The National Register.
London, England, 1820-11-26 00:00:00

--

THE NATIONAL REGISTER

hying it down to be an offence, was unsupported by
any legal authorities. That being, as he contended, the
fair construction to be put upon the nature of a libel, he
had next to consider where the author or publisher was
amenable to the law. He contended that the defendant
could not be tried in any other country than that in
which the libel was written and published. The King
v. Butters proved that the route mast be laid, and trial
bad, in the county where the offe•ice was comp'.eted.—
The case was tried in tank before Mr. Justice Graham,
at Hereford. It was an indictment for obtaining money
under false pretences or threats. The threat took place
in one county, and the money was hail in another, yet
thy cease was laid in the county where the offence was
completed. The money was received in Hereford, and
it was held to be the proper county for trial. The
Learned Counsel insisted that this trial ought to have
taken place in Middlesex, where the offence was com-
pleted, and where the publication took place. After
using other similar arguments in support of the motion
for a new trial, he said, that he had a duty .to perform
which he was sorry had fallen to his lot but, however
painful it was to him, the duty he owed to the defendant,
not only as his advocate, but his personal ditty to him—
and his duty to the public, compelled him, regardless of
consequences, to honestly discharge it, fairly, openly,
and fmrlessly. The Learned Counsel then strongly
commented on the conduct of Mr. Justice Best at the
Trial of Sir Francis Burdett at Leicest r. He said, that
the constructions of the Judge upon the writing and in-
tentions of the defendant were not warranted by the
libel, and unfair. He was surprised that in this country
a Judge, on whose heart mercy ought to be engraved,
should have put constructions upon the intentions of a
defendant, to obtain a conviction, when an opposite
construction could as fairly and more properly have been
pot upon, the libel. The Learned Counsel then read
the libel. and &Ir. Justice Best's comments thereon. In
one part the Learned Judge stated, that " he never read
a more mischievous production, or one in which was
condensed m much matter of an injurious and libellous
character." In another part he stated, that" the defen-
dant had said, that his intentions were good, but he
(the Judge) knew of do way of judging of defendant,
Intentions except by his acts, and he must say the
writing was a most dangerous libel." After the Learned
Counsel had read the above from the printed trial, and
commented upon the unfair inferences drawn by the
Judge, he insisted that a new trial ought to be granted,
also upon the ground of the improper summing-up of
the Judge. He had not the least intention to otter of-
fence to the Learned Judge who tried the cause, but he
should not bayoneted towards his client justly had he
ditched from performing that duty which he had en-
trusted to him.
111r.Justice Best.—" L can auure you Mr. Black-
burn, that! am not offended at any thing that you have
uid."
Mr. Blackburn.—" I did not intend to offer offence

THII KING e. JOSIIPM RUSSILL.
The defendant, a bookseller, at Birmingham, was
brought up to receive judgment, convicted at the War-
wick assizes of publishing twodeseriptions of libels; one
of seditious, and the other df religious tendency.
The defendant put in an affidavit in mitigation of
punishment, stating that I,e was iporant of the contents
of the paniphlet he published. Ile complained of the
had state of his health, the loss of 'his wife, and being
left with two children.
The Court sentenced Wm to be imprisoned in War-
wick Gaol eight months, and at the expiration of that
term fiod securities for hit good behaviour, himself in
201. and two in 101. each.
Russell, after sentence was pronounced, applied to be
sent to the King's Bench Prison instead of Warwick
Gaol.
The Chief Justice said, the CoOrt could not send the
defendant to the King's Bench, they could only give him
the alternative of going to Coldhath Fields Prison.
The defendant declined going to Coldbath Fields, and
the judgment stood as it was originally delivered.
THB KING V. BRANDISH.
The defendant appeared to receive sentence, having
been found guilty of publishing a seditious libel, which
was a plain unegitivoral exhortation to rebellion. The
defendant carried the manuscript to the printer, hut
whether he was the author or not did not appear. The
Court, under all the circumstances, ordered and adjudged
the defendant to be imprisoned one year in Warwick
Gaol, to find security for three years, himself in 501. and
two others in 251. each.
KING V. 0110111.
The defendant was brought up to receive judgment
for a libel, namely, a printed address, to seduce the so,.
diers ;rola) their allegiance, and excites them to act in
opposition to the Government.
The Court sentenced the defendant to be imprisoned
in Coldbath Fields Prison one year.
BATSON V. DONOVAN.
The Court gave judgment in this case, after having
taken time for consideration. It was an action against
a common carrier for the loss of 4,0701 in bank notes,
sent by the plaintiffs in a parcel by thedefendant's coach
from Berwick to Newcastle. At the trial on the northern
circuits, the defendants had a verdict on the ground of
notice of restricted liability, the plaintiffs not having
insured the property. In a former term, the plaintiff
moved for a new trial, and the case having stood over,
judgment was now given.
The Court (Mr. Justice Best dissentient) ruled, that
under the peculiar circumstances of the ease, the defen.
dents were pot liable at common law, there having been
a concealment on the part of the plaintiffs as to •the
amount of the property lost.—Rule discharged.
untiasna-r, stomata,: *O.
THE RING V. CARTWRIGHT, WOOLIR, MADDOCK, Ink
MOND', AND LEWIS.
The defendants appeared in Court to move for a sew
trial.

