The Sun.
London, England, 1833-11-16 00:00:00

KING'S BENCH.--(THIS DAY.)

Itttjtthe t.itting of the Court, Mr. Justice James Parke
41"'r• Justice Bosanquet took the usual oaths on having
%4--114,4Mitted to his Majesty's Most Houourable Privy

k THE /ICING V. BROOKS.
,et, lIIESNICILR, on the part of the defendant, who had
'oci.e,°llvicted upon an indictment at the instance of the
IN't'Y for the Suppression of Vice, stated that his client
have been brought up for judgment to day, but he
i'now,7,ll affidavit and the certificate of a medical man,
,`ll;.b ,g that the defendant was extremely ill, and confined
414.4 4" in Newgate, where be was imprisoned. The
sq.lle4 Counsel, therefore, hoped that some day next
t'otilti*ould be appointed, when it was hoped the defendant
t .ue able to attend.
ktityir.,LOßDsiilYS said, they thought it unnecessary to
fly "Ys and thereby derange other business, particu-
-4141,-tiet4 offence was of a nature that rendered the ap.
I" of any particular day of very little importance.
t~t~TIIE KING V. WOOLCOI4II3E.
tltlitiktidCi
"eleodant having pleaded guilty to a criminal
I,4tii,", filed for sending a challenge to Sir Edward
t,i-gt°o3 now came up to receive the judgment of
Oil. Pt' Affidavits on both sides having been read,
' ScArtLETT for the prosecution was beard in ag-
:44„444 He would briefly state to the Court the circum-
th.°l3t of winch the prosecution arose. Lord Ebring.
I:tti4" loininer before last, having written to Mr. Wool-
,11)04ta solicitor in Devonport of great influence, begging his
t‘.!kispk°f Sir Edward Codrington as a candidate for the
at the approaching election, Mr. Woolcombe
Nt.t,a letter to Lord Ebrington, and another to
0411 doves, an intimate friend of Sir Edward Cod-
,ilLt gtibttliving them reason to believe he would support
‘tivtisfisernaos Sir Edward Codrington, when be
/vent t 9 •Devonport, did not go to the

