The Sun.
London, England, 1824-07-06 00:00:00

Mr. SCA I.EI:T —llll-Zit is before Mr. Currie was born.

Mr. GASELEE—One of the complaints is that this letter has
been produced on a former occasion. Mr. Currie, therefore,
has.not for the first time Saentbis letter. Ile saw it before be
became Steward. lle knew. thr. business very well. lie knew
it was not necessary the the StetVard to point out the particular
person who was to be the 111:!yor. Your Lordships know there
arc a thousand modes of designating who a particular person
is, and what is meant, and when the Lord who is living at
person, I dare say the housekeeper does
,
Merstham, in Surrey, sends to his housekeeper. to have a bed
ready
fora particular rson,
Lot keep 14 B SeCrq• .119111 the mere circumstance,, that an
illustrious stranger is corning down to take a bed, which lie is
i
to have aired for bin!, t would be pretty well known for whet
eemniit ...We do not swear that they, .are
Aunt, but we swear that we believe Mr.
IA that they would name persons agreeslile to the Lord the
purpose
,wohioettlilwedctnoritlir.ll;e.
Manor. So much for the letter of 1801. 111 y Learned
Meved that Jury if he had not behev.
having alluded to the connection between Air.Jolliffe and
Chun:bees College, I ShoUld ObServe, that it is said in the
letter he has referred to, that if any thing is wanted for the
College in the way of Meere's basiness, let him .have the
mom."

Mr. Justice BAYLLY.—Doeti the Steward take arty oath of
office ?

Mr. GASELEE.--I understand net.

Mr. ScAnLETT—IIe is the mere private agent of the Lord.
Mr. GAsELEr.—I dolt% know how far a• Steward of Court
Lea Is said to be the mere private agent of the Lord, for he
has certain things to do which are not dependent on the will of
the Lord. Ile Tuts important public duties to perform, which
lie is bound to discharge impartially, particularly that of select-
ing Juries. On word on the office of Constable. My Learned
Friends say, that though we have thought fit to charge them
with packing this Jury, this very Jury choose one of Mr.
Atcheson's partizans to be Constable. but where is the impar-
tiality of that ?. To the troublesome and onerous office of
Constable, Mr. Atcheson's partizan is chosen, whilst the
Mayor, who has no. troublesome ..duties to Iserlohn, who is the
returning officer of the Borough', is-reserved for Mr. Jollifle's
friends, It is stated that Mr. Atcheson presented a list: Mr.
Ateheson presented no list ; the only thing said was, we object
to this Jury, appoint some other, persons, this Jury has served
too often already. My Lords, independent of the persons who
have been named, anti who have served on the last six, seven,
or eight Juries, there are upwards of three hundred persona in
the Borough, who have nevaelaCen summoned at all, whilst
those who have been appointed do not amount to more than
thirty persons. some of whom have served five times.-some
times, and-some loth. times. Your Lordships will allow me to
call your mention to what was said by one of your Lordships'
in Mr. 'lector's case, for our affidavits. have been framed
with a view of corn}?lying with what the Courtilten threW out.
One of your Lordships' said " 'they may he equally eligible,
because the highest freeholder and the lowest are equally eli-
gible, but if you shew ten men similar in point of estate, and
so on, and that five are on one side and five on another, and
that the five of one side are all selected, and the tire of the other
party are omitted, that would. furnish strong grounds for in-
ferring that they were corruptly selected and mated," The
.history and connections, therefore,
Of these persons -who were
on the Jury, which was omitted on. the former occasion, are
now stated, and vat have, given the names of Mr. Patrick, a
banker there, and a number of other persons, some of whom
are superior in point of rank and estate, and all equal in those
respects, who have never been summoned. Your hardships'
d'rection, therefore, has been complied with. 'We have shewn
that Mr. Atcheson's friends are ell excluded, and the friends of
Mr. Jollifib only admitted.
Mr. Justice BAYLEY—The Steward and the Jury are to dis-
charge a duty, in which the public are interested. They are
not to act for Mr. Jolliffb.

