The Sun.
London, England, 1835-06-08 00:00:00

KING'S BENCH.-(THIS DAY.)

THE KING V. THE OVERSEER OF THE PARISH OF
IMPORTANT DECISION.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said he had an application to
make of very great importance to the public. He had to
move for. a rule to show cause why a criminal information
should not issue against the overseer of a parish for neglect of
duty : and in order to show that the applicants were actuated
by the most pure and disinterested motives, they had requested
him (the Attorney-General) not to mention the name either
of the parish or of the individual against whom the rule was
sought. He should, therefore, with their Lordship's per-
mission, suppress all names.
Lord DENMAN—The only objection to this is, that the wrong
person is sometimes suspected.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL—The parish is situate not an
hundred miles from London—(a laugh), and in February last
the small-pox broke out in it in a very malignant manner.
The parishioners, with the concurrence of the overseer, agreed
that the poor should be vaccinated, and a medical officer re-
siding in the neighbourhood was called in, and agreed to vac-
cinate the poor at Is. 6d. a head, to which the overseer agreed.
The overseer subsequently refused to allow the poor to be vacci-
nated, and the consequence was,that the infection spread through-
out the parish. All the poor caught it, and one died. The over-
seer had ample time to take the necessary precautionary measures
which would have completely arrested this disease, but had
neglected to do so. It had been determined, in a variety of
cases, that the overseer was liable to prosecution where he
li neglected to provide for the wants of the poor. The case
was one of the last importance. The poor were bound to
obey the laws which were enacted for their relief and-protec-
tion, and they would the more readily do so, if they found
that their interests were at all times attended to by those in
whom the Constitution had wisely vested it. He therefore
trusted that this overseer would be called upon by their Lord-
ships to explain why he had neglected to do his duty in this
instance, and the consequence of which neglect had been so
calamitous to the poor of the parish.
Lord DENMAN (after consulting for some time with the
other judges) observed that the circumstances were extremely
unfortunate, and the Court was of opinion that the overseer
had exercised a very unsound discretion. Had he abided by
his agreement with the medical officer, these calamitous con-
sequences would have been prevented ; at the same time, be-
fore the Court would grant a criminal information against a
public officer, for the neglect of a public duty, it must see dis-
tinctly that this duty was cast upon him by the Legislature.
There were certain duties connected with the maintenance and
relief of the poor which the overseers of parishes were bound to
perform, but it did not appear that any legal duty devolved
upon him of preventing the spread of this disease. On these
grounds, the Court was of opinion that this rule ought not
to be granted.—Rule refused.
THE KING V. FRANKS.—JUDGMENT.
The defendant in this case was convicted, a few terms since,
of having published in the Sunday Herald several libels upon
the character of John B. de Mole, Clerk to the Merchant
Tailors' Company. The facts have been already fully before
the public.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL prayed the judgment of the Court.
Several affidavits in mitigation of punishment were put in
and read.
Mr. M. D. HILL, for the defendant, begged to express
his deepest regret for the publication of these articles. With
respect to the aspersions upon the character of Mr. De
Mole's mother, the defendant believed that they were utterly
unfounded, and regretted extremely their publication.
The ATTORNEY GENERAL—After this long, persevering,
and malignant system of libels, my only duty is to pray
your Lordship's judgment.
Counsel on both sides having addressed the Court,
The defendant was about to make some observations, but
the Court refused to hear him.
Mr. Justice LITTLEDALE pronounced the judgment of the
Court. The defendant, it appeared, was a member of the
Merchant Tailors' Company, and it had occurred to him that
in the management of the affairs of the Company, a great
deal of fraud had taken place which he wished to have investi-
gated. It further appeared that he had made two applications
for mandamuses to that Court, and one for a quo warranto,
and that he had petitioned the House of Commons for the
purpose of having these alleged mal-practices enquired into.
None of these having effected the object of the defendant, he
had published articles in the Sunday Herald Newspaper, re-
lative to the Corporation of the City of London, and bringing
certain charges against the Merchant Tailors' Company.
These were all matters with which the Court had nothing
to do further than that it appeared the libels in question had
or;ginated out of them. The defendant had expended a
good deal of money in endeavouring to effect the objects he
had in view ; and taking all these circumstances into consi-
deration, and also the fact that he had expressed contrition for
the libels which he had published, the Court would not visit
him with any severe punishment. The defendant was then
sentenced in the usual form to be imprisoned one month, and
to pay a fine of two hundred pounds to the King.