The Sun.
London, England, 1819-07-06 00:00:00

LAW IN rELLIGENCE.

COITBT OF KING'S BENCH, ,TtTLY 5.

adj,,nrned Sittings after Trin;fr Term befos4
Chief Justice and Special Juries.

THP KING V. JOHN DYNELEY, EPI.I. -SAME V. .THE'
C. S. LAW.-SANE U. HENRY "WHOTTHSLEY,
hPse cases, in which Mr. Henry Bruce, the
:,t•n•y clothier, 1N RS the prosecutor, having been.
I,,,,tpotted until this day, came o►► according. tti
atp.,inttlient.

pa.

Tilt first case lasted from balf.:past nine—. in the
n.iining until near five in the evening. 11 -was
against Mr. Dyneley; a Coniiitissiiiner
/.. Bankrtipts, for alleged wilful and corrupt per-
jtt, , assigned Upon an' afiidsl's'irttiide iii the Corrt
,Chancery, tonellingthe prosecutor's
_conduct
1.).•h4e the Consmissionet-s mitne-din a Coi'untiisiOn
- •
of Bankrupt awarded 'agaihst hint and gentlemen
of the name of Brown —the
asgign-
ments of perjury were founded -tipon-eniliiteral and
• minute points stated in the ainClavit at question:.
The-prokocutor:renewesl.hi.i.laiin, as hi: former
cases,
.to4he privilege of !addressing the :fury, but
the decision of the Court was as hefore. Beverai
witnesses ‘r..ef•fxaMined iu`suPPort of thi.indict-*
• tnent ;- but the.:eFidence iii.provjpg
the case, -the: prosecutor sugg.esting,..a Vast Bum:.
• her, of questions...which..the,eltiel Justice held to
•be itrelavetst, irregular, B,4ti,dregal in tLeir form..
--The case. for tkeprosecsjtion,hciog.cioscd,
M. SCARLETT asked the Juty, ;whether :they_
t ho•ight itn-neeessarriztrliitn to.address them an,
of the defendadt 1
The Jury tied ttl,— a:ti:tat they were unani-
Inously- ort fro- theig was tni.-pretenee'
thereforefound thi'de-;
fendatit' Not. atilt' 31. ; •

After the sense -elatiesse'd ilie7nrytifitni:this
cif the, derenitoneetined' proceeding in 110-
others', and the impattnelled-
ail(' sworn, they secttrolly,and respectively found
the other Gentlemen :Bot

SHERiFF'S COURT, BEDlibilD-ROW, JULY S. •

B EL.—CSinciil Jury.)

TtIE REV. nictrAun HAYES V. REYNOLDS. .

