The Sun.
London, England, 1806-11-19 00:00:00

1.1,4 IP REPORT.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, Nov. ►S,

• ricliE KING th 4. CHAXLES. '
Mu. Gmtitow applied for leave to file- a e'riminal
information, against this DAendant, for a o-rbs. s and
ecandatousLiliel, which he had publi•ihed, respeat-
ing LORI Moira, imputing to.-that Nobleman the
most disgracefUl practices ; charging him with abus-
ing his public station for purposes of stock-jobbing,
at x.l with .having parkicipated in the .emoluments
others were enabled to make, by diclosing the se-
crets of Government which had been officially and
'confidentially entrusted to his Lordship. The Libel
was contained in a private letter- to Lord Grenville,
pointing out' to him the necessity of taking steps to
guard. against the mal-praetiCes imputed to 'Lord
Moira.
The Learned Counsel here read the LetLr as fol-
lows:

" MY LORD,
" The contents of this letter are too important to
rendr any apology necessary. I vgnerate your
Lordship's charader too much to confound you with'
two other Meinbers of the Cabinet. With you I
5141 have no concealment. I an? afraidtOrd Moira
lends his name for purposes of gambling transac-
tions. Mr. A. Davison a&s as his Agent. But not
only so, one or two RuunerS to Certain Nevsspai ers
publicly boast of being in his confidence ; and. it is
not now two hours since another Booker shewrd. a
letter, purporting to come from him, stating, that a
Messenger had just arrived, who merely preceded
Lord Lauderdale. You best know how • the faa is;
brit I am afraid Lord Moira, from‘motivesof sup-
posed gratitude, has Made himself too cheap,
,and,
bas_barayed. the paramount duties of his- public si-
tuation, My Lord, I should hold your life an ines-
timable loss ft to the country, for I despise gamblers,
and we must not be delivered over to the chances of
the hazard table."---This was signed -
" ANDREW CHARLES." "

•
Mr. GARROW then continued. He said that he I,
had iii ins posseSsion numerous Affidavits troni Lord
G.renvifle, Lord Spencer, Lord Moira, Mr. Alexan-
der Davison, and Mr. John Battye, who was sup-
posed to have shown the letter respecting the Mes-
senger from France, all of whom denied, in the most
ppsitive terms, • every circumstance stated in -the
libellous communication. life Learned Counsel,
therefore, trusted, that for the sake, of the public
tranquillity, as well as to rescue the character 'of the
'Nob4e Lord, which had been so grossly calumniat-
ed, the Court would grant the objets of this appli-
'
The Affidavits were then ,handed to the Clerk of,
the Courts and read.
,The Affidavit of William Christmas iflentified the
-hand-Writing Of the Defendant to the Libel, which
he had hioisell acknowledged to Lord Grenville.
The Court inquired in what situation- in life the
Defendant was? and was' answered, that be was a
Clerk. in the Bank of England.--Bole to shew cause
granted. •

50F V. LOATHER.,

From the general statement it appeared, that the.
'Plaintiff and others, who were labourers, had been.
employed by the Defendant, Gentleman Farmer,
to dig or sink a well, in order to supply his cattle
vvith water. When the work had .been performed,
some'difference as to the sum which should be paid
arose, in consequence of which, the Plaintiff sum-
moned the Defendant to appear before a Magistrate,
to answer for the sum of 41. 16s. for labour per-
formed. The Defendant having neglected to at-
tend, tleci, ion was given against him. He,' then ap-
pea!ecl to the Quarter Sessions, from which the cause
was brought to be argued in this Court, upon Ad
the 20th, Geo 11. cap. t 6.
Mr. JEK,cI., for the Defendant, contended that the
Plaintiff was not a labourer, within the meaning of
the Ad, and therefore not entitled to recover under
it. In ropport'of his position, be referred to the va- ,
rious classes specified in it, and then endeavoured to
prove that the Plaintiff Was not ejusdem generis with
those placed under its protection.. Having mentioned
potters, miners, _colliers, artificers, and servants in
husbandry, as set forth in this Ad,-the Learned
Counsel observed, that he could not discover any
connexion between well-diggers and those classes.
He conceived, therefore, that the decision of the
Magistrates, who. were empowered by the A& to
award, if they,,thought proper, to the extent of five
.pounds for labourers in husbandry, and ten for any
of the other classes, ought to be reversed.
Mr. DAMPIER, on the other side, argued, that his
client must be considered either an _artificer or la-
boorer, and therefore within the meaning of the Ad.
He:had laid timber and tiles at the bottom of the
• well, which ought to bring him within the descrip-
tion of a bricklayer or joiner. Besides, the,work
which be performed vv. aS for the purposes of hus-
bandry,
,namely, the supplying of water to all the
cattle on the Defendant's land, which, he appre-
hended, would class him with " servants in hus-
bandry," according to the Ad.. •
• Lord ELLEVEOROUGH observed, that the Ad con-
. tained, after specifying several classes, these words,
" and other labourers." He wished therefore to
know, front the Counsel on either side, what the
Legislature meant by these indefinite terms. The
word " servant in husbandry," Bce. ~.was ark old
term, and retained perhaps on that act(ount,. mean-
ing to imply tinder it the class of labourers.
The Coutisel declared, that they could not define
the words so as to bring them within the construc-
tion of the Ad. They thought, however, that, as it
could not be thR intention of
,the Legislature to in-
sert those terms without having some specific objea
io contemplation, the
,strictness of the Law should
be relaxed, in order to admit and class. them with
persons, by construCtion or, otherwise, ejusdem „ge-
net is.
Lord EI,LENBOROUGH said, .the question should
s=ail, over fo'r consideration. _ ,

DEAN AND OTHERS V. PARKET.