The Sun.
London, England, 1822-01-03 00:00:00

THURSDAY, JANUARY 3,

L?►W INTELf,IGEN&E.

COURT OF KINWS BirS'CII, JAN. 2.
London adjourned Sittings, :after Michaelmas Term before
the Lone) CHIEF JUSTICE and a Special Jury.
ovEnTINn v. CARTIrEW.
• This was-an action for money had and received, to recover
the plaintiff's proportion. of a Certain scivre of money paid into
the public clfe,:t Jamcica, which it was alleged-the defend-
ant's deputy bad embezzled. • .
Ntr. CA 31P111.1.1. and Mr. GOULBITRNE W,Vre for the plaintiff,
and .21r. c-r,l.lnt for the defembint.
The plaintiff was a searcher., and the defendant was Collector
of the Customs at Jatnaica. It .vas alleged that the defendant's
deputy, a person named Hutchinson, had, embezzled. about
10,0001. of which the plaintiff dainied 78th. hi's-shale.
The defence set up was, that the defendant had not taken pos-
session of his appointment until eight: months after he was no-
minated to succeed the prior Collector, and.that in the Interval
the embezzlement alluded. to had taken place.
Thelury, however, under the Learned .hedge's directions,
found their verdict for the plaintiE--Damages 7861.
Common Jury.
Tun ri.);-G. V. WEAVER AND OTHERS.
This was an informati,* agaislkti,
,01:4_ defendants, for a libel
up. 0.2 Jersey.•

