The Sun.
London, England, 1833-11-22 00:00:00

of respectable citizens. Lawless interlopers of
this description should first be warned off, as
poachers are warned off a manor, and, if they
do not scamper with all proper celerity, they
should be made personally familiar, like other
disorderly individuals, with the common gaol,
the *hipping-post, and the stocks. The Com-
missioners have generally, we suppose, law
enough to avoid so disagreeable an extremity.
But if they should in any instance think fit to
measure their strength, or that of the trumpery
Commission under which they pretend to act,
with the legal and recognised authorities of the
country, the latter may, we have no doubt,
resort to this extremity with great safety, honour,
and advantage.—Morning Post.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, Nov. 21.

THE KING V. BRIGSTOCKe

John Lewis Brigstock of the Welehmart News,
paper; published in Carmarthen, appeared on the
floor to receive the sentence of the Court, having
been convicted upon a criminal information filed
against him in this Court of publishing libels on
Mr. Phillips and other Magistrates of the borough
of Carmarthen. The charge was that the defend-
ant, intending to bring the Magistracy into con-
tempt, did vilify and impute to them crimes, by
comparing their conduct to that which an eminent
Advocate had described in the case of the Bristol
rioters; in short, the libel was a commentary on
the speech of the Attorney-General upon the pro-
secution at Bristol. The Magistrates of Carmar-
then were accused of drunkenness and neglect of
duty during a riot which happened in that borough
in October, 1832, after the election. The libel
went on with the charges against the Magistracy in
all parts of the country.
The defendant handed in an affidavit stating he
was but the printer of the Paper, and that he re-
ceived the libel from the editor, Mr. Palmer, a Dis-
senting Minister, who had not been prosecuted.
Mr. EVANS was heard in mitigation. The de-
fendant, who had been charged with publishing the
libel, was the person least guilty. He was a poor
printer, who received a few shillings a week. It
must have been known that Mr. Brigstock was no
more than a servant, and that the editor was Mr.
Palmer. To make an apology for such a man would
be absurd. He had merely to ssy that the de-
fendant had done no more then put up the types.
Mr. WHITCOMB, on the same side, a..ked, why
had the defendant been selected ? Why was not
the Reverend Dissenting Minister, Mr. Palmer,
made the object of prosecution ? Mr. Brigstock
stated that since the publication of the libel Mr.
Palmer had ceased to have any connection with the
paper. He had left the town of Carmarthen ; and
it did not answer the object of this prosecution,
which was directed against the paper, to pursue
Mr. Palmer. It did not appear that the prosecution
was set on foot by the magistrates, but by the poli-
tical party.
Sir J. SCARLETT said if the defendant had been
imposed on by his superiors, and was not the pro-
per person to be selected for punishment, that should
have been made known when the rule for an infor
mation was moved for.—(Sir James here read the
libel, which reflected on the general conduct of the
Magistracy.) He knew that an opinion was gain-
ing ground unfavourable to the Magistracy, but his
hope was that the public at large would consider
the exercise of magisterial authority at least salu-.
tary and necessary for the safety of the public.
Mr. Justice J. PARKE said the sentence of the
Court was, that the defendant be imprisoned in the
gaol of Carmarthen five months, and find sureties,
himself in 1001., and two others in .50/. each, to
keep the peace for three years.
THE KING V. LADY BRISCO.

Mr. KELLY moved for a new trial in the case of
Lady Brisco, who attended in Court. It will be
recollected that in a recent trial a person named
Mary Quinan stated that Lady Brisco was living
with a Mr. Wiley, in Lisson-grove, in April, 1827.
The witness was indicted for perjury and acquitted.
Subsequently Lady Brisco was indicted for perjury,
in swearing she did not reside at Lisson-grove.
According to the statement of the Learned Counsel,
Lady Brisco was taken by surprise and deprived of
several material witnesses, who could have proved
that she was not in London at the time she was said
to be living at Lisson•grove. She was found guilty.
Lady Brisco now made affidavit that she never did
reside in Lisson-grove, and that during the whole
of April and until the beginning of May, 1827,
when the witnesses swore they saw her at Lisbon-
grove, she was at Upton, Cheltenham, and Paris.
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE intimated that the
Court thought there should be a rule to show cause

THE KING V. JOS. RUSSELL.
The defendant, a printer at Birmingham, ap-
peared to receive judgment, having been convicted
by a special jury of the county of Warwick of
printing and circulating a libellous and seditious
handbill in the town of Birmingham of and con-
cerning the Commissioners of the New Street Act.
Mr. Justice PARK sentenced the defendant to
be imprisoned in the House of Correction for the
county of Warwick three months, and find sureties
for three years, himself in 501. and two others in
251. each.