The Sun.
London, England, 1809-05-04 00:00:00

Tlfl Tartu V. 101114

The Vefendant had been intlieted fora libel on
Richard Best the eider; Richard Best the younger,
and George /3est, father and suns. The father had
ueen for twenty years 'annually and unanimously
chosen overseer for the Oafish or Greenwich, and the
Defendant had camed to be printed and circulated,

on the aoth of April, 108, a bind-hill, refieaing
on the aboVe Gentlenien, and imputing to the e;der
of them the keeping of balances to the amount of
16001. at a time of the "Money of the parish in his
hands, and of charging, for-three years, 311 annuity of
it/ to a poor. woman of the name of Jane Robson,
alias Robinson, which had not been-paid to fro., she
being a lunatic,'&c. and cautioning the parishioners
front voting for Mr. Best, &c.
• This indietment .wts tried before the Lord Chief
Baron at the last Assizes for Maidstone, when the
Defendant was found guilty on the first count for a
libel on the elder of these three Gentlemen, but ac-
quitted on the other counts.
'An affidavit was then given in for the Defendant,
alleging, that if he had peen allowed, he should
have proved at the trial, out of the parish-,bo6ks,
that every thing which he stated in the hand-bill!
was true; that he was ready to do it now; if the
Court ordered an inquiry before the Master, &c.
The Court said, that was impossible in a criminal
case.

• Mr. Serjeant BEST stated for the Defendant, that
he was instructed to say at the trial,- and to repeat
the offer now, that if it could avail the Defendant,
he was ready to enter on the proof of the- truth of
what he had alledged in this hand-bill ; but as that
was against the rule of laW, he trusted that as his
client believed all he bad said to be true,..be was an
object of lenity in the judgment to be pronounced
against him.
Mr. BOLLAND Spoke on the same side
Mr. GAREOIV, Mr.,M4BRYAT, and Mr. GURNEY,
spoke in aggravation of this offence, which they
treated as a very serious one. They said that all the
'bookl to which the Defendant had referred were in
ourt, and ready to be produced; but that the De-
fendant then culled' for the book of estimates, of
which no police had been given to produce it,
.and
it' was 'therefore not there. These charges were all
false, and that to the Defendant's knowledge; for
these very accounts, to which the Defendant had
referred, as of balances in the hands of the prosecu-
tor haVing been kept by hilly, instead bf bringing'
them forward to the account of the parish, were,
sums of Money levied prospeaively at the beginning,
of a*cpiarter ; but in if few days after they were re-
ceived, they were disbursed for parish purposes, and,
the prosecutor was often in advance to the parish
but of his own pocket.: But what' was most extra-
ordinary, there was i'regular voucher signed by this
very defendant himself, among other members of 'a
Committee, signifying that they had examined these
very accounts.; stating, that vouchers had been pro-
Iluced for every charge which Mr. Best had made
upon the parish, that they' found the same to be
right, &c. and this some tune before the publication
of the libel.

THE KING V. ALEXANDER STEWART, ESQ.

This was a prosecution upon the samelibel ; but
thi; gentleman, a Captain in' the London
had merely given ono of the printed copies of this
band-bill to a tradesman, a paper-banger, who serv-
ed him at czeenwich ; but had no share in compos-
ing it, and had no interest, in its publication.

The Court considered this Gentleman's case as a
very different one from that of the other defendant,
and therefore fined him hi 61. and ordered him to he
diacitarged ; ,vilaith. he paid, and, was discharged FIC.
cordingty.
The other-defendant was committed, and ordered
up at a future day for judgment.