•:31r.,84.31LETT-stated the ease ?hr the Crown. He said tha,
this information had been granted .. by the Court of King's
Bench, upondhe application and the prosecution of the Earl of
• Jersey. The defendants, Weaver, Shackell, and Airewsmith,
were the propnetors And publishers of a nhwapaPer :which went
by the name of "John Bull." The Learned -COunsel conjoe-
tured that the author of the libel was riot-0ne...0f-those persons,
• and the probability was, that he never should be known to the
public. If he should have the unmerited good fortune to be
received into society; the connexion of '-his name M, ith this libel
would for ever banish him from an ititercourse with the civi-
lized or the reSPictable ; but if, on the other leitUL he hed
been-excluded for his offences from society, the brilliancy ufthis.performance was not much calculated to remove. his obscu-
rity. But though these seleffendants were not authors of the
libel of which he: complained, still it was- Of. not leSs import-
ance that these who lent themselves to 'the malicious designs
of others should -be answerable to the lairs which through
their instrumentality had been violated. :Had the author
of this libel been. :discovered, he (Mr. Scarlett) should have
recommended to-- the Noble Prosiacoton to hare abandoned
the present proceeding, and to have pursued the real offender;
but inasmuch as it seemed wise to these defendants to • con-
ceal the author, it- was right and becoming that they should
be deemed responsible for tins publication. He believed he might
say, fur the credit of the English Press, that hitherto there
had been no than so void of decorum, so lost to every sense of
decency, as to- drag before the tribunal of public opinion the
character of a female. Through whatever extravagance the
press had proceeded in its animadversions upon public men, and.
its censure of public measures, it had not made the investigation
of the titivate character of females the meansOf using a political
• purpose. Be that purpose base, or be it generous, the press had
not stooped to the contemptible artifice of advancing it by such
expositions ; it seemed. that for a purpose which this author
might, in the perversity of his judgment, consider a just ones
it seemed he set out With professing 4 design of cab:ilaw-
ing her late Majesty. lie-conceived that Whenever it served his
purpose he was justified in attacking anyone Member .of the
• itoyid Family, and that he was at liberty to do so, provided it
answered a political purpose. He did not agree with those who
thought that the private character of Princes. ought not to be
made a subject of p.ublic.discussion, except in cases of extreme
necessity. But he imagined that he was at liberty to vilify and
• to traduce any private character, man; woman, or child, for the
humane and laudable purpose of accomplishing his object—of
degrading the charaCter of the wife of his Sovereign. It was
painful to reflect upon the' eireumstances, which ought to be ob-
literated.from the minds of all. But be- was compelled, in the
discharge of his duty, to advert to the situation of her late Ma-
jesty. Whethez she were guilty or innocent of the charges attri-
buted to her was not matter -of inquiry on that day. But certain
reports injurious to her Majesty's character having been circu.
lilted, it becameeiccessary or expedient to investigate those
charges, and it was a painful - investigation—painful, alike to
those who, he (Mr. Scarlett) made no • doubt, in the -dis-
charge of their duty, were compelled to bring those matters
before the public. However that mveetigation terminated, it was
to be supposed there -would •have been an end to all discussion.
Not such, however, was the delerminatiou of the author of that
libel. • He resolved to pursue the 'loyal game with unabated
hostility, and to disehargehis envenomed arrows against any in.
dividual who would dare to shew those forms of attention which
it had been customary to pay to the Queen of this country; and
he accordingly and consistently declared open war upon all who
should presume to treat with courtesy the Queen of England.--
'Plus annunciation of his wrath was duly proclaimed and exe-
cuted. The CounteSs of Jersey, a name upon which private
scandal had never ventured to inflict a stein, thinking, whether •
erroneously or not was not then the question, that the charges
preferred against her Majesty
.were quite foundationless, paid
that respect to her which this author deemed a crime.- lie pub-
lished the following false and foul observations upon that Lady.
—Mr. Scarlett here read the libel. The, rincipal charge, as it
seemed to us, and' that most animadverted upon by the Learned
Counsel, was a passage in the libel, imputing to Lady Jersey an
intimacy with the late Queen, whom the libel styled a. modern
Messalina. • The Learned Counsel commented upon the several
parts of the libel as he proceeded, and concluded by aa4erting,!•
that as the libel was as calumnious as it was base, -he was con-
vinced that the Jury would have no hesitation in finding the de-
fendant guilty. .-
Thomas Wriht, clerk to the attorney -for-the
.prosecution,.
Said that on the` Ist of June last he purchased the paper contein-
int" the imputed libel, at Nu. 11, Johnson's-Court, fleet-street..
UM! names Shackell•and Areowsinith, printera,•he saw on- the
door; witness produced also a copy of an affidavit from the
Stanip-office, Somerset-house. The affidavits of
_the several
defendants were then read, stating that they were the preprietors-
of the newspaper called John Bull, and that it was printed ats
No. 9, Dyer
- The CHIEF JUSTICE observed, that this was not the place
mentioned by the witness.
The newspaper was produced.
The Sol, iercon.-GENERAL submitted that it could not be
read,- since in the paper produced 'it was said to he printed. at
Johnson's-court, Fleet-street. The 11th section of the Act (the
3f/d Geo. III.) was the portion of it upon which the Solicitor-
General relied.
Mr. SCAiiLE.TT said that, the objection ()Ibis Leaened Friend
(the Solicitor-Geheral) was,
_that although the names of the
printers and publishers were the same as those contained in:
the affidavit, ..he place of printing was not the same. Had he
produced the paper from the Stamp-office, this objection might
have weight.
On the sue?Tstion ofhis Lordship, Mr. SCARLET T proceed-
ed to offer additional evidence.
The witness knew of no other place where the paper was
printed or
The Cult:l' JIT.STICE. His ignorance cannot advance yon.
Cross-examined by the SOLICITOR-GENERAL—tie don't
know Mr. Shackell, norMreArrowsmith, nor Mr. t'.! eavea_
W hick -business is carried oil in Johnson's-court ? • lie don't
know ; but beard presses at work. Ile' has not seen the John
Bull newspaper exposed for sale at any other place.
Mr. SCAB EETT hail 'no other evidence to offer •; • but he ap-
prehended that this was quite sufficient: • 7
. The CHIEF JI,STICE.—It may be evidence to go to the
Jury against two of the defendants, bet not egainat the third.
•M r. SCAR:LETT admitted that it was a matter of fact whe-
ther this was the same paper or not In that view lie thought
that the negative evidence of the witness was not wholly unim-
portant.
The CHIEF' JusTreE.=-Tha evidence may or may not, as
the Jury should deteemine, be conclusive against two of the
defendants. The affidavit had now nothing to do with the
case. Weaver, whose name was not over the door, was quite
Out of the question. If yoh think it worth while to go cn upon
the slight evidence, that the
.names of these two persons were
over the-door, I' can have no objection.
Mr. SCARLET T thought--that this was evidence to go to the
July.
The libel was read by Mr. ABBOTT: '

Henry Richardson was called, and proved that reports inju-
rious to the character of the late Queen were very generally
circulated in May, 1821.
Mr. SCAILLETT said, tlfat this was his case.
The SOLICITOR-CENERAL said, that it was his duty as
Counsel for the defendants to address to. the Jury a few obser-
vations : and 'when he considered the nature of the charge, and
the consequences to these defendants should their verdict pitss
against them, he was convinced that they would require the
charge to be established by the most clear arid the hiest 'satis- ,