The Sun.
London, England, 1819-06-02 00:00:00

OLD BAILEY

lefore the Commo N SFIIGKANX and a London Jury.
• CIIAIIGF, OF LIIIEL.
TI-IR KING 1/. S HN VIATTI-IRw GUTCI4.
Ye*Oerd.‘• john Gulch was indicted for
baying printed and pnhlislted in London, on the
18th of juiy, I 8 8 , a certain false and scanclalons
libel agaitst James M'll,, in a paper called '' Felix
Farky's Bristol Journal," of which the following
is a copy :
" 1:eally, Mr. Mills, this exceeds all those
b,.refaced perversions.ot truth, whirl. I have so
often heard you make. [low cats you know what
account ut your trial I have chosen to publish ?-
1'..“1 have uot seen it : Only part of the it•Opression
of my
,lotto nal being printed, and of course not
befote the public eye. Much as your it
letter on the jail business, addressed to me in The
Bristol Mercuty of September last, might have
justified me in copying from arty print that report
of your trial which bore ale hat des' on your cha-
racter, 1 think, when you* read the report which I
have published, that you %will give me credit for
toy iutpartiality, and less malice than you seem to
allow me. I have copied your trial in tie first
instance front The Bristol Ohserucr, becatcse 1 WAS
given to understand that a legal relative of the
Editor of that Paper was in Court, and took times
of the proceedings ; but with a charitable feeling
towards you, which you really do not deserve, I
have copied also foom your brother's raper (The
_Bristol Gazette) the reasons I supposed both of
you would wish the public to believe, were those
which. led ,to the unfortunate nonsuit. Your affi-
davit forming no part of the trial, 3 was at liberty
to insert or rekct, as 1 pleased, gutless you paid for
it as an advertisement. I consider the Col4lllllls
of my journal too valuable to deVote (bent to a
vindicati9n of your character, unless I receive a
suitable remuneration."
Mr. James Mills, the prosecutor, requested to
be allowed to address the Court and Jury on be-
half of the prosecution, on the ground that he
bad on a former indictment employed Counsel,
and that be did not think proper to pay for' the
assistance of a professional Gentleman on, the pre-

sent occ►►sion. . . .
Mr. BOLLAND, on the part of the defendan►,
objected, :and cited the opinions of Lord Ellen-
borough and Lord Chief Justice Abbott, to prove
that rrivate individnals were not..allowed in such
. a case us the present to address the Jury. The
King ►vas here the prosecutor, and Mr. Mills could
come into Court only in the character of a wit-

ness.
The ComMONeSPAGEANT WSIS Of opinion that
Mr. Mills had no light to address the Jury. Jr
was the invariable practice of every day, in cases
.of felony, to s►►ffer the prosecutor to act only in
the character.uf a witness.
Mr. Mills.—!. claim it as a right, and if the
• Coin twill not allow me to speak, 1 will give sip
tl.e prosecution.
The COMMON-SERGEANT.--I cannot. I dare
• not al(er what has been decided by such high au-

thotity,
Mr.; Mills was then called as a witness in the
ordinary manner, and after a short pause he took
Itbe customary oath. Lle was examined by the
Common-Sergeant, and stated, that be was an
engineer residing at Cothamvnear Bristol. Tur-
ning to the Gentlemen of the Jury, he said, " I
will state the facts of the case to you, Gentle-
men."

The COMMON-SERGEANT..—..` The Court is not
to be trifled with in this manner, you must address
yourself to me, and. answer.the questions put by
me."

Mr. Mills then proceeded to read the facts of
the case from the record ; but he was again in-
terrupted by the Court, and was compelled to de-
tail the facts in the legal and ordinary manner.—
He said, (that on Friday evening, 17th July, 1818,
lie called at the office of Air. Glitch, in Bristol,
end found that he was from home. 11e saw, how-
ever, Mr. Gutch's agent, Dennis lfill, and wit-
ness asked him whether Mr. Gina) bad inserted
the account of his trial in his Vaper. _ .

