The Sun.
London, England, 1825-02-08 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, FEB. 7. •
CRIMINAL INFORMATION.
THE KING V. THE " MORNING CHROXIQI.E."
[Further particulars.]
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said, that a rule had been ob-
tained on a former day by Mr. Gurney, calling upon Mr.
Clement, the proprietor of the Morning Chronicle, to show cause
why a criminal information should not be tiled against him, for
certain alleged libellous articles which appeard in the columns
of the Morning- Chronicle' reflecting upon the character and
conduct of Mr. Kenrick, a Magistrate in the county of Surrey.
The libels imputed to Mr. Kenrick that he, being a Magistrate
of Surrey, and Recorder of Dover, &c. had caused certain harsh
and unwarranted proceedings to be instituted against a poor
man named .John Franks ; and it further charged, that he was
induced to do so from motives of malice against Franks, in con-
sequence of Franks having refused to tranfer to him a certain
small property adjacent to the farm of Mr. Kenrick, at Pets-
worth, in the county of Surrey. The Learned Gentleman then
proceeded to read the affidavits of Mr. Kenrick ; in them he
did not deny but that some treaty had taken place between
him and Franks regarding a piece of ground, but he denied
any motives of malice against him on that account. It then
went on to say, that a piece of timber, value about four-pence,
was fimnd on the premises of Franks, and sworn to by a servant
of Mr. Kenrick, as being Keurick's property, that upon
hearing this, Mr. Kenrick considered it to be a public duty to
prosecute Franks for this felony, he caused a warrant to be
issued, and preferred a charge of felony upon this charge.
Franks was committed to Horsemonger-lane gaol, and it was
two months before he could by possibility be brought to trial ;
the affidavit then stated that it was his intention to prosecute
Franks, but that in consequence of his having heard that he was
a member of a benefit society, and that a conviction of felony
against Franks would be the means of depriving Franks of all in-
terest he had in that society ; the deponent therefore determined
not to employ Counsel, and also kept back a material witness,
who, if he had subpeened him to attend must necessarily have con.
victed Franks. " Here," observed the Attorney General, "was
a man who pretends, first to act in discharge of a public duty,
suffered, by his own admission, knowingly to let the ends
of Justice be defeated." This was the substance of Mr. Ken-
rick's affidavits. An attempt, however, had been made by Mr.
Kenrick to impeach the character of Franks : what was the
character of that man ? He was born in this little cottage,
which his father and grandfather had inhabited before him ; he
had served several gentlemen in the neighbourhood honestly
and faithfully ; and when a party of fencibles had been formed
by Lord Romney, Franks, from his good conduct, was select-
ed by Lord Romney as one of this party, and the manner in
which he conducted himself gained him promotion ; he subse-
quently joined a regiment going to Egypt, and on his return
received his discharge. Captain Thelluson, of that regiment,
whom Franks had served as a groom, gave him a character
of the most undeniable nature. Upon being discharged he
returned to the cottage occupied by his father, being then
worth about 200/., the amount of his savings ; he had brought
up eight children, which had materially reduced his little
property, but had lived with an unblemished character in the
neighbourhood, and yet it was this man whose character was
to be impeached. lie (the Attorney-General) held affidavits,
from which it would appear that upon a former occasion, a girl
of Franks, about nine yearn of age, had been charged with
sonic offence before a Magistrate, that upon that occasion,
great pains were takpernovbinygilulnr.mKiceeneLicfukl,tomitru.plKiceantreict'rasnakids
in
to tire
,'ncinhkasr,ge"; Itti.)aetver I can get hold of you I will make a
public example of you." Was not this expression sufficient
to prove that Kenrick entertained malice towards Franks;
and would it not occur to their Lordships, that in the charge
made against Franks by Kenrick he was actuated by that
in•ilice? It had been said that Franks had sustained no injury
by the charge against him ;•certainly it could be no injury
for a man to have to walk home sixteen miles exposed to a
burning sun, after having suffered two months' imprisonment
upon a false charge. The Learned Attorney remarked upon
the conduct of the Magistrate who committed Franks com-
pared with the conduct of Mr. Kenrick. The former told F.
he was sorry to be obliged to do so, and recommended the
constable not to take him to prison until the following morn-
ing. The Learned Attorney then referred to a letter written
by Mr. Kenrick to the gaoler in whose custody Franks was,
And which letter the Learned Gentleman described to he
shaped in the grossest hypocrisy. The result of the trial
proved Franks innocent beyond doubt, and indeed it appeared
that the piece of board in question had been placed by one of
Franks's children, without Franks's knowledge, against a
rabbit hutch, in Franks's yard. The Learned Gentleman
then proceeded to relate the miseries endured by the family of
Franks clueing his imprisonment, and asked if the whole trans-
action (lid not savour of malice of the worst kind on the part of
Kenrick, for such conduct Mr. K. could not find any excuse,