house of Mr. Woolcombe out of delicacy, believing that
gentleman was about to be appointed returning officer to the
borough, which he was shortly after. Some reports hav-
ing got abroad with respect to Sir Edward Cudrington's
opinions on slavery, likely to be injurious to his success,
he explained that he was favourable to any practicable plan
of emancipation ; that he had property in the West Indies
which once yielded 4001. per annum, hut that for some
years past be had been at a loss of 1001. a year in culti-
vating it, and eupporting the slaves. This explanation
Admiral Codrington thought satisfactory to all parties ;
hut Mr. Woolcomhe afterwards declared that it was not,
and his partner, 111,. Leach, starting as a candidate, Ad-
miral Codrington thought Mr. Waolcomhe had b-trayed
hint, and to sttisfy several of his friends that he originally
came into the town with Mr. Woolcombe's approbation,
showed them the letters he 't ad written to Lord Ebrington
and Mr. Pendarves. Mr. Woolcombe ties, in a pamphlet,
charged Sir Edwaral Codrington with breach of confidence
in showing letters which, though not so marked, were
evidently conidential. In commenting upon this pam-
phlet, in an add], ss to the erectors, Sir Edward said that
the charge was not founded in fact—that it was untrue.
The challenge in question was then sent by Mr.
Woolcombe, and declined by S;r Edward Codrington.
Under all the circumstances, Sir E. Codrington, feeling
that Mr. Woolcomhe had not acted correctly towards him,
thought proper to apply to this Court, for no person could
suppose that that gallant officer wished to shield himself
from personal responsibility.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL then addressed the Court on
behalf of the defendant. Like his Learned Friend, he had
the honour of being acquainted with Sir E. Codrin,tton,
and knowing the high feelings of honour which that gal.
lint officer puss-used, it certainly was with surpriel and
regret th it lie found Sir Edward persevere in this prose-
cution. Sir James Searlett complained that Mr. Weol-
comhe had made no offers of concession to Sir E. Codring-
ten. Certainly he had not; he now exprestod great
regret that he had been induced to offend against the law,
but he felt that he owed no apology to Sir E. Codrington.
Did Sir Edward suppose, that having twice publicly
charged Mr. Weoleotnbe with falsehood, after having been
the first to publish a placard, and when called
on for an explanation, not only to refuse it,
but to repeat the insult, by stating that at the
next public meeting he would state the grounds
of his charges—did he expect, after all that, that a man
of honour like Mr. Woolcombe would come to him, kneel
down, ask pardon, and kiss his hand ? Mr. Woolcombe
would have di-graced himself, and forlei.rd that high
honour that bad always marked his character, it he had
done so. Mr. Woolcombe was more anxious to preserve
his honour untarnished, and for having offended t, e law
he was willing to submit to such a judgment as this Court
should feel it necessary to give. It was endeavoured to
be shown that Mr. W. had been guilty of treachery to-
wards Sir Edward Codrington, in inducing him to come
forward as a candidate for Devonport, and then, having
brought him on the ground, setting up his own partner,
Mr. Leach. If that were true, it would effect Mr.
Woolcombe's disgrace, but it now appeared that Sir
Edward had come forward as a candidate before he knew
that Mr. Woolcomhe would support him.
The LORD CHU! JUSTICR sari he understood that
charge not to be persisted in, and, indeed, it had been
now fully explained.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL said the circumstance of
Mr. Leach's coming forward was occasioned by some of
the electors being dissatisfied with Sir Edward Cudrington's
explanation relative to his West India property, and they,
in consequence, called on Mr. Leach without Mr. Woo -
coombe's having anything whatever to do wilt it. Then,
as to the exhibition of the correspondence by Sir Ed-
ward Codrington, Mr. Woolcomhe did nut complain
of that, but of the use which was made of them,
and it appeared that both Lord Ebrington and
Mr. Pendarves condemned the showing of those letters as
an act which they had not contemplated. Let it be re-
membered, too, that although the correspondence, with
Mr. Woolcombe's comments, were sent to Sir Edward
Codrington on the 26th of August, he took no notice of
them until the 4th of September, the day on which he
was to leave Devonport by the mail. On the
morning of the 4th of September Sir Edward Codrington
published a placard about the town which be (the Soli-
licitor-General) contended was, in fact, posting Mr. Wool-
combe. Mr. W. had never been asked for any explana-
tion, and if he had be would cheerfully have given it.
Sir Edward, however, chose not to condescend to ask it,
but published the placard on the morning of the day on
which he intended to leave the town, in which he stated
that Mr. W. " had put ft rth statements which bad no
foundation in fact." Upon that appearing, Mr. W. sent
Mr. Trelawn, y, as a friend, to get an explanation, which it
would not have disgraced even the hero of Navarino to
give ; but he refused, and in terms the most insulting. He
was about to leave the town for some weeks, and yet he
refused to give any explanation, stating that at the next
public meeting, which would not happen for some time,
he would state his gi ()untie for the accueition. That
irritated Mr. Woolcombe, and it was under those feelings,
which were naturally produced, that Mr. W. published the
placard complained of, and thereby off-nding the law of
the land. The hostile message was sent on the 4th of
November, and yet Sir E. Codrington took no notice of
it until he applied to this Court within the last two or
three days of Hilary Term, when it was made to serve
electioneering purposes, because it was known that an
election was about to take place. That ohitct suc-
ceeded, and indeed it was a n atter that struck the
Lord Chief Justice at the time. Under all the
circumstances, the Learned Counsel hoped that in passing
judgment the Court would consider the great provocation
which the defendant had received at the hands of the
prosecutor.
Mr. WIG/ITS/AN and Mr. BULLER followed on the same
side.

After the Court had been some time in deliberation,
Mr. Justice JAMES PAaKE gave judgment. He ob-
served that the defendant had pleated guilty to a
criminal information, charging him with endeavouring
to provoke Sir E award Codrington to fight a duel, and,
on his retu.ing to do an, afterwards publishing a libel
by posting him on the walls in different parts of the town
of D-vonport. The defendant bad shown great propriety
in pleading guilty, becau.e, on looking at the off-
dav, ts, be bad not the least chance of escaping
conviction. It was quite clear that the defendant had
been guilty of a very serious offence. It was the bounden
duty of this Court to visit with a sev,•re punishment all
persons who endeavoured to excite others to commit

_ —..-.—..
breaches of the peace by sending c,,allenges. On that ac-
count alone it wa. the duty of the Court to visit such an
offence with severity ; hut, at the same time, the Court

must inquire into the circurn.tAnces which led to the act.
The present transaction seemed to have arisen out of an
elecion for Devonport, and i, originally w,s a misunder-
standinA n the part of Sir E lward Coilrington as to the
part whit the defendant t,ad taken, hut it was a misur-

derstanding was perfectly natural, because it was
clear that the defendant originally espoused the side of
teat Gall int Officio, and offend him his decided support,
but afterwards a person in business with the deferulatit
was set up. It was natural, therefore, for the Gallant
Admiral, who was then a candidate to conceive that the

defendlnt had abandoned his cause. The defendan, had,

however, explained that pirt of his conduct by letter, and

by his conduct today hyd proved that be did not forcet his
word. Under the contrary impression, Sir E. Codringron
di•closed the litters which had been adverted to, and t, kieh
the defendant con•idered strictly confidential. The C. t,
however, could not see that they were so confidential as
. .

