The Sun.
London, England, 1832-11-05 00:00:00

CRIMINAL INFORMATION.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL moved, on the part of a Mr.
Haseason, commander of a turchant vessel called the
Reserve, for a criminal information .ig iinst Mr. Hopkins
theprin•er and publisher of the Christian Advocate, 1'44

a libel, reflecting on his character. Capt. Hoseason was
lying at Jamaica during the insurrection of the negroes
last year. The Christian Advocate, in giving an account
of that insurrection, proceeded to say, that no sooner bad
that rebellion of the negroes been subdued than a more
daring and outrageous r. bellion of the Whites commenced,
and that they destroyed a numher of places which had
always been held sacred as being devoted to public worship ;
that on the north side of the Island four Wesleyan Me
thodist, and 10 Baptist chapels were destroyed ; that
those outrages were partly perpetrated by persons in a
Magisterial situation, and by Captains of ships ; tha•
among those who were present were Captain Smith, and
also Captain Hoseason, of the Reserve. Their Lordship,
would see that that was a charge against Capt. Hoseason
of a very serious nature. Capt. Hoseason, in his affidavit,
stated, that on the occasion adverted to, he was at Ja
utaica, hut apprehending some such disturbance as did
occur, he took every precaution to keep his officers and
crew on board the ship, and that his orders were strictly
obeyed, not one of his crew having gone on shore during
the disturbance. The attack on his character was of a
most ruinous nature, but be bad distinctly denied the
truth of it.

Mr. Justice J. PARSE-When was the article pub-
idled ?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said, the libel was dated
Alay 7th, but Captain Hoseason did not return
this country until the day before the last day of last term.
—Rule Nibi granted.

EXCHEQUER CoURT.—(THIS DAY.)

JOHNSON V. MOUNSEY.

In this case Mr. PoLcocx moved for a rule to show

' cause why the verdict, which was for the plaintiff, should
• not he set aside, and a new trial granted, on the ground
of its being against the weight of evidence. The cause
' was tried before 11r. Baron Bolland, at the late Lancashire
Assizes, and was to recover damages for damage done at
' sea. The plaintiff was owner of a brig called the June,
' which had come in collision with the Hercules, belonging
to the defendant. The Learned Gentleman said that it
was a most singular fact, that during all his experience he
had never seen any case of this kind, which had happened
from accilent, for Juries invariably give verdicts for the
phintiff.. In this case be had produced one of the strongest
cases for the defence that he had ever done, and he had reason
to believe that the verdict had not given satisfaction
to the Learned Baron who bad tried the case, or he would
not trouble the Court on the matter. The plaintiff had
examined three witnesses, who were on board the Jane,
and had their depositions, but at the trial he only pro
duced two of them. For the defence, all the persons who
were on board the Hercules were called except one, and
he was accounted for, being ill, thereby proving that the
defendant wished to lay every fart before the Jury. Tile
question at issue was whether the Jane had not altered her
course at the critical moment, thereby causing the acci-
dent ; the defence was, that the Hercules had seen the
June, and had, according to the rules of siiling, put down
their helm, and that the Jane, contrary to those rule..,
had also put down hers. Now the wanes., whose depose- '
tine was in the possession of the plaintiff, but was kept
back, was the Master of the Jane, who at the time was at
the helm, and therefore best able to give proper evidence.
This was his ground for the present application, which he
acknowledged he could not expect to be granted if his
Lordship was not dis•atisfied with the Verdict.
Mr. Baron BOLLAND said, though lie would have found
the other way bad he been on :he Jury, yet as there had
been conflicting evidence laid before the Jury, he could
not say that he was dissatisfied with their finding.
The Court refused the rule, observing that there was no
question of law involved, and that were they to grant a
rule, it would merely be sending down the same facts for
a new trial, when the result might most likely be thee awe.