11Ir. CHITTY opened the pleadings in this case.
It was an ac bore to recover compensation in dts-
tnages for a libel published in a periodical Work,
. entitled " The Literli'y Journal," whiclrcharged:
the plaintiff with grass "and immoral conduct-while
resident at Rome. The dainages were' laid at
5000/. The defendant bad suffered judgment to
go by default.
Mr. Baoocalam addressed the Jury On the na.
flirt of the libel whicill had been shortly opened.
by his Learned Frittid. 'The defendant having
'mitered judgment to g 6 by default, it Only re-
mained with them to• assess the damages.: The
circumstances which gave rise to the libel were:
these :—Mr. Hayes was a Catholic clergyman of
great respectability among- the members of his
own chtoeh, and was also held in high estima-
tion by persons of oppOsite sects. He was 'a•na-
. tive of Wexford, and was educated at . Rome,
where he received ordioatiorc. In tottsevence
of the troubles which affected that part of the
world, he returned to' hisown-coant ry,and was ap-4
pointed 'to the spirituat charge of a cOngregation to
whom, as well as to every other person who had an
opportunity of knoWing him, hegave thellighest sa-
tisfaction. It would be recollerted, that in conse= '
quence of the Pope's rescript at Genoa, Meinsieur
QourantOtti, by his direction, 'wrote to the Irish •
Catholics, permitting them tzi accept the yetis in
case that power should be required by the
,CroWn, as a conditional security for the remoral
of their ci(il 'disabilities; • This permissinn ex
cited a considerable degree of diisatistaction
among the great body of the Catholics of Irelarid,
while with others i't was considered asextremely
desirable. The plaintiff teal filially chosen by lhe
opponents of the measure as their delegate,'to, go
to Rome, and remonstrate with the Pope on 'the I
inipolicy of the concession ; and in allusion to his
conduct 'while engaged in this•mission, the pre-
sent libel was published. ' The publication took
place in the 31st number'of The Literary Journal,
and was. entitled, "An authentic account of the
proceedings of the Friar, RiChard•Hayes,lthe Irish
Ca tholic 'Delegate at Rome." The article 'com-
menced by adverting .to the circumstances under
which Mr. Hayes had gone to flame ; and then
proceeded to give that it stated to.be an account,
from the tudSt 'euthentic source, of the inatiner in
which Mr. Reyes had conducted himself. It
stated that he It.id personally insulted the Pope,
and charged him with having' Sold himself, as far
aR regarded Ireland, 'to the English GoveCtiment.
That he was seldom sten in his secular dress, and
frequented coffee-houses and houses of public
prostitution. That he resisted the orders Of the.
c4ortunosent, and bad introduced abandOned
Men into the convent of S. isidor. That be locked
himself up in the convent, having improperly oh-. •
tallied possession of the keys, and was at 'length
tethoved only by a stratagem 'of the police, who
obtained admission by a secret door ; and that he
was at length removed by force from the Pontifi-
territoiy, under an escort of carbiniers, who
conveyed hitt' to Tnscany, where they set hits at
liberty; and from whence, through Plorence, he I
had returned to Ireland. • l

Aothciny neyler, stated, that the plain-
tiff. Catholic Clergyman ; that he was in
the habit of celebrating mass at Wexford, in Ire-
land', and was a man of excellent moral 'reputa-
(inn.

On his cross-examination he said, he had not
known that the plaintiff had been in this country
pfevionslii to the attack made upon his character
by ;his .libel, and that be had never heard front
the plaintiff of any other actions pending.
A Juryman asked whether, if the libel was true,
the-plaintiff wouldlose his situation ; because, as
the damages were laid at 5,0001., it would be ne-
cessary for the Jury- to be able to estimate the
injury that might be actually sustained.
Witness stated, that,' in the plaint ill's situation,
character was every thing:' One of the principal
d.tries the plaintiff had to perform was that of
receiving confession, and it was not probable that

confidence would be feposeerin One who lay nodes
heavy imputations.,
. .•Tbe Rev. Peter Gandolphy deposed, that he Inas
at Rome Six niontbs during the plaintiff's stay
th.,re, Find that be never heard a word of suqpi-
Rjun againsrhis moral character. Witness consi-
dered the attack upon plaintiff as-a most base and
tnrilicious libel, destrUctive of the character of any
dt.e2ytnaii, and be bad beird it much spoken of.
Oit hisrcross-elarhinatiOn,- witness said, he had
frekittentiTconversed..with Mr. Hayes, but never
heard of or tier actions pending.
A Jitryman.—" Will you answer ore candidly
Mr. Gdtnlol],lry; is nit simple adtdiery comatuta•
ble in rlictatholic Church ?"
Gintiolphy.—‘.` Adultery committable 1. I
ja impossible for me to guess at your meaning."
Jut Is it not commuted by penance ?'
t..,i4ndolplay, in .gcreat surpise, said " Cer
tainly not::

Nor by confession ?"
.Nl.r,*ti-amtmlyli,y.--" N. Confession is a species
of repentance, ,a.nd ceitainly has not the quality
.of clinmzi,n,g,onecritne into another."
jurynni”),--,-V,4l;yoti be kind enough to tell us
trupeachtuetit of moral character. adultery is
cousithied in the Catholic Church ?"

