The Sun.
London, England, 1833-11-30 00:00:00

LIBEL LAW.

(From the Times.)
Heads of a Bill to ascertain and settle, with greater pre-
ei.ion, the provisions of the law, and the functions of
Judges and Juries, in Cases of Libel, in the United
Kingdom.

Whereas, by an Act passed in Parliament of
Great Britain in the 32,1 year of the reign of his
late Majesty King George 111., entitled " An Act
to remove doub•s respec lug the functions of juries
in cases of libel ;"* and by a similar Act, passed
in the Parliament of Ireland in the 331 year of the
reign of his said late Majesty ;t it was declared
and enacted, that on every trial of an indictment
or information for the makirig or publishing any
libel, where an issue or issues are joined between
the King and the defendam or defendants, on the
plea of not guilty pleaded, the jury sworn to try the
issue may give a general verdict of guilty or not
guilty upon the whole matter put in issue upon
auch indictment or information; and whereas it is
re:tPioendiaelnitti teornrcettmideenr
aonrde
the e ffe
principlec !ua'
te
tshaeirde odf,eacltad-
to enable juries sworn to try such cases of libel actu-
ally and truly to inquire into and give their verdicts
upon the whole matter put in issue, and to empower
and authorise the prosecutor and defendant respec-
d vely in every such case to disclose the whole mat
ter to the Court and jury, and to enable the Court,
or Judge, whose duty it may be to pronounce
judgment in any such case, to aportion such judg-
ment as nearly as may be to the degree of guilt
which the jury shall consider to exist in such case
on the pact of the defendant. Be it enacted, &c.
Ist Section.—The prosecutor arid defendant may
disclose the whole matter to the Court and jury,
in the same manner as upon the trial of a civil action
for libel.

2d Sec;ion.—Different degrees of guilt to he
settled by law in cases of libel (a in homicide,
* 32 Geo, 111., c. 60, British, t 53, Geo, 111., c. 43, hi4b4

larceny, &c.), and different degrees of Finishment
affixed; as, for example :-Ist degree of libel.—
Punishment not to exceed two months' imprison-
ment and 201. fine; or three months' imprisonment
without fine; or 1001. fine without imprisonment.
2d degree of libel.—Punishment not to exceed six
months' imprisonment and 501. fine, or eight months'
imprisonment without fine; or 4001. fine withou,
imprisonment. 3d degree of libel.—Punishment
not to exceed nine months' imprisonment and 1001.
fine ; or twelve months' imprisonment without fine;
or 1,0001. fine without imprisonment.
3d Section.—The Court or judge, before whom
any such trial for libel shall be had, shall inform the
jury of the said several degrees of libel, and of the
punishment affixed to each degree.
4th Section.—Nothing herein contained shall
prevent the Court or judge who may pronounce
judgment from awarding a lesser punishment than
either of those affixed to each degree of libel, oi
from holding the defendant by recognizance to good
behaviour, according to the discretion of such court
or judge.

Section.—The charge of libel generally to
be stated in every indictment or information, with-
out specifying any particular degree. The defend-
ant to be at liberty to file a plea of guilty to any
particular degree, and should the prosecutor, after
such plea filed, proceed for the purpose of obtaining
a conviction for a higher degree than that to which
the defendant shall have pleaded guilty, in every
such case the prosecutor shall pay all costs incurred
by the defendant subsequent to the filing of such
plea of guilty, unless the jury shall give a verdict of
guilty of a higher degree of libel than that of which
the defendant by his plea shall have confessed him-
self guilty.
6,h Section.—ln cases of judgment by default of
appearance of defendant, the Court or Judge shall
determine the degree of libel, and award the punish-
ment upon reference to the libel as set out in the
indictment or information, without any intervention
of a jury.
7th Section.—ln order to prevent the vexatious
splitting of prosecutions and the great expenses
attending the same, in cases of criminal informa-

Lions for libel, it is provided that in case more than
one criminal information should be applied fur
against the same defendant or defendants, for the
same publication, the Court may, according to its
discretion, upon motion of defendant, oblige the,
several prosecutors to join in their prosecution ; and
in case of refusal by any such prosecutors so to join'
the Goat shall not grant a criminal information to
the prosecutors so refusing to join ; but such denial
of an information shall not prevent such prosecu-
tors from proceeding by indictment, in the same
manner as if they had not applied for a criminal in-
formation.

OLD BAILEY, Nov. 29.

(Before Mr. Sereeant ARABP.i.)

GROSS CASE OF HIGHWAY ROBBERY.—Henry
Cannon, aged 23, hawker, John Shurety, aged 21,
labourer, and Thomas Willoughby, aged 34, la-
bourer, were indicted for assaulting Mary Keat on
the King's highway, and stealing from her person a
pocket, a shawl, and 75., her property and moneys.
Mary Keat, an aged woman, who was a widow
and got her living by washing, sworn—l reside at
Fla-k-walk, Hampstead. I remember Saturday
night, the 16th of this month. I was returning home
from work, and, as near as I can say, it was about
20 minutes to 12. I met three men; each carried
a basket on his head, and I had a lantern and stick
in my hand ; one kicked me and I staggered ; I then
tried to catch my lantern, and he knocked me back-
wards in the street. When I recovered myself a
little I got up, and I then missed my lantern. I had
my pocket on, which contained 75., when they first
came up. It was fastened round my waist ; and
after the departure of the men I found that it was
gone, and missed also my shawl, which I had on
when the prisoners came up. Ido not recollect any
body having pulled at my shawl, but I missed it
when I was sensible. I did not know any of the
prisoners then because it was night, but I know them
all now; they were brought up in the same parish.
I was sent for by the inspector, who told me he had
got the men, and then I first ic:iew them. I cannot
swear that these were the three men who at-
tacked me.

The evidence not being clearly made out, the
ury returned a verdict of Not Guilty against all the
risoners.