsel then observed, he
should make no comments .of his own, but discharise
the duty reposed in him, by reading the defendant's
affidavit of facts. He accordingly read the affidavit.—
The defendant deposed, that having stated, that it was a
notorious fact that no gentleman at the Bar would un-
dertake his defence, the Judge fined him twenty pounds.
That the defendant was fisted 401. for stating that the
higher orders of society sceptics, and the Bishops infidels
Having enumerated the other fines imposed, it concluded
by saylnge the Learned Judge, in his charge to the
Jury. remitted the fines, on the ground that the object
for which he imposed the fines was accomplished. The
Learsted.Counsel contended, that the injury dune the
plaintiff was not lessened by the remission of the fines.
Ilse injury was done—the Jury acting upon the impres-
sion, which the defendant had no power to remove,
found him guilty. It was a question still to be deter-
mined, whether a Judge bad power to fine for a con-
tempt. 115 defendant was to be checked by fine, in the
making his defence, there would be au end of fair and
impartial trialt,---Suppose for instance, there happened
to be a corrupt Judge, and there had been some of that
description, though fortunately none were to be found
at the present day—suppose such a Judge was disposed
.to do what a corrupt government required of him, how
easy would it be to bailie and confound a defendaut by
imposing fines which would reduce his family to ruin.
The unfortunate man in such a case, biome down by the
consideration due to his family, would be hurried, an
unresisting victim, to exile or th: scaffold. The Learned
Counseteoncluded by stating, that the remission of the
fine was proof that the Learned Judge doubted his au-
thority to impose them. Under all the features of the
case. the defendant was entitled to a new trial.
Judge Best —I should be the last person to prevent
.the defendant from having a new trial. I will leave my
brothers, the Learned Judges, to decide the question,
without the slightest interference, and but for the last
observation of the Learned Counsel,i I should not have
said one word respecting my opinion and conduct; but
the Learned Counsel has supposed that I remitted these
fines because I doubted my authority to impose them.—
I entertained au such doubt. I never could doubt, and
I never will denbt my authority until told by the House
.of Lords that I did wrong.
The Chief 'duke, after some consultation with
Judges Bayly and Holroyd, said, I have not the slit:zest
doubt of the power of a- Judge, sitting at Nisi
to fitte for contempt of Courtin his presence, nor have
1 any doubt it was competent for a Judge in some cases
to remit the fine, and however painful it might be to
impose fines ma a defendant, yet if he cannot restrain
him front conducting his defence without defaulting
morals and religion, he has the power to impose fines;
the propriety qf the act 1 do not call iir questicdh. For
the purpose or having all the facts before us, and giving
full coutidcration to the question, we are disposed to
allow the party a rule to chew cause, in order that the
discussion may come on during the present term
Judge Bayly stated, that a Judge at Aisi Prays had
clearly the power to fine fur contempt. It was a Court
Record, and they had the power to flue. As the con-
tempt was against the Judge, he was the proper person
to decide whether it was a contempt or not. The
Learned Judge concurred in granting the rule to chew

cause. •
Mr. justice Holroyd concurred in the opinion •of his 11
Learned Brethren.
THE KIVU, V. JANE CARLILI.
The defendant, Mrs. Carsile, came into Court to re-
ceive judgment.
Mr. Hill. her Counsel, then moved an arrest of judg.
went, on the ground that the indorsement on the indict-
ment was informal. It stated a true bill on two counts,
when, in fact, there were three counts. This by
lege' decisions was held to be a variance fatal to the
indictment.
The Court allowed the Learned Counsel to take a
rule to skew cause why the indictment should not be
quashed.
THE KING V. O.itRYAN.
Mr. Scarlett moved to tile a criminal informa *o
against the defendant, for sending a challenge to a
tleman of the name of Elward, brandishing a stick
over hum, and posting hint as a coward on the Royal
Exchange.
The Court granted a rule to shew cause.

LEWIS V. CLEMENT.
Mr. Adolphus moved fora rule to shew cause why
.his inquiry before the Sherd of Middlesex should not
by set aside, and toe cause sent back again to assess da-
• the pleadings mat a poor man was
'osclvent Deotor's Court. In the
.10 wnicn the defendant published
'mum was made on the

atttxney.
o treater damages for a libel,
idgment by delault.
•
•
- • ' • r".