The Sun.
London, England, 1808-07-06 00:00:00

L'llf REPORT.

COURT OFKING's BENCH, IcLY• s.

NEWcPAPER. PROPRIETORS, &c.

The. ATTORNEY-GENERAL muted .the judgment
of the Court on the Proprietors, Printers, and Pub-
lichers of the several Newspaper ' following :—The
Monthig-Herald,The London Packet, 'Lives Even-
ing Post, ThePhtlic Ledger, and the &let:icy, for
.haying published the folloy,ing paragraph in the
month of January last, whicli wade its first appear;
anee.in the Morning Herald, and from thence was

col ied into the oth...:r Newspapers.
. ,
`•The late extr_iotdirtary acquittal of‘the Slave Ship Cap-.
tain, at the Admiralty Sessions, %%a.; the subject ot.general
• astonishment. It eleven tutors mit- of twelve, after con-
: tmuingto consult for six hours; determent; to thid the Pri-
soner guilty, return into Court with a•verdiel of acquittal in
compliance wittj the single obstinacy of the twelfth, Irma),
be well to know whet lier.such a verdict is not what is usually
denominated Perjury, or not."
• The following Defendants then appeared in
Court •
Thomas Glassington, Publisher ; John Walter and
Thomas Hurl ton, Principal Proprietor; and U.
Brown,• Printer, of the Morning Herald.—John
Crowder, Printer; Richard WinStauley and William
Fadeu, Proprietors,. of the Public Ledger.—Charles
Spilsbury and Joseph Lowe, Proprietors of Lloyd's
Evening Post.—Cnarles Dilly and John Ferriday,
vo.loSe interest in Newspapers we did not hear.•—••
• Thomas Chapman, Sole Proprietor of the Traveller.
And Mary Vint; Sole Proprietor of the SeleCtor.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL observed, that these
• Defendants stood in, a very tido cot situation from
' that of other Defendants who had lately been before
- the Court (the Proprietor and Publisher of the
WltiO, who had' o,h4tinately persevered to the last
is th6r miscOnduel, but had'fallen into the error
, for which they were now brought up for judgment,
by inadvertency; and they.appeared :to have .aCted
afierWards with as much propriety as they could,
for they had all suffered j'idgment to go against
them by default ; and they had in their affidavits
circumstances tending to chew that they had but
• little•share in thereat guilt which had been so justly
imputed to others who had been lately before the
Court ; so that he had no objection to their Lord,-
. ships considering in the most favourable light every
thing that could be urged in their defence:
Tue affidavits on -behalf of the diffetent Defend-
ants- were. then lead; by which it appeared that
the obnoxious paragra.ph appeared first in the
• Morning. Herald, and thence was inadvertently co-
.. pied into the other Papers ;• that a few days after-
wards other paragraphs tot .a similar tendency had
been left in the box at the office of that Paper, which
the Conduaors were so far from having insetted,
that they published another, stating that too much
had been unwarrautaply said on that subject already ;
and this before any prosecution had been threatened,.
or any complaint made on account of the obnoxious
paragraph in question.
Mr. MARRYATT addressed the Court on the part
of the Proprietors, Publisher, and Printer, •of the
Morning Herald.
Mr. DAMPIER, for Mr. Crowder.
Mr. •
SCAULETT, for Mr. Win,tanley and Mr.
Fa den.
Mr. LE' Bt. ti for the same Parties.
Mr. TAUNTON, for Mr. Baldwin.
Mr. Poonsv„ for Mr. Chapman.
Mr. Ds:Nark:a, fur Vint ; also
Another Gentleman at the bar, Whose name we
could not collect, for the other Defendants.
The ATTORNEY-GUNLIAL made a short, reply,
the substance of which was to observe-, that the
main object was to check, 'at its comtneneement;
this evil ot shoitiering Judges and. Juries in,the dis-
coarge of their dtities in the ,:dministration of justice,
and to pintect them in the thscharge of that &iv ;
for which purpose he brought before•the Court all
the partie, concerned in the publication of the late
slander upon them in that respea: He knew no
bmer proof of that objet being to aconside‘rable ex-
tent obtained, than'by having produced the affidavits.
of these DlendantS, by which they, all disavowed the
sentioients, conveyed by the paragraph Complained
of, which they had only inserted from inadvertency.
They would, however, not dorget,
that they were
criminally responsible for whatever appeared of a li-
belldas nature in.:their publications. He had no
wish to presi for any severity.of.punishment against
these Defendants; on the contrary, lie wished the
• Court to give as favourable, an attention to the cir-
cumstances:of mitigation as the nature Of this case
• would admit. .
The Court having consulted
Mr. Justice GitUSE delivered Judgmont.—He-
' observed,that the Defendants, antheach of them,
having offended the Law, stood for the punishment
of the Law ; but he was gratified in being able to
notice,.that they were not ob,tinate and unrepenting
offi:ntlers„ persevering in a repetition of crimes, such
as had lately ttl,peared before the Court, convicted of
the same species of offence, and who had received
that sort of punishment which Was necessary as an
- example to prevent a repetitihn of the like offence.
The-offence called for some ,comment :7-They, as
" Proprietors, Printers, and Publishers of Newvapers,
had ihserted this paragraph, refit:Cling on the MEM-
- ni,,ratibn of Justice in this Country, and also against
a Jury of the. Country acting in the discharge of the
• Most paitifui duty—a -duty cast :upon them in the
trial of a man indiated for the :crime of murder,
Whom they had acquitted, and who,, after that
acquittal, was to be treated as an innocent man.
Sutra.? persons,. however, had thought fit to arraign
' the conduct of the Jury ,on that occasion, and had
framed a paragraph tending to bring them into
hatred and contempt, by insinuating that the person
so- tried was unduly, . wrongfully, and improperly
acquitted ; and to traduce and vilify the Jury who
g.,vc
4j,at.verdia.7-•The learned Judge read the pa-
ragraph in question, and observed that those-who
abdsc.l the Libel-1y of tore Press were the most f0r-
%,,r,1 to affect a lure fur its
,Lillerty ; but none were
so much its foes as those who indulged in .its lieen-
I ,;,;I, , ; and hew idled the Proprietors, Printers,
I ,:'.,,;,leis of Newspapers to remember, 'that,
they were by no means as guilty as the
Auttit;:s of ..Scandaloos Libels, yet that the poison
-conld never have its ettectl.vittiout their assistance ;
anti that it was.the ditty of every subjeel to take cart.
that he lent IJO aid to the mischief:Taking all the cir

