The National Register.
London, England, 1822-04-29 00:00:00

THE NATIONALREGISTEIf

THE KING V. J. A. WILLIAM:.
In Hilary Term a title was obtained by Mr. Scatlett,
calling upon the defendant who is editor of the Durham
Chronicle, to *hew cause why a criminal information should
not be filed against him for a libel on the Church of Dur-
ham. Mr. Brougham un that occasion showed cause
against the rule, and this day Mr. Searlett was heard in
support of his application. He said his learned friend
expected to induce the court to discharge the rule,first, mitt
the pound that no particular person had been libelled ;
secondly, that the statute of William required that some
person should be set forth as the ■vowed prosecutor, in
order that the court might know against whom to award
costs. His learned friend had actually entered into a
justification of his client. lie had said that it would be
extremely bald if his client was not allowed to censure
the conduct of the Church of Durham, which had been
called an Augean stable by Barnes, a writer in the early
part of Queen Elizabeth. To the latter observation he
should only say, that the Augean stable had been cleansed
by the reformation. With respect to naming the prose-
cutor, the Right Rev. Prelate, the Bishop of Durham,
was not ashamed to avow himself the prosecutor. It was
unnecessary, in support of a rule for a criminal infor-
mation, to p t out the person libelled.
The Lord Chief Justice said, the court were of opinion
that the rule ought to be made absolute. It was accord-
ingly made absolute.
THURSDAY, APRIL 95.
The Court were occupied during this day in hearing ar-
guinents for new trials.
AIIIIOTT V. TOURS.
Sergeant Bullock moved for a rale to set aside the verdict
in this cause fur the plaintiff, and to obtain a new trial, It
was an maim, for breach of promise of marriage, tried
before Mr. Justice Bayley at York. and the learned Ser-
geant moved on the ground of perjury on the part of two
witnesses, also excessive damages. The plaintiff had lived
servant with the defendant, and left his house in the faultily
way. The breach of promise of marriage was proved by
two sisters of the plaintiff, who satire the plaintiff could
neither rend nor write, and the defendant was thereby pre-
chided limn putting in a letter purporting to have been
a rittett by time plaintiff to the defendant. The letter was
represented to have hero written by one of the sisters, under
time dictati .... of the plaintiff. The learned Sergeant said
he had an affidavit proving that the plaintiff could write.
Time Court granted a rule to shew cause.
FRIDAY, APRIL 26.
THE LING V. J. R. manor, Esq.
Mr. Taunton was heard this morning in support of the rale
for a criminal information against the defendant, a magis-
trate of the county of Carua►von. 'f he learned Counsel
addressed bnt a few observations In the Court.
Time Lord Chief Justice, giving lodgment, observed, that
having looked at all the affidavits, the Court were of opinion
the a hole of the charges were satisfactorily answered.—lle
had entertained some doubts on the question of cost., but
upon a more minute enquiry, he was convinced the [unseen-
ulna was the effect of malevolence, therefore the rule ought
to be discharged a ith costs.
The rule obtained by Mr. Scarlett was consequently dis-
charged with costs.
CARTWRIGHT V. WRIGHT.
Mr. Denman applied for a rule to set aside the nonsuit in
this case. It was nn action against the defendant for the
publication of a libel in the Book o/ Prowler% The pub-
lication was alleged to be a gross libel on Major Cartwright,
copied firm the writings of Mr. Cobbett. TM re was an
omission in the declaration, and the plaintff was ntinsuited.
Mr. Denman now contended, that the omissi iiii , in a legal
point of view, did ant deprive the plaintiff of his right to
maintain the aetimi.
The Court were of a different opinion; they considered
the ognissiou fatal to the proceeding, and refused the ap-
plication.