Mr.:Gandolphy said, mildly, it was considered
.as

••211.1r, Wir.i.tasls spoke for tbe defenee. The action
had, he said, beck brought, nut upon: legal, but
`classical authority. rr he learned Friar had followed
the plan 'of it great Epial'oei, Whose hero, for a
fallen' triend; sacrificed twelte fellow-creatures.
'The
,plaintiff;•bow'eVer, was more nibderate, being
content sacrifice six hooksellerslo the manes
()fills departed character.. The comments,' after
etl all, wet e, heelard, but of a' public nature.;
„
and did the Friar expect: that When he Was•going
upon the rnissidn'io' Home,- he could-appear in
that •". 'bad Oultience" without' being subject to
obSerVarion, •and that-he 'Could swagger
about cityas he Might bate done
at hi 4 Iteiliiiiade iu Wexford, witheot being liable
tht fate-or 'all public men, 'who,. generally
iVOnld 'rather' be—noticed' in the IFM•
girag of abuse' titan not noticed 'at" all, Whoie
daily, food Wai'tne Public talk, and whose retiring
frotn it odd belikeThat of a titan who gave An),
accustutued drink of !brandy for :simple water.
The plaintiffbatront'been forced, he had obtruded
himself, into public view. The libel was tempe-
rate, and had the appearance of being true. The
detem!ant had given up all idea of justifying, for
that Might' fix upon 'hint an expence which he
Would-by n'd tneiMS.be' able to defray. -lie was
,
only desirous of escaping'froin, a diletntna into
wLiCh lie had inadvertently fallen in the course
of a busihrsi- beset with snares. The learned
Counsel' ikesu spolte of the absurdity of think-
ing that 'publishers were responsible for every
thing' That 'appeared in the papers. He begged
the Jury ik•ould suppose that a Greek or Latin
note were introduced in a walk, charging a per-
son •with having stolen a book out of a Noble-
man's libia'ry, and that the bookseller 'was unac-
quainted :With the language, was the bookseller
to be punished for biting sold the book
• The Attorney Air the plaintiff here started up,
and said, he had offered to drop proceedings upon
eondition that, the author should be! gken up.

Mr. WILIAAM3 said, it was a contemptible
farce to'tilk 'of. giving up the author ; and that if
'booksellers" were liable to actions of this kin 1,
they could not sell a bobk without having an at-
torney on' one side and a barriiter at the other.
He hoped that datn4:es tnefely nominal would be
given, a 3 the troth ot the libel was.tO be tried on
a future day; when• the Friar would, if proved
false, have his revenge." •
Mr.Baoti6Flam said„ the Attorney for the piain-
tiff, who knew all ationt'. the. lini!ueis; 'might be
examined as ici.thi inteition to"bi•tug other ac-
tions.

Air. WILLIAIOI3 did not calf I;im
The Jtdy -aivessed the damiges at 51.

_ .
MIDDLESP.M SESSIONS,

•
The above Sessions commenced yesterday, at
Hicks's Hall, before F. CONST, Esq. Chairman,
and a Bench of Magistrates. , •

ASSAULT BY A CONSTAB,LE.

Thomas Cooper was indicted for. an assault upon
John Simpson,and Sarah his wife.
•. Mr. BARRY, ,'Counsel for the prosecution,
:opened the case by stating that. the parties lived
in Bethnal-green, and that, the prisoner was
a- constable ; in consequence of the latter
having used slanderous language, imputing infide-
lity to the prosecutrix, she, with ber busb3nd,
went to the :iiirisi,nrer"s shop to reproach him for
his conduct, when he took down 'his Staff, and in-
flicted three desperate _wounds upon' her head,
which at length rendered her senseless, by the
,great toss. of blood. The prc'ise'cutor,in running
to save. his wile,' was alio attacked by the pri-
soner, who, with ,both his hands to the staff, in-
flicted a dreadful Wonod on his head, 'which
•hint to the_ earth.. The prosecutor's head bore
convincing proofs of the injUrysliehad received.
In support of the above case, the Learned Coun-
sel called a host of witnesses, wli.o clearly proved
the assalt.
ANORRIVS, Counsel for the defence, also
called several Witnesses to invalidate the above
evidence ; but the Jury, after a short conversa-
tion, pronounced a verdict of Guilty ; and the
Court sentenced him to pay a fine of 10/. for the
assault on the prosecutrix, and st. for that upon
the Frosectuor.

No other case of the least interest to the pub.
lic occurred.'