to your Lordship, but was determined to discharge - Mr. Denman appeared as Counsel for Edmonds and
say duty without considering who might be offended Maddock.
at it.' Mr. Hill appeared for Major Cartwright, and Mr.
Mr. Evans followed on the same side, and in a speech Wooler was prepared to address the Court himself.
re lose with legal knoWledge,ably supported the doctrines I Mr. Denman then said, this was an indictment against
alias Learned Gentleman who preceded him. The the five defendants, tried before a Special Jury of the
Court, he contended, in the fair exercise of its authority, county of Warwick, and he hail to apply for a Rule to
were called upon to put a liberal construction on the shew cause why a verdict against all the defendants should
points presented as go round fur a new trial. not be set aside, and a new trial granted. The grounds
The Attorney-General, at the conclusion of the on which be made this motion were independent of any
thing which took place during the trial of the indictment.
*ferments foe a new trial, waived his right to reply, and
The ground he proceeded upon was the objection to the
rhe Chief Justice intimated that the Court would mode in which the Jury was collected. Four special Ju.
defer its judgment. tors and eight common Jurors formed the Jury. The first
It is expected the Judges will deliver their opinions in II objection he had to urge arose long before the day of
this term. trial. It related the-mode of appointing special Jurors
After hearing several motions on points of ramie:, by the Coroner. According to the doctrine in the case of
the Court ruse. the King v. Wooler, decided in that Court, their Lord. '
THE NINO V. H. HUNT. ships were of opinion that the Master of the Crown Office
without right in nominating and selecting special Jurors
Mr. Chitty said he had to bring before the Court the
he exereisieg any discretion, but in the case before
affidavit of the defendant, made with a view of obtaining
some relief under the hardships and restraint he suffered terceise,
dflliriVetrweininuil ailliiier
jitalriyatwiahso
struck Crow 00:Etc:chattel.-
in Ilchester Gaol. He did this upon the expectation February, .tar! the indictment tried at the Lent assizes. '
entertained by the defendant that the Court would in- At the moneat of strikieg the special Jnry, objection was '
terfere to procure him that treatment which the circutn- made wool reiterated. When the cause came to trial the
stances of his case required. The defendant complailed I defendailts also objected, red cum Stained of partiality in
that the order of the Court had been violated. When the Master of the crovin office. That circumstance will
he received sentence, the Court stated that the defendant no doubt have great weight with the Court; but the fitst
would not be subject to solitary confinement, notwith- distinct ground ot my application fora new trial is, that
standing which he had been confined front nine in the the Master, in exercising discretion iu the nomination ni
specialcannot sainviuncol li.
morning to four in the afternoon, and kept in a close
Pearson,J thees defendant'sbe attorney, and Joy hnla wC —Chatlesanna ight,
dungents, without the power of seeing his friends. The Esq. both state that they attended an Friday, the 2:oh of
defendant was not sensible of any impropriety of coil- February, beilore the Master of the Crown thrice, fur the