cimwances of this case into consideration, the Courcr
did order and adjudge, Flint the Defendant Crowder
(who appeared to be Proprietor of two Papers), be
fined 501. and the other Defendants 23.1. each ;. which
being paid, immediately- by their Agents in Court,
they retired.

THE KING V. EDWARD HAWKINS, ESQ. CLAIMING TO
BE AN ALDERMAN OP THE BOROUGH OF SALTASH.
The Conrt, after stating the Charter, the Manda-
`mus for the electiOn of ad Alderman, the ineligibility
vf'the Defehdani, as insisted upon by Mr. Carpenter,
the Annual Indemnity ACt, the special verdiat found
,by• the Jury at the last
,Assizes for Cornwall, and a
variety: of cases bearing upon the points contended
for by the parties, gave judgment of ouster against
the. Defendant.; the consequence' of which is, that
Captain Spicer, th'eother Candidate for the office,
is the legal Alderman.
CRIMINAL INFORMATION.
Mr. TOPPlNG•applied for leave to fife a Criminal
Inforthation against Geo. Forrester, Esq. a Gentle-
man not unknown in our Courts. The motion was
made upon the affidavits of the Rev. Mr. Wardel,
who had been joint-tenant with the Defendant 01 a
manor in Worcestershire. This instrument stated;
that some time since,' Mr. Wardel proposed to sell
his share to Mr. Forrester, who agreed to pay him
1:4- it tip: sum of 16,0601. Subsequent to this contract
diiptites arose respealitig the payment, when Mr.
Wardel was compelled to'file a bill irr the Exche-
quer, and in March last he obtained a decree,order-
ing the discharge of the debt by Mr. Forrester. After.
this, Mr. F. appearecLin church, while the Prosecutor
was performing Divine Service, and insulted him, by
making,gritna::es at him, in the view of the whole
congregation. Mr. Wardel th2n went to Loildn,
and., during his absence, Mr. Forrester .having the.
whole manor under his: controul, attended by one
of the Churchwardens, ,of, the name Of Bayles, Who
was entirely deVoted to his interets, and ationt thirty
persons, with ribbons in their hats, on the 19th of
March, issued from, his d.vrt house, proceeded to
the Church,, broke open, the door, and, by means.
of new ropes (1.14 r. Wardell having directed the old
ones to be removed), and the ringers of a otignbour-
ing parish, sounded a merryseal,, in triumph of a
supposed. victory obtained oltr the Reverend der-
gymati. It was bete, amid this digusting sceneof
protanAtion-and riot• id the Church, • that Mr. 'For-
rester'prulled a paper from his pocket, and read the
following .passage 'to the disorderly assembly
" Scrul.7(meaning the PrOsecutor)
.was.bitried on
Monday, at Worcester," alluding to the period when
Mr. Wardel kid signed the deeds of conveyance of
the manor to the Defendant. A day or two after
Mr. Foirestry had thus wantonly expressed his
satisfaClion, lie procured a painter, named Hickey,
to inscribe on the walls. of the parish -church,
various . passdges - from . Scripture, the tendency
of .which was either to expose . Mr. Wardel to
derisien, or to hold himself up to admiration. One of
these was taken from the Gospelnf St. Luke; " My
' house is a house of prayer, but ye have made it a
den of thieves." Atiother was taken 11:otn the
Psalms : " 'Thine hand, shall find out all thine ene-
mies; thy right hand shall find out those that hate
thee 3" besitlei .many more vt .the same 'description.
Soon afterwards Alt. Wardeireturned, and when
he was sitting at the desk,
,in the church, on. Whi-
tsunday,, Mr. Forrester came close up to him, and
read- in a loud voice one of the passages which he. had procured to be. Painted upon the walls'; thus
personaliy insulting, the,Reverend Clergyman in the
exercise of his tunetions, and interrupting the per-
formance of the sacred duties of the day. The mo-
tion of the Learned Counsel was not confined to
Mr, Forrester alone, but extended to Mr. Bayles,
the Churchwarden, who had been appointed by
him, and two persons who were principally aaive
'during the riot in the church, on the 19th of March,
including also Hickey, the person who had been
employed to deface the church walls.—Rule gninted.