the defendant imagined. The defendant then published a

patnphlet, with all the correspondence and comments,
which he called temperate, upon Sir E. Codrington's
conduct ; the Court thought those comments were highly
provoking, and afforded some excuse for Sir E Cudring-
ton's charging him with making false statements. The
result of tbat correspondence were the challenge, through
the medium of Mr. Trelawney, and the subsequent plicard
that was published. Looking at all the circumstinces,
the Court thought there was some excuse for the defen-
dant's conduct, but not a complete excuse, and the Court
thought it necessary to pass a sentence commensurate with
the offence. The Court felt that a debt of gratitude was
due from them to Sir E. Codrington, for the high moral
courage he had displayed in appealing to the laws of the
land, rather than accepting the challenge.
The defendant was then ordered to pay a fine to the
King of 1001., and to be imprisoned in the King's Bench
prison one month, and further, until the fine be paid.

TBE KING V. COHEN.
The defendant in this case, who is the Editor and Pro-
prietor of the Brighton Gnardian, having been found
guilty of publishing a. libel, appeared on the floor of the

. .
Court to receive judgment.
Mr. Justice PARKE stated that the indictment charged
the defendant with publishing, in the Brighton Guardian
of 28th November, 1832, a libel, having the tendency to
set the lower against the higher orders ; to incite the
people to acts of incendiarism by setting fire to hay,
corn, and other farming property, and lastly that the
libel was calculated to bring the magistrates of Sussex
into con,etnpt. The defendant put in several affidavits of
different magistrates, and other gentlemen of the county,
all spsdking in the highest terms of the paper of which the
defendant was editor and proprietor, and stating their
belief that he was not capable of doing any thing that

would have the tendency to create incendiarietn An the
county.
Mr. Sergeant SPANKIE, in praying the judgmen t of the
Court, stated that he did not consider it necessary to offer
any observations, but would reserve himself till the de-
fendant had concluded what he had to say.
Mr. Count; then addressed the Court in mitigation.
He stated that the prosecutor having, through his Coun-
sel, prayed the judgment of the Court, it became his duty
to address their Lordships. A verdict of guilty had been
found against him for the publication of a paragraph,
the substance of which the Learned Judge had
stated. The paragraph in question was one of those
which had been delivered at the office of the Paper at so
late a period, that it had been inserted, be might say, al-
most without his knowledge. It commenced with an ac-
count of two fires which had taken place at Horsham
late on Sunday night, and in consequence of the difficulty
of communicating between Brighton and that place, was
not received till within an hour or two of publica-
tion. The libel had been sent by a Correspondent
in whom he placed the mot unlimited reliance. He
would have been in a situation to have produced the
affidavit of the writer of that paragraph, bad he not been
advised by Counsel that, if he made an affidavit upon the
subject, be would expose himself to prosecution ; and he
had, therefore, refused to render him that act of justice.
Having shown the Court that he was not guilty of the
authorship of the libel, or aware of its contents, it
would he for him to chew that the paragraph was
not of that importance as to call for such proceed-
ings as had been taken against bim. The gravamen
of the charge was, the exciting the lower orders