consequence
In of the answers he received, he
dessired that an affidavit which he had made might
be inssrted in the (*Japer, it having appeatcd in the
other Bristol Papers. About two or three hours
after be had left the oce, he received a message,.
and he in consequence again went to the office,.
and wtote a letter, addressed to Mr.Gutcll, request-
ing the insertion of the affidavit which was to be
:charged to hint. The next morning Mr. (hutch'spaper appeared in pritat, chntaining the libel in
question.
Cross:exantined by Mr. BOLLAND.—The Paper
was not ptibished ivheti he first went to
office : it was not the publishing tta)c When he
wrote the letter tequesting the insertion of the
affidavit, be had not seen the itccuitul of the trial.
Ile had ma:!e A charge against Mr. Gulch, at
Bi istol, for a libel, which fie did not substantiate,
because he was in Londun tit the tithe it came 00.
Mr. Ludlow, his Counsel, said, Ire would give
him notice, but he never did, and Mr. (hitch was
actpiitted iii consequence.
Mr. Charles Keeling. lived at No. 5, Budge-
row, and was not now in employ. Ile applied to
the tamp-office to know who WWI the pioprietor
of The Bristol Journal. The crt titivate was pro-
duced and read, by which it appeared that helix
Farley was the original proprietor,-anti that Mr.
Glitch was the present- proprietor. Witness saw
the instrument signed by the'COrtiolissioner.
‘Villiam Moore was next called, but did not
appear, and there being no proof that the lihel
css plitljiiied in London, as charged in the in-
tlic'nient, the itt4endatit was acquitted.
John Matthew Gulch was again indicted for hav-
ing !Hinted and published the following libel
against James Mills in London, on the 6th Fe-
binary, 11+19:
" To our trotters at home, Mr. Mills's chat-ac-
t • r is too well k 1105511 to need description, but nu-
~ant readers ought to be informed that he is a
modern political demagogue, and a great adyu.
rate fur the wide extension of the liberty of the
rrets. But we shall be indeed surprised, it tares
bitch conduct as this, if after another pioceedinv,
tt a similar description against other respectable
cititco's of Bristol. iu which he was disgraceluily,
uoirsoited, Mr. Mills should ever find himself at
t in 014 city. We will torbe+it to partieta-

larize H prnipcotiwt now pending be the same Pa-
ttiot Ahd t,,,,kr of the lii ilts of I\l4n, `tig,tinst
another te.nert4ltle foi• peti,ry. flow
bk.s•erl %Twill be ti,e etiects iti rei,thing modern
consistvtt in colidtt-t—ito,c nit•
livoitic. May tleaVeil aver'
c1,1411..1 y tram nod may it pirase to
visit the distant s'inres of America, the dernier
vet); t tin't asylum for otingee vitriots, and
no- bmger dist ot b the peaceable awl indtistricws
citizens nt i istol in the enjoyment of their good
ftitne, by bringing actions agnioit them which he
crwitnt stspintrt, ;nit prosecWions which
be is to ~,niwtinti,t(e.”

Chaitc, firehlig W,tS caliert anti gave evidence
to ilc ..ifect on the last indictment.

as also examined, awl vated
that he tv,i; be.id waiter at the Chapter (7
. lie pioved that he received Tice Thislol
Journol of the 6ls of February, but lie knew no-
thine of the Printer or Publisher of the Paper.—
Ile pris,htecd a the of papers, among which was
7he Bristol Joulnal of the 6th of •February.
Mr. BOLLAND observed; that there was 39 yet no
pr.ol of the libel being published in London.
Mr. 111i:ls.--1 can prove that a man has read it
.in London.

The COMMON SERGEANT—That will not do; we
milst have legal evidence, or none at all. it wool('
he hard indeed if the law allowed a man to be
dragged up from Bristol. to London, and to be con-
victed upon illegal testimony.
Dennii Hal %vas then called. He was agent to
Mr. Gutch at Bristol. Papers were occasionally
sent from the office to the Chapter Coffee-house,
but Ire could not tell whether the identical paper
produced was sent hone the office of 11r.. Glitch
at Br ittol.

Mr. Mills was asked, whether he had any more
witnesses to. call, and he replied that he had nt)t.
The 6iNilMoiN SEHGRANT.--7Then you have not
proved your case. There is no proof that the
libel was published in Londrin. •
Mr. Milk—l will call "no more witnesses; I
conceive myself to have been very hardly and Un-
justly treated. I came here not as a wit ness,. but
to address the Court.
The COMMON7SERGFANT.—L advise, you, for
your Own sake, Mr. Mills, not to hold that lan-
guage, or the Court will be compelled to deal
harshly with you.
'the proof not being sufficient, the defendant
was Acquitted by the Jury. •.
Mr. Milts during the trial was allowed to re-
main a? the Barrister's table, and was treated with.
every politeness.
the Spa-fields Orator, was in Court
-doting the whole time, and assisted Mr, Mills by
hii advice.