The National Register.
London, England, 1812-03-08 00:00:00

158

lumnies, not only against the religion of -the country, but against the law
of the country, for the doctrine quoted by the Learned Attorney-Gene-
ral from Lord Hale, Lord Raymond, and Lord Kenyon, was the law of
the land—that religion was the law of the land, and to be protected by
the law. There was also a Statute of King William, which made this
offence punishable by other means more severe than the present pro-
ceeding, and so far, it was great humanity on the part of those whose
prosecuted in this case, that they did not indict him upon that Statute.
As to the meaning and object of the person who published this book,
the Jury had it from himself ; he avowed, in plain terms, the purpose
of the writer was to defame and revile the Christian Religion, and what
the object of the writer was, he had summed up, and concluded in his
address to them—that co those who believed in the story of Jesus Christ
was an infidel to God." He had told them that this book -was published
and circulated in America. Tt was for America to administer justice in
any manner she might think proper ; but in a country like this, no man
would be suffered to revile and traduce the religion of this country with
Impunity. As he said before, he should leave it to them, as twelve
Christian men, sworn upon the Holy Evangelists, to say, whether this
was not a most gross and treacherous Libel upon the Christian Religion.
The Jury, without hesitation, found the defendant Guilty.
The Attorney General then prayed that the defendant might stand
committed.
Lord Eeettwao aoucti.—" Let the defendant stand committed."
The Tipstaff immediately took the defendant into custody, and he
was columned to Newgate.

SATURDAY, MARCH 7.

HARRIS V. DARBY.

The plaintiff in this case was an Army accoutrement-maker, and the
defendant a quarter-master in the Guards. The action was brought to
recover compensation in damages for an injury sustained by the plain-
tiff in consequence of a malicious and false report made by the defend-
ant upon an inspection of a set of accoutrements made by the plaintiff
for the First West Indian Regiment, commanded by Lord Charles
Henry Somerset, pursuant to his Lordship's directions, by reason of
which mdlicious and false representation the said accoutrements were
returned upon his hands.
.l.ord Charles H. Somerset being sworn, proved the order for 200 sets
of accoutrements given to him through the medium of his agents, and
the delivery of them on board ship, in order to be forwarded to the re-
giment. Upon his cross-examination by the Attorney-General, how-
ever, it appeared that the defendant was the person appointed by his
Royal Highness the Commander in Chief, to inspect all army accoutre-
ments, cloathing, &c. that the plaintiff having furnished these articles
at a Lower rate than that generally charged by the trade, he suspected
all was not right, and emplo)ud his own aid-de-camp, Captain M'Ken-
zie, to inspect them, and upon his report they were returned. The
plaintiff afterwards waited on him and offered them at a much lower
price, but as his object was quality and not price, he rejected the offer
wah ithlignation.
Lord ELLENDORMIGII thought there was no necessity for the de-
fendant to go further than this evidences to prove his case. There
sivas no pretence for the charge of malice; and if it was a careless in-
spect ion, the action was improperly brought against the defendant.
The plaintiff was accordingly—Nu/united.