to acts of violence and incendiarism. He admitted that
such a charge was a grave one, and that the party really
guilty ought to be brought instantly to punishment. But
what had been the conduct of the prosecutors in the
present case? Why, they had suffered the whole of the
winter to pass away, dining which incendiary fires were
raging in every part of the country, and bad not thought
fit to present a bill of indictment against him till the
following spring. Another serious charge in the indioa-
Fnent was, that it was a libel upon the magistrates of
Sussex. Upon that head he would only say, that the
prosecution was not commenced by the Magistrates, or
with their concurrence, hut, on the contrary, as wool(' be
apparent from the affidavits of the Magistrates which had
been received, they were entirely ignorant of it. The
paragraph in question, though i, only contained thirty-six
linos, had been made the subject of no less than eight
charges against hint. To those ch irges he would not
now refer, but would only advert to some of the state
ments made by the Learned Judge with respect to them,
on the trial. The Learned Judge stated, in addressing
the Jury, that they would have to decide whether the lan-
guage used tended to vilify the Magistrates of the county of
Sussex or not. For his own part, he must eay, that
if an individual had a desire to vilify them, he
might have used much stronger and different language
With regard to the second point....that of inciting the la-
bouring classes to acts of violence, the Learned Judge said
he must say, he did not think there was much in that part
of the case ; at the same time, however, observing, that if
the Jury considered the defendant convicted of any
of the charges made in the indictment, they
were bound to find him guilty. Now he (Mr. Cohen)
took the liberty of inferring from that that although the
jury returned a general verdict of guilty, it did not follow
that it was intended to cover the whole of the charges
laid in the indictment. The jury, in his humble opinon,
had not found him guilty upon either of the charges to
which he had adverted, but upon that part of the libel
which recommended the people not to allow themselves
to be sworn in as special constables. He admitted
that such a recommendation wss a violation of
the law ; but considering the motive of the wri-
ter, which evidently was to remove the greater
evil of the people being excited to further acts of violence,
be thought the Court would look with a lenient eye to
that part of the charge. Having now pointed out the
character of the publication, he would, with the permis-
sion of the Court, do what he was not allowed at the trial,
vie., reply to several paragraphs which had been published
in the .Brighlon Guardian at the time when incendiary
fires were rife in the country, and from those para-
graphs be felt confident that the Court would draw
the inference, that the conductor of the paper in which
such paragraphs appeared need never lend his hand to the

_ .
instigation of incendiarism. The defendant then proceeded
to read a series of articles published in the Brighton
Guardian, between the years 1830 and 1832, all depre.
eating, in the strongest manner, the outrages of the
peasantry. He had read those paragraphs, in order to
show to the Court that he had, at all times, spoken in
strong terms of reprobation ; and to show that be had, at
all times, most strongly advised the people not to resort
to violence. Having laid the affidavits with which he
had been furnished before the Court, many of which
had been made by those Magistrates whom he was
charged with libelling, and by the paragraphs having
put the Court in possession of the feelings by which he
was actuated (luring the wLole time that the fires raged,
he left his case to their merciful consideration. He would
merely further remark that he had a right to contend that
the jury, in returning a verdict against him, referred only
to that part of the libel which advised the middle classes
to refrain from being sworn as special constables. He
trusted their Lordships would think that his case was
not one which called for severe punishment.
Mr. Sergeant STANICIE then replied. He said such
general affidavits as bad been laid before the Courtb y the
defendant were easily procured from gentlemen who were
in the habit of reading his pap,-r. The prisoner had
availed himself of the utmost possible latitude allowed him
by the Court; but still he trusted that, looking at the
character of the libel, looking at the libel itself, their Lord-
ships would think it was one which called for severe
punishment. The defendant stood b.ffsre the Court
as a person who had made no apology for that

which might bare been done in haste. He had
made no aroloay, no attempt to pall ate that which
be now ascribed to have been inserted through
mere inadvertency. The learned Gentleman then read
the libel, and contended that, appearing as it did at a
time of excitement, it was necessary, in order to uphold
the character of the justice of the country, that it should
receive adequat punishment.
The Judges then consulted together, for nearly a quarter
of an hour, when
Mr. Justice PARKE, afer adverting to the nature of

the libel, sentenced the defendant to -be confined in the
county gaol of Essex fur six months ; to pay a fine of 501.
to the King; to find security for his good behaviour for
three years, himself in 1001., and two sureties in 501.

each, and to be confined until such fine be paid, and
such securities found.

THE KING I. lUET.

The defendant in this case came up to receive the sen.

fence of the Court, he having allowed judgment to go

. . . -
agamst him by defaul•, on an indictment for an as.anii
found at the 1111(14-sex &ssione, but retnotel by certio
rani by the dafend4: • into this Court.

Si,' JAMES ScAatimr apt:eared for the prosecution and
Mr. EIUTCHUFSON for tr.', ./..,endatit.

The LORD CHIEF JusricE inquired ii the matter was
likely to occimy much time ?
Mr. HUTCHINSON replied that he had several affilavils
to put in tin I,ehalt of the defendant.

The Loan CHIEF JUSTICE—In that ease the matter
must stand over, as we hive to meet the o her Judges in

chamber at two o'cluck. Let it, however, be uilde;stood

;hat the Court will take the other caceß of judgment on

convictions on ThurAiay next.

The Court then rose.

COMMON PLEAS.--(THIS DAY.)