The National Register.
London, England, 1822-05-26 00:00:00

THN MING U. 7716 .11.6TICES UP FI.IQ.TSHIR L.

Mr.bearlett showed cause against a rule. calling on the
ju,tieet, of the emitity of Flint to *hew cause why a cer-
tiorari should not issue directed to them, to lenitive into
this court an order merle by them, or home of them, at a
general quarter session of the peace, holden at Mold, nil
the 12th of July last, fur levying 20U. bs. lid. and emit As-
ering the cuusity ile.l.llrer to apply it in pat t pay uarut of
;he clamp ul M1:421a. %duke). The le.alued CUlillisti orated,

that at the Easter quieter sessions of the peace, in 1812,
an order had been made authorizing the county treasurer,
who was since dead, to borrow 1,0001. towards csusyiug
on the county works then in progress. This sum he bor-
rowed of the house of Messrs. Sankey, at Holywell, and
deposited with them the order, by way of security for the
loan, and also borrowed further sums for the comity pur-
poses, making in the whole a debt of 1,3821. las. 4il.
These sums were certainly repaid by November, 1514 ;
but subsequently to that time he hail burrowed other semi
from them to the amount of 1,6411.55. 10d. which, in No.
weather, 1812, was reduced, by various payments, to the
suns of 4471. Lis. 6d. Dating all this time the original
order remained as a security for advances to be made, as
it was never intruded that the whole 1.0001. should be ad-
vanced at once, but only when required by the exigencies
of the county. The partners in the tirtn, except one, had
in the mean lime been changed ; and the new partners
had continued to advance money on the faith of the co i-
ginsl order until the balance of 4 471. 15s. 6d. was left doe
to them. In October, 1820, Messrs. Sankey applied to the
quarter sessions (Or payment of this balance, and an order
was made to pay them the whole, but they Inflame then to
press for payment, at the request of the magistrates, in
consequence of local circumstances; and on their repeat-
ing the application, the order to pay the 2001 ss. 6d. now
complained of, was made. It had been suggested that
these sums were advanced to the late treasurer in his pri-
vate capacity. and hail been applied by him to his private
purposes; bust the fact was quite otherwise; fur the par-
ties had been at the trouble of tracing how all the monies
had been disposed of, and they had found that all were
duly applied to the :egitimate purposes of the comity.
The Lord Chief Justice.—Let us hear the order.

Mr. Park read the order, which was professedly to levy
the sum of 2001. ss. 6d. by a rate, to be paid over to Mr.
Sankey.
The Lord ChiefJostice.—l cannot think this rate good
on the face of it. It is a rate professedly to reimburse.
which I think the magistrates cannot order ; the applica-
tion or the iii y raised is a very different thing.
Mr. Scarlett said, the magistrates %vete authorized to
boo low by statute,
The Lord Chief Justice.—Then they should have pur-
sued the course prescribed in the statute. 'l'he certiorari
must issue; but probably all parties will be satisfied by
the understanding that the practice shall cease in the
county.—Rule for the certiorari absolute.