•-• •
THE KING V. WILLIAM BRYANT.
• The Defendant was brought up to plead to an at-
tachment for not paying costs of a suit pursuant to
the Master's 'allocation.
Mr:Bryant appeared •on the floor of the Court,
and requested to be heard. -He said, that this pro-
ceeding arose out of an a6lit brought against him
by a persodof the name of Dixon. It had been ap-
pointed by the Plaintiff for a Special Jury, but it was
referred before the trial took place, consequently be-
fore the Judge could certify whether the costs of the
Special Jury should be allowed. _Afterwards, when
the costs were taxed by, the Master, he, Mr. Bryant,'
refused to pay the additional charge of the Speci,d
Jury, alleging that it had been appointed by the
Plaintiff. He this day resisted the attachment,upon
the 'Statutes of 3 and 24 Geo. 11. insisting- that 18
guineas, the additional costs, could not, according
to the law -then enacted, be justly required.
The Court concurred in the opinion cxprel.srd 'by
Lord MANSFIELD, in an anonymous cane, When it
was determined,' that where a reterevice of a Special
Jury cause took place before the verdict was given;
it was implied that each party conseat'ed to pay its
share of the additional costs.

DOCTORS' COMMONS, I VLY 5.
BAZETT AGAINST BAZETT.
This• was a suit of divorce, or• 'separation, from.
bed, board, . and mutual cohabitation, instituted by
Richard Campbell Bazett, Esq. .against Margaret
Ann Hazett,- his wife, bylreasonof adultery, a I.2dged
to have been commited with Frederick Dizi, a per-
tOriner on the harp, at the Opera-house. From the.
pleadings in the cause it appeared that the mart-Lige
between the parties took place in the summer of
vhe year 1790, at. Calcutta, in the East Indies,
where they cohabited and lived together as.tuan and
wife—that on , their return to England they w;ent
and resided in York-place; Krtland-iquare, wher.:
they continued to live. together in a, reasonable de-
gree of harmony till I SOU, when Mr. Bazett observ-
ing some improper conduct in his wife, words arose
between them, and Mrs. Bazett, on the follow ng
year, quitted her husband's house, and went and
lived in Park-lane, with an allowance granted by
Mr. Bazotet of 6001. a year—at which re idence it
wai d6posed to by ed several witnesses produc that
the alleged adultery took place; and the Material
Ca'ts•a;:peared to be these :—That Mr. Dizi fre_
quently visited Mrs. Bazett, and soutetiines staid