The Sun.
London, England, 1822-01-30 00:00:00

VICE SUPPRESSION SOCIETY.

THE kING V. GEORGE CLARICE, ALIAS JOON JONES.
• This was an indictment against the defendant for ptiblihie;
an alleged blasphemous libel. He had been indicted by Oe.
name of George. Clarke, to which he pleaded in abatement that
his naine'WaS. John. Jones. The ITLie Suppression Society then
indicted him by the name of George Clarke, alias John Joni'
to which he again pleaded that he was never called or known
by the name of G. Clarke alias J. Jones. •
Mr. G. MARRIOTT now moved for a rule to she cause WhY
this plea should not be quashed; and why the defendant shoo 5
not be called upon to plead in chief, for that the plea put in
either no plea at all, or it amounted to the general issue.
The COURT said, that it certainly was not a plea of the geSci;
ral issue. They could not try the merits of it on motion. 0,
was a bad plea, the proper course was to demur to it, or rePY4
and take issue thereon.-,—Rttle refuge&

1 `4~

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, JAx. 99.
GROOM AND OTHERS, V. silt T. CIIAMPNEYS.
Mr. Serjeant LAWES, in the courseof the last Term, had oh'
tained 4. rule to shew cause why an annuity granted by the cle/
fendant to the present plaintiffs as Directors of the Star-P•e
Annuity- Office, 'should not be set aside • and Why the deedg
should not be delivered up to be cancelled. He founded 11.
motion on an affidavit of the defendant; from which it Appear'
that in May, 1818, being very much distressed for money t?
meet his various 'exigencies, Sir Thomas (then' Mr. Champ"'.
nays) had applied to Messrs. • Howard and Gibbs to raise lam
the sum of twenty thousand pounds, which they said thcl
would attempt to procure on annuity from the Star Ananiti.
Office. For this accommodation, the defendant was to secure
an annuity on his estates, at' he rate of 121. per cent. whi%
would amount to a sum of 24001. ; besides which he 11..
to pay Messrs. Howard and Gibbs 01. per cent. for their preen',
ration of the advance. The affidavit further stateda that about
17,0001. of this loan had been expendea by messrs. rlosvarcl
Gibbs to paY off several outstanding annuities formerly. ,;•rantev't.
by the defendant to .other persons. That two sums for intere.,
and commission had been deducted, leaving a balance in
favour -of 11321. which he had never received; and which
only been carried to his account in the plaintiff's book. r-1-Y'
retention of the consideration money, and charge of comini',
sion and prccuration, by the parties who had nominally ad
vanced the money for which the annuity was granted, were con'
tended to vitiate the deed, under the provisions of the 53 Gam'
3. c. 141, sec 6. of the Annuity ACt.
Mr. Serjeant LENS on Saturday, and Mr. Serjeant Oral, °el
on Monday, shewed cause against the rule- They produce
the affidavits of Gibbs, of a Mr. Stephen, and of Mr. Burt°n;
the defendant's agent at the time of the transaction, denr% a
the retention of the consideration money. (iibbs's affidas,i'
stated that the whole of the money had been counted out
, Sir-T. Champneys when the • deeds were executed, and that a;
his consent and agreement .17,0001. had been retained for tl7
4
purpose of paying- off these outstanding annuities, that re;
leases of these old annuities were given .to the defendant, an 7
the remainder of the money handed over to' him, when tle'j
deeds were executed. That_ the sum of. 10001. mention
in the defendant's affidavit, had riot been deducted, althougl
it had • been• previously agreed 'that Messrs. Howard an
Gibbs should receive that as their :costs and Coniinission
the loan. The affidavit of Mr. Stephen stated, that 29321. 16s. 7'l
were paid to the defendant after the outstanding annuities 1,3"
been liquidated.
Mr. Justice Paoli remarked the difference between the offi,'
davit of Gibbs and that of Mr. Stephen. The former statel:
that the whole of the 20,0001. had been paid to the defendan
who then consented to give up 17,0001. for the re-piirchase a•
old annuitie s while the later contented himself w th declaring'
that .2,0321. had been paid after these old annuities were re.'
purchased.
Mr. Serjeant LENS. accounted for this apparent disagraffa-
ment, by saying, that the latter Gentleman hail only depose" -
what he himself had. seen, and- to no other parts of this cein
plicated transaction. The Learned Serjeant contended, tl.r,e
the facts stated by the defendant had been fully answered in
affidavits which had been just produced, and insisted that t"°
rule ought to be discharge&
Mr. Serjeant LAWES replied -on behalf of the defendart.:
He acknowledged, that taken -nienierically, the affidayi.t;
produced by his Learned Friends were stronger than . ITJ
but was that a reason why this rule should be dischargcuci,- •
It had been stated, that if this rule should be clischargegi
the plaintiffs would be without a remedy ; but they would stae
be able to maintain an action against the defendant for -
sums really not nominally advanced, and who was now ho`
able and willing to pay what he really owed. ia 11
The Court adjourned the further consideration of this case "
to-day; 'when
,rfzirl
Mr. Serjeant PEARE-appeared to support the rule ou---
dboyubitrihSact-rtiheeanit,BLoo3l‘.vheas,d,
beoenentenredtaini gneathiantthtelemraeniclouruTesebrei4J •
by the defendant.
•re
Lord Chief Justice DAttAS observed, that Pany person ~
more qualified than another to answer any c:rarge Of this de'
tat
cription, it was the person against "whom thi:i charge-hoikbtli
brought. Mr. Gibbs had for along time been acquainted T'T. 0.
• annuity transactions, riot only annuity-iii'oker, bat' als°4a
an attorney;' and he ought, therefore, to be able to make S
an • answer to a charge of this description, as his prOfessior:
habits woul.O. teach him, the Court expected, and the case ",e,
mantled. Had he then answered this charge satisfactorily.? Ile-,
his Lordship went through the 4iftbrent circumstances detaeie.'n
in the various affidavits, and concluded . by saying,. Oat,- 10
furs opinion the affidavit of Mr. Gibbs was .1n- many- reP-14
faulty. lie should therefore say,. that in • elis ea,:t • the rntca
ought to be made absOlute, untie.r-The terms of a rtferenee
the protialmotary. His Lordship afterwards. added,, that, t'"ri
prothonotary would calculate the -amount of interest dl)°,l
10,20.01. the sure which the Court conceived to be due, -0
strike a balance between the parties.