The National Register.
London, England, 1820-11-27 00:00:00

THE ELKO V. JOSEPH EOSSIL.„

The defendant, e bookseller, at Birmingham, was
brought up to receive judgment, convicted it the War-
wick anises of publishing two descriptions of libels; one
of seditious, and the other of religious tendency.
The defendant put in an affidavit in mitigation of
punishment, stating that he was ignorant of the contents
of the pamphlet he published. He complained of the
bad state of his health, the loss of his wife, and being
left with two children.
The Court sentenced him to be imprisoned in War-
wick Gaol eight months, and at the expiration of that
term find securities for his 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 Court could not send the
defendant to the King's Bench, they could only give 111111
the alternative of going to Culdhath Fields Prison.
The defendant declined going to Coldhath Fields, and
the judgment strxxl as it was originally delivered.
THE ICING V. IRANDISH.
The defendant appeared to receive sentence, having
been found guilty of publishing a seditious libel, which
was a plain unequivocal exhortation to rebellion. The
defendant carried the manuscript to the prititta, 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 VSI. each.
THZ KING C. OSSORNZ.
The defendant was brought up to receive judgment
fora libel, namely, a printed address, to seduce the sol-
diers front then allegiance, and excite them to set in
opposition to the Government.
The Court sentenced the defendant to be imprisoned
in Coldbath Fields Prison one year.

lATSOW V. De-NOVAW.,
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 Rime! by thedefendant'scoach
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 plaintilis 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
tinder the peculiar circumstances of the case. the del, ti-
dings were not liable at common law, there having been
a Loncealment on the part of the plaintiffs as to the
amount of the property lost.—Rule discharged.
salvaasal. NOTESSIMISM

till XING V. ‘•RTWILIGHT, WOOLIM, MADDOCK, CD.
MONDE, AND LAWIS.
The defendants appeared in Court to move for a new
hist.
Mr. Denman appeared as Counsel for Edmonds and
Madduek.
Mr. Hill appeared for Major Cartwright, and Mr.
Weider was prepared to address the Court himselfi
Mr. Deleeuw then said. this was an indictment against
the five defendants, tried before a Special Jury of the
county of Warwick, and be bad to apply for a Rnle to
'hew cause why a verdict against all the defendants should
not be set aside, and a new trial granted. The grounds
on which be made this motion were independent of any
thing which leek place during the trial of the indictment.
The ground he proceeded upon was the objection to the
mode in which the Joey was collected. Four special Jo-
ules and eight common Jurors formed the Jury. The Met
objection he had to urge arose long before the day of
trial. It related to the mode of appointing special Jurors
by the Coroner. According to the doctrine in the case of
the King sr. Woofer, decided in that Court, their Lord-
ships were of opinion that the Master of the Crowu Office
had done right iu nominating and selecting special Jurors
without exercising any discretion, but iu the case before
the Court it would appear that the Crown Office had ex-
ercised discretion. 7 his Jury was struck on the It.lth of
February, and the indictment tried at the Lent assizes.
At the moment of striking the special Jury, objection was
made and reiterated. When the cause came to trial the
defendants also objected. and complaiued of psi tiality in
the Master of the Crown Office. That circumstance will
no doubt have great weight wills the Court; but the first
distinct ground of my application for a new drat is, that
the Muter, in exercising discretion in she nomination of
special Juries, csistiot be sanctioned by law.--Challis
Pearson, the defendant's attorney, and John Cat twt ight,
Esq. both state that they attended on Friday, the of
February, before the Mutes of the Cowes' Office, fur the
purpose of striking a special Jury, and a book ()film free-
huiders was produced, containing t,:.O•J Major
Cartwright asked the Master of the Crown Office, what
was the rule he followed in striking a Joy. The Master
said, he had been iu she habit of opening the book, and
taking the names as they occurred. That was his mode
of selectiou; but for some time he had selected from the
list according to his own
_indolent. 1 hat being so, the
questiuse is, Whether the Master ol the Crown Office is to
exorcise his judgment and discretion in the selection of
persons to serve on Jusies ? Both the gentlemen who
made the affidavits say they protested against the pro-
ceeiting.—lt is of importance that the Master of the
Crown Office should nut select. lithe Legislatine gave
him that power, it would give him considerable oppurin.
tiny of exercisisig pas The Conn t would liras with
surprise, that ill the list Waswickshiie Is eelioldrrs,
amounting to '2,400 persons, ki only uric dt•igil.llll
E• 401114,11, and If a Sbelst bad the panel to select its flout
that deinguatiou, the saute i 5 wood must pi ohal,ly lie se—
lected in every tustance.-31 . Ocumati then Mosel
that the only ilesetivtion im Ihr Act of Parliament hr tumid
given to Jurors was, that of frise mid law Ail men, bus he
had to stitineit that a special July must he a wells of 48
names taken by ha said unit made special by the latticing
oil twelve by each person. lie was as a ho., to host, to
any Act, that putter was given to the 314sier to make a
selection at his disci elm°. The norm 16 ought to be taken
ilie way imi.t tommyrot with taw aunt IteloAttlatil3,
J.ll4ite sbultid be takes without dsurinsinatioo.
There was iii the Act of Pailiamtut which said
the Master should use iliseiumilatiun. It so happened iu
this case that no less ttau luaittuid ;summated a,

