The Sun.
London, England, 1810-07-11 00:00:00

- TIM ICING V. rINi4ERTY.

Mr. CURWOOD Moved to have the trial in this case
postponed till the Sittings after next Term; on the
ground of the absence of material witnesses; for the
defendant ; among others, on account of the absence,
in Ireland, of Mr. Ponsonby, Mr. Foster, &c. He
moved this., on amended affidavits, stating lbese
Gentlemen to be Material• witnesses to prove many
of the fads in the application. Mr. Curwood.ob-
served, that in the present indiatment, the usual
prance of setting out particular parisof the publica-
tion as libellous was, not adopted, but the whole
publication, consisting of many folios, was given.
'l'he publication' commenced with stating the appre-
hensisin of the defendant on his proceeeding-wit h the
expedition to Walchereo,where he had gone with the
view of writing 4nd publishing a narrinise of. the ex-
pedition ; and then proceeds to express .his convic-
tion that this had proceeded from personal animosity
entertained against him by Lord Castlereagh ; a sus-
picion which ,he goes on to justify by a statement of
fads. It would, therefore, be a question with the
jury, whether these circumstances, stated as faEls;
were true or false; for, upon their truth or false-
hood,.must the malignity of the-libel, and, of course,
the innocence or guilt of the defendant depend.
Lord ELLENBORpUGH said, if the publication was
calumnious, the Judge and Jury could not care as to
the truth of it.

Mr. CUR%VOOD conceived that the question would
be, if it was calumnious. If the facts were true,
and the language in which they were stated was
temperate, he conceived the publication could only
be regarded as a discussion of public measures, or of
the acts of Ministers,' which could not be denied to
the public of this country, without trenching on the
liberty of the press, so essential to a flee state.:
Therefore, to prove the facts stated in the publica-
tion, the presence .of the witnesses enumerated in
the affidavits was material.

Lord ELL'ENBOROUGH said, the calumnious nature
of the Oublication had nothing to do with the facts.
As he now understood it, the publication charged
Lord Castlereagh with employing the powers of hts
office in executing his own private purposes of -re-
venge. If :inch was the nature of the assertion,
there could be no doubt of the calumny. The. truth
or falsehOod of the charge was not at issue, and
cool(' have no eff,tt- on it.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL hod no obje&ion to
the question being put to Lord Castlereagh himself ;
buit mild farther, he could inform the Learned Gen-
tlediaii, that Lord Castlereagh knew nothing of the.
preventingorder for. Mr. Finnerty from accompany-
jug' the expedition till after it had b.ten issued.
Mr. FINNERTY presented himself to the attention
Of the Court, but

- Lord ELLEN BOROUGH told him, they-had already
heard him by his Counsel:
- The application for postponing the trial. was.ac
.
eordingly refused.

SURRY THEATRE RIOTERS.

On an application to the Court, to Make the. Rule
absolute winch was obtained on Tuet.fay last for a,
criminal information against Messrs. Slater, *Sarel,.
and Barrett, Mr. Park moved to have theßuile
larged till next term on the patt of .MeSS.IS. Slater
and Sarel. Mr. Park stated that 'those . defendants
had not been served with a copy of tl,:e affidav,ii.s
till Thursday they then called a ineeting,of, per-
sons who had been witnesses of their condd'a at the.
Theatre, but only four attended. The affidavits tor
the prosecution were of immense length, end_tc was
impossiblesto colle& the affidavits in answer soon
enough to be in time. I
Lord ELLENBOROUGH..--." They don't want a
multitude of affidavits. If 'they could, they might.
bring a plain denial of the charge,' and we would
have attended to their request for enlarging the pre-
sent rule. There 'has been obviously a tumult, and
they ought to have given some satisfa4tion to the
Court on that subject."
Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL:" My Lord, the rule.
was founded on fa6ts, and they might -have been
answered in a moment, if they could have beenan-
swered at all. r hese fads were, they declared on
one night 'that they would bring a party to disturb
the Theatre. On that night they did disturb it : on
another'night they proclaimed their intention of let-
ting the Theatre remain quiet ; and on that night
there was no tumult, according to their declara-
tion."

Mr. PARK.--" Your Lordship will, perhaps, en-
large the rule till to-morrow."
Lord ELLENBOROUGH.—" That would be in ef-
fe& to grant the enlargement till next term."
Rule made absolute.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS,-juLY 9.
WHEATLET Z. WALTON, AND OTHERS.

In this' case Mr. Serjeant BEST sheaved cause
against a Rule, obtained by Mr. Serjeant Shepherd,
jto enter ud.2,rnent as in case of nonsuit.
It appeared that the a&ion was tried in the City ; it
.was upon a policy of 'insurance, in which the plain-
tiff recovered damages against the defendants. Mr.
Serjeant Shepherd, however, in moving for his Rule,
contended' that the plaintiff had negleated to. comply
with the legal stipulations which would entitle him
to' a verdiEt ; and on reference to the A6t, the pro-
priety of- the arguments on the part of the defend-
ants were fully admitted.
• Mr. Serjeant BEST exerted his ingenuity in adduc-
ing the :most specious sophistries; but, it had' not
the desired effeet, as it was impossible to. -decide
in his favour without repealing the Mt.cif Par-
liament. - •

Mr. Serjeant SHEPHERD'S Rule was therefore
made absolute. _

COURT OF ARCHES, DOCTORS COMMONS,

MONDAY, JULY 9.

ANDREWS, APPELLANT, AGAINST BONE, RESPON-

DENT.

This Oas originally a cause of the offide of the
Judge, voluntarily promoted by Loveday Bone, wife.
of Wm. Bone, of Plymouth Dock, in the County of
Devon, against GraCe Andrews, by reason of adul-
tery, alleged to have been committed with the said I
William Bone, her husband, It appeared that the
.COnsistorial Court of Exeter admitted the allegation
in this cause, froth which admission Grace Andrews
prosecuted an appeal,
On the part of • the Appellant it was contended