Mr. 6Asl~LEE—Certainly, my Lord. There is no excuse
for the Steward. When your Lordship comes to strip this case
of all the extraneous and entertaining matter which my friend
has thrown into it,. you will find that we have laid a very strong
case before you. Even putting it in their way, it comes to this,
there nre live one way and five the other, and they take their
own five and excluded the other. But whati right have they to
do this ? The Ste Ward in the diseharge of his duty is to guard
tgainst the eff:Tt of the division of the town into two parties,
Gy a4lecting the Jury fairl/ from both parties, and making it
the interest of to do their duty. lie has it in his power to
neutralize the effect of party feeling by keeping them together
till they have agreed upon the election, and their prejudices

have given way to their feelings of duty. My Learned
Friend has read Mr. Currie's affidavit, and he has desireit
me, in laying my affidavits before your Lordships, to state
what is sworn to as belief, and what is sworn to positively.
If your Lordships attended to the manner in which Mr.
Scarlett read this affidavit, in answer to mine, you must have
imagined that he was swearing to facts on his own knowledge,
and not resting on information and belief; but on looking
into them, 'ou will find every thing qualified 'by reference
to his belief of the information- of other persons. He is in-
formed and believes, that the persons actually selected, were
as impartial as any others ; but the fact is, that those persons
whom he thought so impartial; are known to be violent and
decided partizans of Mr. Jolliffe. In the affidavits in support
of this rule, facts are particularly stated to slim, that an
im-
proper influence was exercised by Mr. Currie on the behalf of
Mr. Jolliffe, and he has not condescended to answer any one
ofehe allegations distinctly ; but contents himself by swearing
generally, that they are all equally respectable and impartial.
He does not 'venture to deny the assertion that' is made in these
affidavits, namely, that it is believed that Aleeres was ap.
pointed Foreman of the Jury, because-he would propose a
Mayor agreeable to Mr. Jolliffe. Then as to Mr. Blunt,
who is the Mayor, it is stated that he is a respectable man,
but they have not ventured to answer this-L-that upon one of
the elections for the Borough he was so far under the influence
and command of Mr. Jolliffe, that he voted in respect of a free.
hold which was Alr..lolliffe's, and for which he paid no consi-
deration. Air. Currie swears that he had no reason to believe
that in the course of the year there would be an election for a
Member of Parliament. Perhaps he had not ; but he took goad
care that he would be provided for it, if there was. The name
of the Mayor does not signify, so long as it is a person that is
sent down for a particular purpose. It is sworn, that it, the
recollection of the deponents who have lived all their lives in
the town, there never has been a Mayor elected, who was not
the creature or zealous partizan of Mr. Jolliffe. So far as Alr.
Currie's affidavit goes, T do not mean to quarrel with it.—lle
says, that he did not think it his duty to exclude the tenants
of Mr. Jolliffe. We charge that he seleeted none but the ten.
ants and partizans of Mr. Jolliffe. I _wish he had gone on to
say, that he had not studiously excluded all but the partizans
of Air. Jolliffe. I submit that on these affidavits there is suffi-
cient to call upon your Lordships to make this rule absolute.
It is not the casual or inadvertent act of a young man that is
brought to your Lordships' notice, but the act of a Gentleman
who, however otherwise respectable, must have known that he
was acting in violation of an important public duty.— I have
no instructions to impeach the general character of Alr. Currie ;
but, I submit, that in this case enough is shewn to Impute
corrupt conduct to him in point of, law. Ido not use the word
in any other than its legal sense; I should say it was that sort
of rash conduct which is marked by a defiance of all example,
by not taking a hint from the lesson which was read by this
Court upon a former occasion in the case of his predecessor,
and which most probably would have been visited by an infor-
mation' if your Lordships had not supposed that the party
might have been led to adopt it, in consequence of a custom
that had prevailed. Upon these grounds I call upon your
Lordships to make this rule absolute.
Mr. Coneretme—My Lord, I am with Mr. Gaselee, and I
submit to your Lordship that this is a case which calls on your
Lordship to make this rule absolute. It is said by my Learned
Friend, Alr. Scarlett, that it has been endeavoured to make it
a crime, that Mr. Currie has pursued the same course as his
predecessor. Undoubtedly, Air. Scarlett speaks truly, for
that is the charge against Mr. Currie:--that there is in this 80.
rough d systematic violation of the law, which takes place as
often a Court Leet is summoned ! My Friend has read and
endeavoured to throw some ridicule on the letter written in
1801. He has stated, that it is the constant course fOr the
Lord of the Manor to entertain the Jury, and so it may
be. But if it is the constant course for the Steward to nomi-
nate a biassed and prejudiced Jury, and to throw the appoint.
ment of the Mayor into Mr. Jolliffe's hands, it ought to be
put a stop to. The course of proceeding in this Borough appears
from the affidavits of Brewer and Leer, in which It is stated,
how the appointment of the Mayor has always been brought
about. They say " that no person has, within the recollection
of these Deponents, both of whom have resided for many years
in the Borouh, been elected for the office of Mayor, who was
not notoriously the friend or partizan, or dependant of Mr.
Jolliffe, and that such elections have always been considered
as having been effected by the controul and management exer-
