The Sun.
London, England, 1822-01-05 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF KING'S -BENCH, JAN u ARY 4.
• LIBELS ON THE LATE QUEEN.
TILE KING V. WEAVER AND OTHERS.
This was an indictment against'the defendants, Thomas Ro-
bert Weaver, Thomas Arrowsmith, and Win. Shackell, for
publishing in the Sunday newspaper, called " John Bull," five
several libels of and concerning her late Majesty Caroline, Queen-
Consort of these realms. • •
The , prosecution was conducted by Mr. DENMAN, Mr:
BRounixiar, and Mr. TINDAL ; and the defence by the So-
LICITOII GENERAL, Mr. PULLER, and Mr. CHITTY.
There were but three Special Jurors in attendance, and the
rest. of the Jury was- composed of talesmen. The -case was
called on, a little before four o'clock in the afternoon.'
Mr. DEN MAN, in an able and eloquent address to the Jury,
opened the case for the prosecution. lie said that this was an
indictment which his' Learned Friend, Mr. Brougham, and
himself, in the discharge of their duty, had caused to be pre-
ferred against the defendants on behalf` of her late Majesty,
whom they considered entitled as much to the protection of liter
feelings anti reputation,as the meanest of the subjects ofherßoyal I
husband. In consequence of the lamented death of her 11:lajesty,-1
those official 'situations which his Learned Friend and himself
had held, and which entitled them to a different station at the
bar, had been discontinued, and it not suiting the pleasure . of
those who had the distribution of professional linnotera to con-.
tinue their rank, the honour of conducting this ProSecution had-
devolved upon himself, instead of his Learned • Friend, end not
from any supposition • that his Learned Friend had withdrawn
his sanction of the prosecution, or froni his wish to throw into
much weaker hands that duty whiCh belonged.tohiniself. They-
•had found,it to be their duty to bring before the Jury for their
• consideration no lesa than five pubhcationsawhich they could
not abstain from doing consistently with their feelings of respect
and attachment for the dead, or with a proper regard to the
public justice of the country, or with the least attention to the.
first interests of society. - The Learned Counsel, after stating.
the proofs he should lay before.thejnry to convince them most
satisfactorily that the defendants were the publishers of the
Paper in question, proceeded to, read. the different libels; .and
comment upon them in energetic terms as lie went along.--.
The first libel -was pulAshed in the paper of-the 25th of Fe-
bruary, and was contained in an article upon Mr. Wilherforce,
in the following' terms : —" We cannot bear that the only
House in England in which a shameless Woman is to be receiv-
ed with honour, should be the House of God, and that the only
place in which her name could be pronounced without besita-,
Lion and a blush, should . be before the table of- the Lord."—
" Amidst all the frightful • conseqiiences which have followed,
oranay follow this unhappy discussion about the Queen, it is a
consolation to think that it has at least had the good effect of
unmasking the pious, the patriotic, and the literary pretensions
of Mr. W. Wilberforce, who will be known to-posterity as the
saint of the 19th century, who wrote a book against cards and
playhouses, and published a speech for admitting a woman-con-.
victed of an adulterous intercourse into a station of distinction
and honour in the prayers of the church." The next libel was
published on the 11th March, and was in the following terms:—
" We should' be as much surprised to see figs growing on a briar,',
as to see sentiments of- duty, propriety, or modesty in the
Queen.- • For what purpose she thinks fit new to assume these
qualities, we cannot guesS, but we can tell her that the re-
sult will be to'disgiist the public ten times"more thanber vio
lent, undutiful, and seditious conduct has hitherto done. We
think it unnecessary to add a syllable, more, except to en-
treat our Readers to keep their eyes fixed on this new ma-
noeuvre, and to be ..on'tbeir guard against what the charac-
ter and principles of the Queen convince us is but a new de-
vice of mischief. Whenever we see Old Father Thane's.

This was an action to recover 101. on a btll of exchange given
to the son of the plaintiff by the defendant, and accepted by
him. The facts of the case were shortly these Joseph
Holloway, the son of the plaintiff, kept the sign of the Green
Man, Ship-yard, near Temple-bar, about 111, months since.
The defendant had gone to the house, and joined a party at
cards, but being rather -overcome by liquor, Joseph Hollo-
way, the landlord, sat down to play with him, and, as stated,
won' 101. The defendant then gave. him a bill for 151. which
was renewed, and -subsequently a bill for 101. was given, de-
ducting 51.
The Learned Judge, in-summing up, expressed a hope that
publicity would be liven to the case, as it was one that most
particularly called for it; and he trusted that it would come be-
fore the Magistrates. Here was a landlord sitting down at ten
o'clock, in his own house, and playing until four in the morning
at cards. By his own shewing he had won seven pounds from
the defendant; and looking at the case in the character of a Ma-
gistrate, he should certainly say, that such a man was unfit to
again obtain a license. •
The Jury consulted for a few minutes,. and then found a ver-
dict for the defendant.