special Jurors, had been on the Grand Jury which timed
the Bill.
Mr. Denman then stated, that only four special Jurors
appeared on the trial. Mr. Wuolcr, on the swearing of
the Ju►y, challenged the array ; but the Lord Chief Harou
refused to allow a trial as to the competency of the Jesus
so selected, on the ground that a special Jury could not
be challenged.
Mr. Denman stated also, u ground for a new trial, that
the Sheriff had improperly summoned one of the July, a
Mr. Samuel Beech, who could not attend In consequence
of receiving the summons too late. Having concluded
his argument,
The Chief Justice asked the other defendants if they
meant to rely on the points stated by Mr. Denman.
They answered in the affirtnotive ; situ Mi. Wouler, in
addition, moved is, person fssr a new trial, on the ground
that the list of special Jurors was altered. Mr. Burch,
who had stood originally twelve on the list, sate' we'd.'
appeared to stand tin:fleets on the paper.
The Chief Justice observes!, that the last statement was
not sufficient to induce the Court to grant a hew trial.
With respect to other mutters stated, the Court was des-
posed to grant a stile to skew cause.
Mr. Denman accordingly took a rule to alscw cause.

RIOT AND •flt•OLT.Tlie RING V. lIIELIDLICOMR, PER..

NUTT, ANDREWS. IPOINTIK, AND SEVERAL cummy.
The Solicitor General prayed the judgment of the Court
on the defendants, nineteen in number, convicted at this
Bridgewater +wises of a conspiracy to commit a riot,
and burn the effigy of ono Barnstaple, an assessor of
taxes, and to injure a Mr. Howard, the o•yor. . One
of the Churchwardens of the lilacs and the constable of
the Hundred were among the timers.
Mr. Justice Bayley delivered the judgment of the
Court. The leaders of the riot were ordered to pay a fine
of lON. each to the King. to be imptisutied three months
io the House of Correction, Culdbuth Fields, and find
sureties fur good behaviour.
The rest were sentenced to small fines of ,l. and short
imprisonment, and to find sureties fur their Lowe good
conduct.

NOT. 2I•
FRAUD COMMUTED BY AN ARMY AGENT.

TILE lif he V. iitinh•
The defendant appeared, on the motion of Mr. Gurney,
to receive the judgment of thy Court, convicts d in Mi•
chiselling* Tints !before the Lord Chief Justice, of frandu•
lently and corruptly iirgocialing tor the sale ot a commis-
skin in the 19th Light Dragoons, coutrary to the statute
of the 19th of Geo. 111.

This case was of considerable importance. In I -IS the
defendant was convicted of a • lar attester, lay which
lie obtained 4001. from a gentleman, as part purchase mo-
ney for a c 'ssion in the army. lie then pleaded
ignorance of the statute, and praying the mercy of she.
Court, was sentenced merely to return the 4011. which lie
had improperly received. In the same year the defendant
opened an office, as Army Agent. He was there applied
to by G. A. Loraine, Esq. a young gentleman of respecta-
ble family, who wished to procure • conieley in a cavalry
regiment. The defendant untrained hint lie had the dis-
posal of one in the 16th Light Dragoons, fur which lie
must pay hank the saint of 1,200 gammas. Mr. Luraiiic
paid 9001. as a deposit, and promised to pay the s emaindee
so soon as the necessary business was transacted us the
office of the Commander in Chief. only madam -fly Slits
defendant had fur receiving the money was Isom
Mr. Hodson, a Cornet in the hills Light Dragoons. he
defendant bad applied by letter to that °Seer, asking hilt
if he was inclined to resign his commissiun? He received
a letter in euswer,stating, " that Mi. Hudson, if he could
get 1.300 guineas for his co 11111 l lame, might he induced
to quit the sword."
On the trial it was proved that the defendant, although
he agreed with Mr. Loraine to receive 1,200 g es 1;11*
the cornetcy, was to pay Mr Hodson no inure than 1,0(01.
thereby pocketing MM. contrary to 14w. In cousequeuee
of lois refusal to retina the money, lie was indicted tut the
offence, mid found Guilty.
The defendant read Irons a paper a statement in min-
;anon of punishment, but as it contained improper de-
famatory opener, the Court refused to hear it.
Mr. Gurney addressed the Court fur the pruseenii 111 l ,
and expressed serves° that this defendant, instead or
sheeting contrition, Mid conducted Innis% if with tiopai ai-
leled impudence in citation( the witnesses un the trial
with perjury.
Mr. Justice Bayley delivered the judgment of the Cone 1,
by which the defendant was SI.IIICIICV4i 10 be imprison! d
one year in the House of Coo ect ton, Cohlh.stit