The Sun.
London, England, 1802-11-19 00:00:00

THE KING V. SHUTLAND.

Mr. Serjeant COCKELL moved the Judgment of
the Court on the Defendant, John Shutland.
Lord ELLENBOROUGH read the report of the
Trial which took place before his Lordship at the
last Assizes for the county of York. It was an
indictment for a libel contained in a letter written
by the Defendant to Jos. Rateliff, Esq. one of the
Justices of the Peace for the county of Yolk, re,
fleaing on the cuaraCter of Rich. H. Beaumont, Esq.
of Whitby Hall, and a Justice of the Peace in the
said county, imputing to him that he had repeatedly
given in fraudulent returns to the Commissioners
under the Income Bill, of the state of his income,
by which, in one year, the Revenue had been de-
frauded of upwards of tool. he having stated his
income more than roool. per annum less than the
reality, which was 'ssoo a-year at least. In another
year that he had defrauded the Revenue of upwards
of 761. by another false return, for which he made
an excuse that he had made up his account in a
hurry, at a distance from home, but which was not
true. That the Defendant was an Engineer, em-
ployed, among others, by Mr. Beaumont, and assist-
ed in making up his account of his income, and
became well acquainted with his income ; and
being called upon by the Commissioners to state
what he knew, he sent this letter to Mr. Ratcliff,
one of the Commissioners, and a particular friend
of Mr. Beaumont, in consequence of which, inves-
tigations took place ; Mr. Beaumont was sur-
charged by the Commissioners, in some of which
surcharges Mr. Beaumont acquiesced. The letter
in which. thii libel was contained, rwas written
witha„gco4:deal of severity against Mr. Beaumont,
and was enfarked by many intemperate expressions.
Upon which the Prosecutor, Mr. Beaumont, pre-
ferred his Bill of Indictment against the Defendant,
and removed it out of the Court of Quarter Ses-
sions to the Court, of King's Bench, and the Case
was tried' before my Lord ELLENBOROUCH, at the
last Assizes for the county of York, when the proof
consisted of the letter being delivered to Mr. Rat-
cliff, and of its being of the hand-writing of the j
Defendant, who was therefore found guilty.

Nir. PARKt now protluced Affidavits on hehalf of
the 11-!Fendatir, by which it aPpearedi that
Beaumont had adualiy given in false accounts of
his
.income to the Commissioners, much e). the
effeka which had been stated in the Defendant's
leiter to Mr. Ratcliff ; and farther; that once after
Mr. Beaumont and the Defendant had been making
up an account of Mr. B;'aulnont's income, and laid
it before the C:nannissioners, for the trouble in
assisting at which, Mr. Beaumont gave the De.,
fet dant. two guineas, Mr. Beaumont said to the
Defendant, it was well the Commissioners did
net know of the 30301. he had received for the last
three years for timber he had sold, for if they did,
they Would play the devil with him."
Another Affidavit of a Gentleman of the name of
Ingham, stated, that Mr. BeaUmont had expressed a
great deal of malice against the Defendant, saying
if he could find a hole in his coat, he would take
care to tear it, if i(was to cost him zoool. or even
to,oocil. That he" was a scoundrel, arc.
Mr. PARK then addressed the Court on behalf
of the Defendant, and accused the Prosecutor ‘t ith
having shewn more malice than that of which he
complained i'n the comind of the Defendant. He
said this was manifest from the course which the
Prosedutor had taken in this prosecution. He had
not come forward to the Court for its interference,
by way of criminal inforMation,, which he would
have been entitled to, if his complaint was just,.
because he was a Magistrate for the County of
York—Why did he not ? because he knew that
what the Defendant had said of him, in that letter;
was true, and he could not deny it ; and he knew
also, that the Court would not grant him leave to
file a criminal information, unless he denied, upon
his oath, the 'truth of that which was imputed to
hiM. tie did not bring his anion, which was the
best way of vindicating his charaner : Why ? be_
cause; in that case, the Defendant would have been
entitled, and he would have been able, to justify
What he had said, by proving the truth of it. lie
did not appear as a Witness upbn the trial of this
indinment, although by law he was conipetent.:
Why ? because he knew that upon his cross-extt.
urination, it would appear, that the substance of
the Defendant's letter was true. So that the judg-
ment of the Court, upon the reading of the Notes of
the Learned Judge, would have been merely nominal.
He therefore contented himself with merely proving
the hand-writing of the Defendant ; and he knew
very well, that in an indidment, the truth of the alle.;
gations made against him could not be offered in evi.
dende, He did not even now come forward with any
affidavit upon this subjed. Why ? he knew he could
not make any affidavit that could be of any use
to his case, without denying the truth of the charge
made against him by the Defendant ; and because,
he knew, that if he had denied it, he would have
been indided for perjury. He did not come for-
ward in this business, because he dared not. The
learned Counsel insisted upon it, that the Proscen.
for had disgraced himself by this prosecntion.,—As
to the Defendant, he was, to be sure, chargeable,
with souse little intemperance in the manner in which
he had written this letter, but he had suffered more
than enough for that, by the harassing course, as
well as the expence of this prosecution. Consider.
ing this case in a public point of view, the Defer_
dlaut was so far from being culpable, that the Public
were much indebted to him for bringing forward a
gruss fraud upon the Public revenue; so that when
the whole matter was considered,' he had no doubt
that their Lordships would consider the justice of
this case satisfied, after pronouncing on the De..
fendant, a nominal judgment.
Mr. HOLROYD followed on the same side.
Mr. Serjeant COCKELL MItWOOD, Mr. Top_
PING, and Mr. SCARLETT, spoke in support of the
Prosecution, in which they insisted, that it was
the delinquency of Mr. Shutland, and not the de-
merits of Mr. Beaumont, that called for the judg-
ment of the Court.

• Mr., Justice GROSE then proceedcd to pronounce
the Judgment of the Court, and said to the Defend-
ant, that he had been conviaed of having pub..
lished a Libel, for which he was now to receive the
Sentence of this Court ; which Libel was a reflec.
tion on the character of Richard Henry Beaumont,
Esq. a Magistrate of the County of York.
In administering the penal Justice of this Court,
they were not only to lo,k to the probabic
quences io the Public from the publication of 4
Libel, but likewise to consider the private mo-
tives of the individual who brought the matter be-
fore, the Public. The Court could not but feet
concern that such scenes had been laid befrre it ai

appeafed upon the Affidavits in this Case, in which

a(;entleman of fortune called on the Court to in..

flit punishment on an individual whO lie said had
injured his charader. When the Court looked at

ftiil the circumstances of the Case, and especially to
that irritation to .which human nature was unfor.

tunately- liable--when the Court rcfl,!Eted on the
tenour of -all the Affidavits that were read on the
part of the Defendant, uncontradi&ed, it ivas irn.

possible for the Court not to see that the motive
for instituting this Prosecution, was not a love of
Public jigstice, but was founded on cne of those

passions which, now and then degraded the human
charafter ; in a word, when the Court said that

this prosecution originated in private malice, 'it
was impossible for the Court to do more or less
than to pronounce upon the Defendant the follow.

ing Sentence.---That he, the said John Shutland,
for the offence' he had committed, do pay to the
King a tine of six shillings and eight.pence, and that
he be committed to the custody of the Marshal of
the Court until such firm be paid.—The Learned
Judge added, that one observation had escaped him,

which was, that this Cause was very unneccssaril;
removed by 'certiorari. p 'that Court, which r