cised in regard to the Leet -Juries by the person holding the
office of Steward of the said Court beet." That is the custom
which has prevailed in the Borough, which they do not affect to
deny, by mentioning any instance in which it has not prevailed.
It is stated that Thomas Holland, in. 1823, was summoned on a
beet Jury, to attend as a Juryman, but on a previous intima-
quarter, that he was to be
chosent Vein
iga
yg
oi vr
vit in this case, he does not deny the fact. That was in the
nhetoitialiimd awayfnl tsoainned though he makes an affida-
vit
1823—the first essay of Mr. Currie in the art of making
Mayors ! It is said, no persons can be found in the Borough
who are free from bias; but that is no answer to this case
whatever. The Steward is not to look to flue political
feelings of the party, but to his fitness in other respects to
fill the office of Juror. Then lie mentions, by way of show-
ing the fairness by which, in 1824, Mr. Currie conducted
himself, that there were twelve Jurors eummoned—twelve or
thirteen. Three did not attend ; and then he says that he (Alr.
Currie) casually, from the bye-standers, selected five others.—
I just bad the curiosity to look who these persons were that
were selected. I find the first person who was selected is
John Parsons! It is sworn that,,as to him, his son was made
Postmaster by Air. Jollities influence.—Henry Cawley is the
next person ; he is a painter and glazier regularly eutlyloeed
by Air. Jolliffe and Air. Hector, and a notorious and active
partizan of Air. Jollifilfs.—Franeis Ilartlett is the next, and
as to him, I find he is a bricklayer regularly employed by Mr.
Jolliffe and Mr. Hector.— Richard Young is the next ; lie is a
clerk of Mr. Hector's, and he is sworn to be what is called a
4‘ Faggot Voter," that is, a person who is qualified to vote' in
the election under title deeds which he holds in his hand, and
which are returned as soon as the election is over ! Ashford
is the next • he keeps the Crown Inn, and is a tenant of Hec-
tor's and his house is the place here the voters for Mr.
Jolliffe resort; he is the avowed and active partizan of Alr.
Jolliffe. Now it does appear to me that the selection of these
five persons is the most fortunate casualty that ever occurred !
Nothing could be more lucky than pitching upon five of Mr.
Jolliffe's most subservient partizans. Mr. Scarlett says, the
custom which Mr. Currie has pursued has been established in
the case of Mr. Hector. That was the fallacy, if I may be
allowed the expression, that ran throiegli the arguments of
Air. Scarlett—the supposing that we objected to Mr. Currie's
selecting the Jury; we did not do so. We could not do so,
after the decision which has taken place. But we do object,
Juryman, and
IwVitehhA'alvfe jtalleinfree'vmereyrJeluyr earheavneotosicowcnontinmeetteevde.—ry
that he should have rejected persons who are not connected
one of the persons was connected with Air. Jolliffe or Alr.
Hector. In various parts of our affidavits we charge that the
Jury were returned by Mr. Currie, as being well known to
him, to he the partisans of Air. Jolliffe. It is sworn to in five
different places, that they were returned with a view to the
election of some partisan of Air. Jollifie—it is sworn to in five
different places by five different persons. To that no answer
has been given at all. It would have been extremely easy for
Alr. Currie to have met that, by saying that he had no such
object in view; but Mr. Currie felt that he never could have
held up his face where honest men resort, after making such an
affidavit. Any use who looks at the facts of the case must see
that he could not, as a decent man who expected to be looked
on well in society, have made such an affidavit. Then there is
another thing which we call on him to answer in thiiecase.—
How happens it that the same persons are selected so often ?
That sonic have served on every Jury. It is sworn that for the
last six years (we only go back to the commencement of the
present contests in the Borough), the Jurors have been selected
from a small number of persons, all of whom have served more
than once, except one man. Alany of them have served several
times; some on every Jury that has been impannelled. Then,
my Lords, by way of showing that there is no necessity for this,
we give a list of thirty-three persons who are all sworn to be
persons of property and respectability in the Borough, specify-
ing their respective situations, added to whom there are be-
tween one hundred and fifty and two hundred residents, not
one of whom has ever been summoned on the Jury ' • so that
there were upwards of two hundred persons qualified to serve
on the Jury who have been invariably excluded, and a con-
stant selection made from about thirty individuals, who are all
the partizans and dependants of Mr. Jolliffe. Mr. Currie gives
no answer to this; he says he did not think himself bound
to select Mr. Atcheson's friends. But he should have taken
care not to select from one party only • he should have taken
any one he laid his finger on. One of your Lordships said,
that if there were five of one party who were systematically ex-
cluded, and five of another who were constantly selected, it
would afford strong ground for the inference of corruption.
Now that is the very case rested on by the other side. They
say that these thirty-three were the friends of Mr. Atcheson,
and that the Steward was not bound to take them. What right
has the Steward to attend to political feelings ? As to political
feeling he ought not to consider it. He is to select those who
are most fit in other respects.—My Lords, I apprehend that
your Lordships will consider, that it' a Steward has the power
of selecting a Jury, and he selects them for any other purpose
than that of their public duty, he is a person justly to be
visited by a criminal information, and I trust that your Lord-
ships will think there are ample grounds for your interposition
in this case.

