The Sun.
London, England, 1824-01-17 00:00:00

MIDDLESEX SESSIONS, JAN. 16.

THE TRUE BRITON NEWSPAPER.
JONES BOWDEN V. LORD KENYON.
This was an appeal by Lord Kenyon against a conviction
' before Mr. Minshull, at Bow-street, in August, 1823. When
it was called on to-day in its regular turn, the appellant did not
appear; and it being understood that an application was about
'to be made on his Lordship's behalf to have the case further
' postponed,
Mr. C. PHILLIPS, for the respondent, addressed the Bench,
and said, he would object to any farther postponement. He
stated to the Court the reason why he objected. The case came
originally before Mr. Minshull, the Magistrate, as a summons,
calling upon Lord Kenyon, who was described as the proprietor
of the True Briton evening newspaper, for the payment of
(we think) 3/.128.6d., due to the respondent Bowden, who was
a journeyman printer, and had worked on the paper. Mr.
Minshull decided that his Lordship should pay the money.
Lord Kenyon, however, for very good reasons no doubt, ap-
pealed against the Magistrate's decision. The case had been
put off once before, and he (Mr. Phillips) submitted, that it
would be injustice to his client, who ought to have received his
money long since, to allow it to be farther postponed. The
Noble appellant was absent, and could not attend. He was in
fact in the country. Under those circumstance, he hoped the
Court would affirm the decision of the Magistrate. He acted
in this application by the earnest desire of his client.
The Con n.T, finding that the appellant was not ready to
proceed, affirmed the conviction.
COBBETT V. WEBB.
This was an appeal by Felix Webb, one of the toll-collec-.
tors on the Hammersmith-road, against a conviction made
before Sir Richard Birnie. The conviction was read. It set
forth, that on the 27th of November last, Felix Webb, being
then a toll-collector on the HauntnerAnith-road, did use and
utter certain abusive words to William Cobbett, being then a
traveller or passenger along the said road, to wit—" You dare
not show your face in any court of justice : there is no .Magi-
strate who would believe your word." This was alleged in the
usual way to be contrary to the form of the statute, and the
defendant was fined W. Against this conviction the appeal
was made.
Mr. ADOLPHUS, who appeared for the appellant, was pro-
ceeding with some preliminary objection to the conviction, on
the ground of the want of jurisdiction in the Magistrates, when
Mr. FRENCH, who appeared for the respondenA interfered.
He said that he had an objection to make, which must take
precedence of that of his Learned Friend. He objected to the
notice of appeal as irregular, or, he would rather say, he would
admit the receipt of a certain paper, which he did not allow to
be a sufficient notice, as the Act directed. He then referred to
the Act, which stated that the, notice should (amongst other
things) contain an appeal against the conviction, " and set forth
the matter thereof." Now the paper which the respondent re-
ceived, alluded to the matter of the conviction no further
than these words—" considering that I am not guilty thereof."
This, he maintained, was not sufficient.
The Magistrates held this objection to be valid, and affirmed
the conviction.
Mr. FRENCH applied for costs.
The COURT refused, on the ground that the respondent need
not have appeared with such a notice.