The National Register.
London, England, 1823-01-26 00:00:00

THE

'AI. REGISTER

- -
lahrreaoe or motive. Ile would show from •eery seatence
thatit wag -a !Kok of tie highest moral chancier; sad. ad-
we, ling to the act passed to relieve the oonseiences of 'Jails-
rim's, he srld the Legislature bed 'sectioned the denial of the
godhead of the Tinily. The act was ezpresely entitled, "An
act to relieve these who (tooled or impugned the truth of the

Holy Trinity.'
Lord Chief Josti e—No-sooh thing ; it it an act parsed only
to relieve humus peasities incurred under a formes-statute.
Di foldout persisted these were thn words of the preamble of
the ant in question. This did the Le;tislator: themselves per- .
wit the impugning the truth of the Godhead of the Trinity, ;
*loch the Attorney C I told the Jury was part and playa
of tie land, and that it was a libel so to impugn. He dared
the Atte% ney Gene. al to prove any thing immond in the book ;
iterwd him to ohject to it ea any other ground thus because
it (lid not preach up tithes sod times ; because it did not
licence rippreseimi and violation of publio law and jostice, by
suproetiog public robbery end pablic enrropi ion.
The Lord Chief Justice interrupted the defendant, who
averred 1..al the Christian retinue could not he libelled, be-
muse it was in Hoot( libellee., absurd, blasphemous, and
against law.
Defendant—l will coodoet my defence in my own way. and •
not as your Luedilliip may please In dictate to nit.
The Defendant wits piviceeded —.What weld the Jury
root ict hint of publishing?.—.a book of criticism—that was not
against law—cont•ining onanswerable nrgomenta--that was
not Rattiest law. Denying the Div isity of the Christie' religion
was sot against law.
Lora Chieflustice--Yea it is, I tell you so.
- The defrodant then read the book, and coationed reading till
one o'clock.
The Lord Chief Justice said, the object of the defe-alant's
reeding was to defame the Ch. Maui religion, which it was his
ditty to prevent.
One of the Jury also observed, that se the evident object cf
the defendant in reading the libel was to defame the Christian
reiigioe. their winds were sufficieuily made up.
The defendant persisted in gniag on with the reading, con-
tendincit was the essential groond of his defence, and that it
was impossible be could here a fair trial, if the Jury refused to
LOH Rine out.
The Lon: Chief Justice said, that unless the defendant re-
frained from the course of defence which he had adopted, after
what bad fallen Lem the Juty, his duly would be to order him
to stand committed.
The Jury, without hesitation, prononneed the defendant—
guilty.
The Lori Chief Justice ordered him immediately to be taken
out of Court in custody.
The defendant, iu the bands of the tipstsff, exclaimed, " The
Jury hare not beard my defence—l hare not had a fair vita—
lise Jury bare been packed."
O'BRIEN e. COOTTS.
This was an action to recover leas aostaimed bresob of
contract.
The plaintiff bad Imported a qnantity et whiskey from Canada,
and sent his broker to the defendant, inviting him to become
the purchaner. It was agreed that the defendant was to have
it fer 21. lid, per gallons The plaintiff, however, after the
contract, required an additional price for part of the whiskey,
which was above proof, and the defendant resisted that demand,
on the ground that he bad agreed to give no more than Its. 9d.
fur the whole.
The plaintiff's broker did not prove any contract for more
than**. Dd. arid the Jury found a verdict for the defendant

TUESDAv, JAN. 21.
'BREACH OF PROMISE. OF MARRIAGIL.

m'ent.r.stas 0. Lurie. -
Mr. Adolphus slated, that this was an action for breach of
promise of iwirriage, brought by a widow lady against the de-
fendant, Captain of a West India ship. She went out to De-
wirers in defendant's ship fluor to her marriage with Capta ft
*Pherson. lo January. 1801, Capt. Ladle came home,
Islating that Captain M.Pitersen bad gives defendant 5001. to
purchase for her. 'I he defendant coating bone from Demerara,
vase to the house where she iesided and took op his residence,
p-ofesting benosrable suit to the plaintiff, whom be intended
to marry. • letter 'would ba put in, promising in the most
solemn moaner, to awry her on hat return. The defendant is
40 years ef age, the plaintiff, a widow. protiably nide• than
him, but that was so topic of defence is sn..wer to the action.
He wide• stood the defence attempted to be set up would be,
that this paper, which would be put in. was intended as a de-
mise c" the premises which M-. Louie bed purchased for Mrs.
M.Phereon, in which be had filled op • blank left with a nro-
-1063 or marriage. where no such thing was meant or intended.
Ile should chow that, In. the purpose of bayssaing this poor
woman, a wa-rant of attortey la I been fictiiionsly filled up by
the defendant, and • dirtrewput open her thereunon, with *he
prosecWing this awinn.—This was
view of presenting lace` um
• case or all others. which would excite the indilnatlop of a
British Jury. }' • was convinced the verdict of this day would
be such as would relieve the plaintiff from That oppressive injury
she complained of, and give the defendant au cause to it ienspli.
The learned Counsel called witnesses, who proved the
plaietlirs
Mr. Scarlet addressed the Jury for the defendant. His
Icaroed :tired lied net endeavoured to excite their feelings in
tbs opening, but no doubt would in reply. Now there was no
objection to her enjoying the thing she liked best as often as slue
I leased. (A Ittugl.o He did not think any man would give a
'Weigand pounds to marry a woman *lio had already buried two
busbends, bit more especially when a man had already bad as
mach el bcr as be liVetl. It ass quite dramatic the account
cf the tender scene between the Captain and the plaintiff, as
given by the married daughter.—lle should prove 'hat that
WitgeSS had frequently seen them in bed together—a privilege.
Le should likewise prove, enjoyed by sundry other Captains,
and even Lieutenants.
Several witnesses gave evidence of' indecorous conduct on
nett of the plaintiff; hut the promise of marriage being
proved, the July found a verdict for the plaintiff—damages 6001.