he'waS a Barrister of some standing, Recorder of DOver, a Ma..
gistrate of Surrey, and a Welsh Judge, and at one time pre-
sided as .Chairman of the Surrey Sessions. Now, as to the
conduct of the proprietors of the Morning Chronicle, 4 was
undisputed than circumstances such as these might, be legally
published, and if allowed to be published; they wire also open
to comment, and the comments made by the Editor of the
iWeraieg Chronicle, in this . case, were such as any man of
sense and feeling would have made on them. lie (the At-
tOrney-General) did not, however, rest his case here—he would
prove a subsequent series of malice entertained in the. mind
of Mr. Kenrick against Franks, even after the publication
of the article in the columns of the Morning Chronicle'. Sin&
the publication of these- articles, a letter had been written
by Mr. Kenrick, and transmitted by Mr. Collett, his Solicitor,
to 'the Editor of the Stamford Mercury, for insertion, and
was inserted in. that paper. 'This letter was dated at Beau -
maris, where Mr. Kenrick was at that time performing the
duties of a Judge; and was written in ansWer to sonic of the
alleged_ libels - which bad appeared in the Morning Chronicle,
and had been copied into the Stamford Mercury, it complained
bitterly of the article alluded to; described Franks to be
very dishonest, and
.the„n..4t sundry filets ,re,;arding him,
which he said he Shoirld put into the shape of. an affidavit,
and swear to them, in order to apply to the Court for a cri-
minal information ; amongst the facts alleged against Franks
was, that he had been considered long as a dishonest character ;
that his daughter, a girl abont ten years of age, had been
detected in stealing sundry trifling articles whilst em-
ployed about Mr. Kenrick's house.; that the articles so
stolen were subsequently found in a box in Frank's house,
and in the letter Kenrick lamented, that the statute render-
ing persons encouraging and abetting felonis was not in
force at the time the transaction took place ; thereby, said
the Attorney-General, of course imputing to Franks that
he aided and abetted the child in stealing the trumpery arti-
cles referred to. The letter also accused Franks of having
stolen two fat sheep belonging to a persOn in the neighbour-
hood, but that the person to whom they belonged, from a mis-
taken notice of clemency, refused to prosecute him, but added
the case was as clear as possible. All these charges, said the
Attorney-General, through the instrumentality of Mr. Ken-
rick, found their way into the Stan prd Mercury, and yet were
all destitute of truth. As to stealing the sheep, he had the affi-
davit of the person to whom they belonged, and in it it was
sworn that he never even suspected Franks of having stolen
the sheep; on the contrary, the person who did steal them had
been since apprehended, convicted, and transported for the of-
fence ; and yet Mr. Kenriek, after making such a false and
scandalous report as this, came himself to complain of libel.—
The report he had circulated in the Stanford Mercury was cir-
culated as facts, intended to be sworn to by Mr. Kenrick upon
this application, but he -had not ventured to swear to them.
The LORD HIEF JUSTICE asked, how the account in the
Stan Ard Mercury was brought home to Mr. Kenrick ?
Mr. ATTORNEY-GENERAL replied that a copy of the state-
ment had been shown to Mr. Collet, Mr. Kenrick's attorney,
who said it was received by him from Mr. Kenrick. It had also
been shewn to Mr. Kenrick himself, and he was asked whether
it was written by him or not, but he refused to give any answer
to the question put to him.
Their Lordships here consulted together a short time, and
then asked Mr. Gurney if, after what had passed, he thought it
would be advisable to press the application for a criminal
information ?

Mr. GURNEY thought that what appeared in the Stanford
Mercury was no answer to the libels which had appeared long
previously in the Morning Chronicle.
The LORD CHIEF .1 us'net: did not put it in that light,
but it was the opinion of the Court that it ought to interfere by
the process of criminal information for a libel, in any case,
where the party complaining had thought fit, before he came to
that Court, to take the law into his own hands, by appealing to
a newspaper for redress.
Mr. GuRN.EY would not press the matter, if that was their
Lordships' opinion.
The ;V1'1'01{14;1:1' GENERAL hoped the rule would be dis-
charged with costs.
- Mr. Justice BAYLEY—No, that cannot be, for we have not
heard the case through.
A long discussion here ensued, when at length the Counsel
for the Morning Chronicle consented to waive the question of
costs.

The rule was then discharged without costs.
EX-PARTE HARRIS.

Mr. TAUNTON moved for a rule, calling on the proprietors
of the Ilereford Independent Journal to show cause why a cri-
minal information should not be exhibited against them for
several articles reflecting on Mr. Ilarris, an attorney and Under-
sheriff of the county of Hereford. The first article was gene-
rally directed in terms against alleged abuses in the office of
Under.sherifi; but the Learned Counsel contended that it was
sufficiently applied to illr. Harris by subsequent notices of his
threats to institute proceedings, which also contained insinua-
tions against him.
The COURT, however, thought the case did not require the
interposition prayed for, and refused the rule.