Mr. CARTER.—My Lord, I am on the same side, and I think
sufficient has been shewn to induce your Lordships to make
this rule absolute. The Mayor of the place is the returning
officer, he is elected by the Jury, and the Jury is nominated
by the Steward. It has been decided that the right of nomina-

tion by the Steward is correct. We endeavoured to point out
certain inconveniences and mischief's, which would follow it' that
decision was established; but the Conn thought it should pre-
vail under the custom, and it is now considered to he a legal cus-
tom. We therefore now come to the Court, and call upon it to
take care, that those inconveniences should not follow, which we
had pointed out, as the natural consequences of the custom, and
that the custom which the Court has sanctioned shall not work
to the injury of the inhabitants of this place. What is the clues.
lion ? I say it is, whether the Steward has acted in the nomina-
tion of this Jury in the fair discharge of his duty, by selecting
only fit persons to be the Jury of the Leet ; or whether he made
his selection with reference to the political feelings of the lath.
victuals, in order that a returning officer might be elected who
would be partial to the interests of the Lord ? Who is the
Steward ? You find he is the agent of the Lord. It is not
thought fit to continue the former agent, Mr. Hector, and they
put in his place a young man, the managing clerk of the Lord's
Solicitors in London, who knows the situation of the parties in
the llorough—they put him in as Steward during the pendency
of the rule against Hector, for Mr. Hector did not choose to
persevere in his old course while the rule was pending. My
Learned Friends complain that we are very particular in point-
ing out the grounds on which we come to the conclusion that
the selection was corruptly Riede t but they have not ques-
tioned the accuracy of any of the facts we have stated, or de-
nied the inferences we have drawn from them. Under-these
circumstances your Lordships will feel, that the proper infe-
rence is the inference which the persons on • our side have
come to, namely, that the Steward must have made his se-
lection in ' order to obtain an election favourable to the
Lord. Mr. Currie does not attempt to deny it. I agree
thitt he is an honest man for not denying it, but it adapts
the justness of our inference, and the grounds upon which
we call for the interposition of the Court, who are peculiarly
bound to take care that the custom, which they have sane-
dolled, shall be fairly and properly exercised, and that the in-
habitants of this town shall not, by its establ;shment, be de-
prived of the benefit of an impartial sztetion of the Jury.-
1 submit that a prudent steward, looking to what has
passed in this Court, having no other wish than to do rifett,
would not have adhered to the practices of his prz.deeLor,
which had called forth the animadversion of this Court, but
would have sought some mode of relieving himself from all sus-
picion, and selected men of intelligence and honesty, fit for the
duties required of them ; but having persevercd in an illegal
course, I conceive your Lordships are bound to interfere, and
to prevent the office which Mr. Currie holds being perverted
and rendered subservient to the purposes of an individual.
The Chief Justice ABBOTT.—The affidavits in this case are
of considerable length, and as this subject well deserves the
attention of the Court, we will look into the affidavits before
we pronounce our opinion.