THE SLING U. WESTAIACOTT AND OTHERS.
Mr. Common Seigtunt showed cause against else rule ob-
tained by Mr. Turbo, for a crimilial information against
the editor and publisher' of the Gazette of Fashion, for a
libel, is Inch, ;professing to be part of au exposure of the
gambling houses in the metropolis, imputed to Mr. Fielder,
not only that he was concerned in revcial, but that he had
caused pistols to tie plated within the reach of his brother,
who nits insane, with which he shut himself, nod that he
forged ibis bivalve's will. Th.- learned counsel said that,
unless the prosecutor were conscious that be was implicated
in gambling transactions, he could scarcely have had an-
derstood that the paragraph o us applicable to himself.
lie was called " Field Marshal John, Commander'--
Mr. Justice Bayley inquired if the prosecutor had not
been convicted of keeping a gambling-house in that couit,
because lie remembered his surprise that a person of that
name bad not been brought up Fur judgment.
M r. Calm ttttt Sergeant.—lt is tee same, my Lord ; be is
a very opulent person.
Mr. Turtim.-1 did oat know that money could divert
the strrom of justice. The imputations complained of are
quite of snootier Wirt iption.
.Mr. Common Sergeant replied. that they were undoubt-
edly aloes itnputations which lie did not Mean to justify.
But there were also parts of the articles, charging Mr.
Fielder with being proprietor of gambling-bouses. and with
'lame been convicted in that court, which lie bad not ven-
tured to deny. Now, be apprehended, that a party made
out no case fur ti criminal sofurnuit ion unless he denied the
whole charge. If a person had been accused of murder and
burglary, would the Court interfere to protect him when lie
only snore that lie ass ionoeenl of the first ? Here also the
principal defendant had cleared himself, in a great measure,
by swearing. that lie did nut know the author of the libel,
that he had never seen it before it ace printed, that he can-
celled the sheet as soon as be perceived it, and sent ;a offer
Mr. Fielder any reparaii tttt which he might desire. Under
these circumstances, he submitted, there was no reason why
Mr. Fielder should darn the extraordinary interference of
the Court tor his protection.
Mr. C. Phillips, on the same side, contended, that the
prosecutor, ii,i4ninst whom unless than semi indictments for
assaults or frauds had been preferred, ought to be left 11l
seek redress front the ordinary tribunals. lie would be well
conversant with the modes of proceedings in all of them if
sent to the lillaiol4l, there he had been before; if brought
into this Court, be was still at home. It was aviog wily to
the mercy of the prosecutor that he was out now standing
on that door to mare the judgment of their Lordships.
Mr. Justice Best.-1 believe yon are giving the prose-
Calor credit for a motive to which he is nut at all entitled.
Mr. Talon, in reply, admitted, that it' his client hail
made the imputation of gambling the ground of his com-
plaint, he insist have denied it on oath ; but here he coin-
planed of charges of murder and forgery, for which there
was not the slightest funndation. (limiting, for the sake
of argument, that lie had kept gambling houses, was this
any reason why °Helices should be imputed to him which
would affect his life ? Because in 1817 lie had been con-
victed of keeping a g g house, was lie in 1824 to be
accused of clones of the deepest dye in the case of
persons of very exalted rank, the Court hail interfered,
Although they had been guilty of the very offence on
which the libel was founded. And surely it was not for
the interests of the public peace that any iodividua
world be thus libelled without immediate redress, as he
could thus be tempted to execute for himself justice.
The Lord Chief Justice.-1 hope it will not be under-
stood that the Court mean to hold oat that such libels may
be published with run; • y. This ease can be a prece-
dent to very few, b cause I hope it will have but fee
parallels. We think the tale most be discharged, and the
party left to his artillery remedies.
Sittings niter Term at Guildhall &fora the Lord Chi, !talks.
WEDNESDAY, MAT 82.
MASON U. MOLINE AND oTIILIta.
This action was brought by the plaintiff, a brewer's agent.
against the defendants, assignees of Barker and Hodson, who
carried on the business of brewers, at Stratford, to recover s
euiLeynsauntdioil:roocfuoreitenganad
paurliceilifaLerr efoertzlsiiterhathfoeredlaixd,,ellulrag.
which the assignees sold for the benefit of the creditors.
Mr. Niatrystt stated the case. It appeared, that in 1821,
•
meeting of creditors under the commission took place fur this

purpose of seciug whether tie bop groomd brewery at 41loutfetd
could not be disposed of for the benefit of the ornditors.
biberty was given to lbw aseignees to sell the property, and
one of the creditors recommended Mr. Mason to the sningtmes
as a man every way able to dispose of the brewery. The
01410' was accordingly employed, and several persons, whom
be procured as purchasers, went down to see the premises,
and at last was the means of introducing a Mr. Smith, who
pnrchased the. brewery for the sum of 10001. The assignees
were satisfied with the bargain, and executed a conveyance
of the property to Mr. Smith. Several witnesses proved the
above statement.
Mr. Scat lett, on the part of the assignees, called Mr. Francis
Hudson, formerly a owner in the brewery, who stated that he
was employed by the assignees to carry ou the business. Ile
saw Mr. Mason on the subject of getting a ;partner, stud he told
him the of tirs and state of the brewery. The witness ulti-
mately abandoned the intention of getting a partner, and Mr.
Mason was employed in getting a purchaser.
Cross-examined by Mr. Marryatt.—lle said Mr. Mason
ramc down to the brewery with several persons, who wished In
become partners, and among others with Ml. Smith, who finally
clowd a bargain with the assignees. This was after the wit-
nes had abandoned the intention of getting a 'partner.
The Jury, without hearing a reply front Mr. Marrystt, found
a verdict fur the plaintiff—Damages, 2sl. 10s.