The Sun.
London, England, 1857-11-28 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENVE.:—(I'his Day.)

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.

, ..
ittings at Niii Prins, at Westminster, before the
Lord Chief Baron and a Speck,' Jury.)

THE CHEAP PRESS-THE ATTORNEY•GENERAL V. HEAP.

This was an information at the instance of the At-
torney-General for an infringement of the Stamp Duties
Act in printing and publishir:g a certain paper called
the Bury Times, without registering or stamping the
same, as required by the statute, it being deemed to be
a newspaper. The defendant denied that the publication
in question was a newspaper within the meaning of the
Act.

The Solicitor-General and Mr. Bevan appeared for the
Crown, and Mr. Sergeant Parry for the defendant.
The Solicitor-General opened the case, and stated
that the main charge in the information was that the
defendant had printed, published, and caused to be sold
a paper called the Bury Times, at a less sum than 6d.,
i.e., one penny, without first giving notice to the
Stamp Office, and also sign the necessary declaration,
and entering into the usual bond and sureties prescribed
by the statute of the 6th and 7th Wm. IV., cap. 76,
which imposes those requirements in all cases where the
publication so issued contained matters of public news,
intelligence, and other matters. _ _

After evidence of publication and non-registration bad
been given, _ _

Mr. Sergeant Parry, on the part of the defendant,
addressed the jury. The act requiring the registration
was one of the odious eix acts of the 60th Geo. 3d, passed
by the notorious Lord Castlereagh ; and if the Board
of Inland Revenue were to succeed in enforcing this
act it would have the Effect of stopping millions of pub-

lications. The Board had commenced proceedings
against the Western Times, but for some reason or other
had discontinued them.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer here entered the
court, and took his seat on the bench.
Mr. Sergeant Parry continued—Be would, seeing the
Chancellor of the Excheqner in Court, call him, and ask
him his opinion whether he considered the Bury Times
was strictly a newspaper, and whether he bad not stated
that the Free Press was not a newspaper.

The Lord Chief Bardn said such questions could not
be put to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, if the facts
were proved of the publication ; the question of what is
a newspaper was not for the jury, but the Court. The
Chancellor was certainly a member of the Court, but
not on the law side.

Mr. Sergeant Parry said, at all events he was at the
head of the Inland Revenue.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer, who sat on the
bench, was then called.!
Sergeant Parry said the first question he wished to ask
the Chancellor of the Exchequer was—Whether he was
o! opinion that the Bury Times, a copy of which he pro-
duced, was a newspaper.
The Solicitor-General objected to the question.
The Lord Chief Baron said it could not be put.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer was a member of
that Court, but not of the common law department

Sergeant Parry said, the Chancellor of the Exche•
quer was at the head of the revenue of the country,
and ought to know what a newspaper was. He would
ask the Chancellor whether the Bury Free Press, a
copy of which he produced, was a newspaper.

The Solicitor-General objected to the question.
The Lord Chief Baron ruled that the question could
not be pat.
Sergeant Perry proposed to put the Bury Times, and
the Bury Free Press into the hands of the Chancellor of
the Exchequer, and to ask him whether his attention
had been called to them as newspapers.

The Lord Chief Baron said tbat was a point of no

importance, and would occasion a loss of time.
Sergeant Parry declined, under the oircumstanceP, to
press the question, That was the oase on behalf of the
defendant.

The Solicitor-General having addressed the jury, in

reply,
The Lord Chief Baron in summing up, said that the
questions for the jury to decide, were whether the paper
called the Bury Times contained news, Whether it was
published periodically at intervals of less than 26 days.
It was published every week, and the jury would have
no difficulty in arriving at a conclusion whether or not
a week was less than 26 days. If they found that it
was such a paper, it would then be for them to enquire
whether be had made the declaration required by the
the statute, and whether he had signed the bond.
The jury at once found a general verdict for the Crown.