JULY 5.
LIM, IN TUE BRISTOL. MERCURY.
THE KING V. DIANCHEE.

Mr. Sergeant PE t. r. rk.id that thi;.ca;e-1;d been mentioned
the other day, and that he had acquainted the defendant with
the suggestion of the Court, but the parties not having agreed
to refer the case to the Master, the. defendant now appeared to
receive .iudgme.!.t. . _ _

3lr. ,Justice BAYLEY delivered the judgment of the Court.
The defendant had published two libels reflecting on the cha-
racter and courage of Sir Alexander Wilson, who, as a Mili-
tary Gentleman, must be feelingly alive to such imputa.
tions. The libels were published without the defendant
knowing► whether they were true or false; and it was in.
cumbent on the managers of newspapers not to insert any
thing before they knew the truth of it, or at least on anony.
mous information, which the present libel appeared to be.—
Taking all the circumstances of the case into consideration—
the defendant's former good character—having a wife and chit.
dren dependent on him for support—and the expences incurred,
the Court adjudged the defendant to be imprisoned for one
month in the Marshalsea, to pay a fine of one hundred pounds
to the King, give security for his good behaviour for three years,
himself in 2001. and two sureties in 1001. each, and that hi be
imprisoned till such fine be paid and security given.
Mr. Justice BAYLEY discharged the Grand Jury.

•
ARCHES COURT, JULY 5.
•
JOHNS V. JOHNS.
Dr. SWART said, this was a suit instituted by Samuel Johns.
Esq. of Aladdon, in the county of Cornwall, praying a divorce
from his wife by reason of adultery. The Learned Doctor
stated the particulars of an adulterous intercourse between Mrs.
Johns and Mr. G. R. Foster, an apothecary, between the years
1810 and 1816, when Mr. F. married. The lady then became
intimate with the Rev. Andrew Sheppard Weyland, curate of
Kirton, and after Mr. Forster was married Mr. Nireyland fre-
quently visited her, and kept up an adulterous connexion with
her this part of the allegation was .pleaded with considerable
spEcilittation. _

Dr. JEN NER addressed the Court on behalf of Mr& John's.
Dr. JESSE A DAMS then read the evidence on behalf of Mr..
Johns, in which it was replied, that on the occasions of Mi.
Foster having visited her, he did so only as a medical attend.
ant, and the visits of Mr. Weyhind were only for the purpose
of giving her spiritual advice, and that he has on several occa-
sions administered the Holy Sacrament to her. The witnesses
in their testimony deposed, that they had never witnessed any
improper conduct between Mr. Forster, the Rev. Mr. Wey-
land, and Mrs. Johns.

At three o'clock Sir Joint Ntottor. declined hearing any
further argument for the day, and ordcred the case to stand
over.

CREEK SUBSCRIPTION.

We have great pleasure in rendering public
the following letter, lb rittt'u by a boy of fourteen,
on behalf of his equally juvenile associates. Sixty
pounds is a noble sum to be sent from one private
school; and we should like to see the example
followed by our public ones:—

" " Hazelwood School, June 20, 1824.
Sill—l have the honour of transmitting to you, by the
hands of Mr. Buckingham' in behalf of the establishment at
Hazelwood, the sum of 59/.68. ld., for the aid of the distressed
Greeks. Part of this subscription (20 guineas) was raised by
the Teachers and Pupils ; the remainder by a collection made
at the present Midsummer after our Annual Public Exercises.
" Had our power equalled our wishes, the sum would, have
been much greater • we are happy, however, to assist in the
smallest degree in alleviating the sufferings of an injured and
brave people.
" 1 have the honour to subscribe myself,
" With great respect, your obedient servant,
46 JOHN JONES,
" Chairman of the Hazelwood Commitee.'t