The Sun.
London, England, 1804-05-12 00:00:00

THE KING v; PANTHER.

The Defendant in this case had been conviaed of
publishing a Libel, in the shape of a return under
the, Army of Reserve ACI, His offence, Judge
Gause observed, was aggravated by his endeavour-
ing to affix the guilt of his as on a relative, whom
he was hound to proteft ; but he corrupted this re.
lative to swear falsely, as the jury very justly de-
termined, that she put the Defendant's name to this
Libel. The Jury and the Court have had her hand
writing and the Defendant's before them, acid there
cannot be the least doubt but that the Libel was
signed by the Defendant, and not by the unhappy
person suborned to take the guilt to herself; The
Defendant addressed the Court, and as he stated
that he had six persons in family, dependent on hith
for subsistence, amongst them a mother who is quite
blind, the CJurt remitted part of the intended im-
prisontlient : Judge GROSE observing, that a man's
family are his pledges to society for his goo con..
cort.
dna, nd if he violates the Law, and his fimily are
thereby tuineA, he is to blame for their ruin. Sen-
tence, three Months imprisonment, and root. fine.

THE KING v. STEVENS AND AGNEW.

•This case was argued to-day at great length, and
with universally acknowledged ability, by Mr. AT-
TORNEY GENERAL, Mr...EasKINE, Mr. GARROW,
Mr. ADAM, Mr. WOOD, and Mr. ABBOTT, on one
side; and by Mr. DALLAS and Mr. GIBBS, on the
other. To detail all the arguments which the inge-
nuity of Counsel suggested on so apparently simple a
point as the legal definition of the word " UNTIL,"
would occupy at least three columns of a Newspaper ;
for the arguments exhausted (with•otit tiring the pa-
tience 6f) three hours of the time of the Court. We
shall endeavour to slim the importance of the word
" UNTIL," in the present cases. with as much con-
ciseness as perspicuity will admit of. By the 33a
Geo. HI. cap. 52, certain penalties are inflitled on
British Subjects in the-Service of Government, or of
the East India Company, residing in the East In-
dies, for taking Bribes, &c. TO constitute the
completion of the offence against *Lich the statute
is dire6ted, it is requisite that the Bribe shall be
taken whilst the party taking it is resident in India,
and in the service of Government, or the East In-
dia Company. No person in a different situation
comes within the meaning of the statute. the
averment in the Irfortnation on which the Defer].
dants were found guilty, is, that they ‘ivere in the
service of the East India Company for a great
length of time, to wit, from the first of Janu-
ary, .3794., UNTIL the 29th of November, 1795;
and that they committed the offence, &c. on
the 29th of November, 1795. On ail sides it is
admitted, that they could not commit the offence (as
servants of the East India Company, &c.) when di.
vested of that charaaer and description which is in-
corporated with the substance of the crime. Mr.
DALLAS had moved an Arrest of Judgment, on the
ground, that UNTIL was a word of exclusion of the
29th of November, 1795. By being described as
servants, &c. UNTIL that day, they could not, he
contended, commit that offence as servants, &c. on
that day. Many learned arguments were urged ;
many cases cited ; and even some pleasantry found.
way into the discussion. Sad the ATTORNEY-GE-
NERAL, " If I ask a friend to dine with me, and
stay UNTIL the next day, is he to order his carriage
at twelve at night, BEFORE the next day ?"
Mr. ERSKINE repeated the line—
As chaste as ice tr:ITI 1. the marriage day.
Are you to exclude the marriage-day, and to pre-
sume the lady unchaste at the close of the preceding
day Yet such is the consequence of the construe.
Lion of exclusion.

Mr. DALLAS.—" If my friend, the ATTORNEY.
GENERAL, insists on UNTIL being an inclusive
term, were I to ask him to dine, and, knowing his
time to be precious, should say, " I'll not send for
you UNTIL dinner is ready," I should fulfil my in-
vitation were I to send for him when dinner was
over. And Mr. ERRsKINE'S illustration is still
more unfortunate, for if UNTIL he inclusive, the
bride must be '' chaste as ice," the entire of the
marriage-day ; which my Learned Friend, some
years ago, would not, I think, have contended for."
The arguments from analogy; and the cases cited
on the grave part of the argument in this case, we
should endeavour to explain and condense on a fu-
ture day, when the Court shall pronounce their
judgment, which for the present they postponed.