duct, having never violated the decorum of the prison, poirpoose of striking a special Jury, and a book of the free.
but had conducted himself peaceable on every occasion. holders was vendor:col, containing 9,.0) names. Major '
Mr. Justice Best.—What is the cruelty he complains Cartwright asked the Mason- of the Crown Office, w olio ,
oft—ln shutting him up from :sine in the uto 000 ill g to was the rule he followed in striking a Jury. Toe. Master
four in the afternoon, without the power to see his said, he had been in die habit of opening the hook, and
family. He states also that his life is in danger. taking the names as the) occurred. That was his mode.
Chief Justice.—We are anxious to pm the matter in of selection; boot for some time he hail selected from the
lust according to his own judgment. That being so, the
such a course that an investigation may take place, for
question is, Whether the :eli.ster of the Carton thrice is to
• the purpose of ascertaining whether the defendant has
exercise his jnolgment and discretion in the selection of '
just cause of complaint. Ottly point out what the Court
. person to .one on Juries a Molt the Valilellit'll oleo
can do. Ili.beas Corpus will not answer your purlieu.. mot, the „tnassits say they pmesied against tile pro- '
We have not power to alter the Order of Sessions. ceeding.—lt is of importance Cleat the aiaster of the
Mr. Chitty then observed, he would move for a rule ' t •euivio Office should IMO select. ti. i IV! ~..gialmoire give
to shew cause why the defendant should not he allowal trim 111.11 power, it wouthi give I • comiamable op,ortira-
ilie same indulgence prisoners received in cases of Ind. • nit; of exercising partiality. The Court would ii. .me Allis
demeanour. amortise, that On the list of Vi a, nit ks ,no fieeloool•fers
Chief Justioe.—Very well, take that rule to slew aol'"' I'll's; to '2OlOO rrst•tr% 4.,-; n..:,„,,e ./1.5i,4 ,:g14..; I
cause. We must hear the other side. 'I al:ea rule callor3 L''l"" " 4 , ''' I. '' ''''`ii "9 Ils'. I","".1 ." wrier ~
t".g.1"41 I
on the Gaoler or Magistrate. which you please. that ~, 1;,•....111ii, Ilit' $ Wl'. 11; %. 1111 l .1 t rat t . Laudstle se- 1
14'1 t• 1,4 l. % a 11) 111%61111•C..... %I.'. I) . • .. I ‘lhilerVk' I,
Mr. Chitty accordingly , ~:. ; rule to 'hew cause.
1;1, 11. 0 ~) ,e, eti;oMit to thea,•• ot .441MIIII'M h:. comet I
THE Kt' u v. I.' WIS. give .4 er Jetiar% tv.ot. Vile ,el. ,1-111. a 11.1:6d men, lint le' 1
The Solicitor General irray-fl the ';,i ln.ttre.it of the ii...! In "'III" 11 1. ' pr. i..! •lel '• ' ' 'l'l .'" of '!G '
Court 0.1 the defettolaou, convictto -et rice Is, .avekk
r."t'F''.:!..11":::::/elo:.':3,"..o.:',':,1::' ''',.l.l' %"1" 1:),„k :„e 11,,1.7:;74.,
assizes of publishing a libel.
Mr. Lewis addresser! the Co••nr, and twitu.sitcl t'• • "- - ‘`''t '""' roue: ..,o. gi" ' ") I** ..'11%." I. I.• • ."L'' •'
Al.l 4.C.10,1 at ors illSelt! • ilte I1:1011.1. 0.• al 10 he taken
judgment might stand over mull Thorsda on t!. •
ground that he
was ananother - 'namely,
61..! way IllUbt co/malt:is I as ith low .1..ul ilop.stikalil), •
cause, in whicha motion 'namely, Jurors should be taken without discrimination.
was to be made for a new trial. . There was nothing Or the Act of Parliament which said
The Solicitor • General did not oppose the application, the Master should use discrimination. It so happened no
and the judgment was i put OH to Thursday. this case that au less than fourteen persons, uowtueted as a