The Sun.
London, England, 1821-12-11 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE

COURT OF CHANCERY, DEC. 10.
BOLD V. STEWART.
The LORD CITANCELLOR decided that the injunction which
the plaintiffhad obtained to restrain the sheriff from proceeding
under an outlawry must be dissolved. He was.of opinion that
the Court of Exchequer only had jurisdiction to stay the execu-

Lion of an outlawry.
CARDEN V. BELL, BOLT, AND lIELSHAW.
Mr. HART said the defendant, John Bell, had many years
ago established a weekly newspaper, called "Bells Weekly
Messenger." Some time after the establishment of the paper,
Bell sold his right in two-thirds of the property' to the two de-
fendants, Holt and Helshaw. Bell afterwards entered -into a
contract with the plaintiff, by which it was agreed that Bell
should convey to the plaintiff for a consideration of 14001., one-
third of his remaining share, or one-ninth of the whole property
of the paper. An indenture was drawn- up to that effect, but
before it was signed the plaintiff was informed by Messrs. Holt
and Helshaw,n, that Bell was considerably indebted to them, by
reason of his; having overdraw the profits of his share, and also
having received advances of money from them. The plaintiff,
in consequence of this information, refused to complete the en-
gagement into which he had entered with Bell, Unless Messrs.
Holt and Helshaw'would undertake to relotise the share which
he was to purchase from all Claims and incumbrances, so as to
allow him to receive • immediate profits therefrom. That
pro-
position was finally acceded to by Messrs. Holt and Heishaw,
and the plaintiff became the proprietor of one-ninth of the paper.
The accounts of tike paper were made up weekly, and Messrs.
Helshaw took their share of the profits • but, in defiance of
their agreement, they refused to pay the Plaintiff any thing, on
• the ground that Bell was indebted to them. But, notwithstand-
ing, they refused to allow the plaintiff any -profits on his share,
they continued to pay Bell himself from time to time the pro-
fits on the shares -which he possessed. Under these circum-
stances, he applied to the Court to grant an injunction to re-
strain Messrs. Holt and Helshaw from paying to Bell any profits
arising from, his shares, which are subject to the claims of the
partnership.—The injunction was granted.
ILLEGITIMACY.--KNIGHT V. KNIGHT.
Mr. AGAR had-last Seal made a motion, having for its object
the closing of the commission appointed to examine witnesses
concerning the allegedlillegitimacy of the defendant, the supposed
son of the plaintiff: The counsel of the plaintiff upon that occa-
sion objected to the closing of the commission, on the ground
that several witnesses, whose evidence was believed tobematerial,
had not yet been examined. His Lordship difected the motion
to stand over till that day, . and desired the plaintiff in the in.:
terim to specify what witnesses he intended to examine, and
to state the reasons why
.he had not hitherto examined them.—
The plaintiff, who was in France, had not put in an affidavit,
but his solicitor, Mr. Fielder, had. In thif affidavit Mr. Fiel-
der stated his belief that the plaintiff wished to examine Mrs.
Portman, who, it was supposed, was residing in France for the
purpose of avoiding examination. Mr. Fielder further stated,..
that he believed ft was the intention of the plaintiff to examine se-
veral witnesses, who it waathought could give material evidence
to prove that the plaintiff could not have had intercourse with
his wife so as to be the father of the defendant. Those persons'
were waiters at a club-house, at which it. was said it was the
practice to enter the names of visiters in a book. He (Mr.
Agar) trusted the Court would not allow the commission to be
kept open longer upon such pretences. The club-house was
in town, and there was no reason why the weittis might not
have been examined long ago. A former commission had been
issued five years ago, which. the Court was compelled io order
to be dosed, after it had been long protracted by the plaintiff'.
The present commission was established in 1819. It would be
most unjust towards the plaintiff to permit the waiters to be
examined now, when it was not improbable that persons were
dead who might have contradicted their testimony. He had
heard his Lordship say, in a cause the name of which he could
not bring to mind, that 'nothing was more dangerous than to
permit a commission to. be kept open for the purpose of per-
petuating testimony'; mid he therefore felt little doubt that the
Court would see the propriety of closing that which had been
sued out by the plaintiff.
Mr. \WINGFIELD was for the plaintiff. He said that many
of the observations of his Learned Friend seemed to apply to the
former commission, rather than to that to which the attention of
the Court was then drawn.
The LORD CHANCELLOR asked whether the plaintiff had
examined any witnesses under the last commission.
Mr. WINGFIELD replied, that eight witnesses had been ex-
amined. In compliance with the direction of his Lordship, Mr.
Fielder, in his affidavit, had endeavoured to explain how it was
that the witnesses now proposed to be. examined had not before
been examined. Ile stated, that the plaintiff had deferred the
examination of the waiters until the return of Mrs. Portman
from France, because he Wished them to be examined together.
The waiters were employed at a club-house in Saint James's-
street, and he understood their evidence would shew that the
plaintiff was constantly resident in London at the time, when,
in order to render it probable that he was the father of the de-
fendant, he ought to have been with his Lady in Warwickshire.
If those witnesses should be shut out, great injustice would be
done to the plaintiff.
Mr. AGAR shortly replied. He stated that no witnesses had
been examined by the commission for the last two years. With
respect to Mrs. Portman, lie understood that she was only want-
'ed to prove the christening of the defendant; but that fact might
be ascertained by the examination of the clergyman who per-
formed the'•ceremony.
The LORD CHANCELLOR said, that commissions to per-
petuate evidence, though often necessary to the administra-
tion of justice, were extremely liable to be perverted to dan-
gerous purposes. In the case of a person who found his
title to an estate endangered by the birth of a child whom
he believed to be illegitimate, it was just that a commis-
sion should be issued. The commission would examine wit-
nesses,. whose evidence would not transpire until the time
should arrive when the plaintiff, supposing the legal title to be
in him, would take possession of the estate. So far the practise
was just and necessary. On the other hand, if a party chose to
advance a groundless charge. of illegitimacy, lie had nothing to
do but to file a bill, praying that he might be at liberty to exa-
mine witnesses by commission. The commission, after exa-
mining witnesses, would be shut up,' and never opened till the
title should accrue.- liiery witness might then be dead, and
although it might appear that all their evidence was false, yet
they would escape punishment for their perjury. It was abso-
lutely necessary that the Court should not permit a- commission
to be kept open for a longer period than the circumstances of
the case justified. In this country it was easy to find persons
who would—he was almost going to say, honestly—swear that
which was not true. Any person who had been as long in the
profession as he had, must know that it was possible, by talking
to certain persons, and particularly old people, to make them
swear to a story of which an hour before they did not know one
word. It was, therefore, extremely necessary that evidence
should be taken and recorded as promptly as possible. The
reasons which had been given for not having hitherto examined
the witnesses did not appear satisfactory. Under these circum-
stances, he felt it expedient to declare that the commission must
be dosed on theist of February next, with liberty to the plain-
tiff to make a case for the examination of Mrs. Portman, if
she should return to thii country after that time.

VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT, DEC. 10.
None of the motions which were made before his Honour to.
day possessed any particular interest.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, DEc.
Before the Loan CH OBIUSTICE
KI an
N d
G. a Special Jury.
LIBEL THE
THE KING V. NATHANIEL HIGHMOILE•
This was an information filed by the Attorney-General for
a scandalous and seditious libel upon the person of ins present
Majesty.
Mr. SHEPHERD opened the pleadings.
The ATTORNEY-OENERAL addressed the Jury on the part
of the prosecution. This was an information which he had
been reluctantlyobliged in the performance of his duty to file
against the Defendant, for an extremely gross libel on his Ma-
jesty. The defendant was a clergyman, who some time ago
received a pension out of the relenues of the Duchy of Corn-
wall, but for some reason not necessary for him to state, that
had been withdrawn, and since that time the defendant, for-
getting the respect due to his Sovereign, and the duty of a good
subject, particularly from one of his profession, had conducted
himself in such a manner as had obliged the Law Officers of
the Crown to take notice of him. In the month of NI ay last,
the defendant delivered with his own hand, at Warwick House,
a letter addressed to Sir Benjamin Blooinfidd, containing e
grossestliba on his Majesty, and in that ktter he had enclosed

rcdouteihieedliibnelthreae idn,ositlediswreasspveetferyulsutrerne
there
could be but. one opinion on it, and that the verdict of the Jury
would convince the defendant that he must abstain from such
Conduct in future. He should make no further observation :he
should read the libel, and prove the publication by the defend-
ant, which would entitle him to their verdict.
The first witness called was
Thomas
• Gates, one of his Majesty's footmen—He remem-
bered receiving a letter on the 9th May last at Warwick House,
addressed to Sir Beniamin Bloomfield. It appeared to contain
enclosures. The claw-idea gave his card with it. Witness
marked the letter so as to know it again, and then put it in Sir
Benjamin Bloomfield's private box. Sir Benjamin was at that
time absent, but witness delivered it to him on his return on
the same day. Witness saw‘the box opened, and the letter
taken out by Sir Benjamin. Witness attended at Bow-street,
and heard the defendant examined ; he acknowledged the letter
to be in his hand-venting. .
Sir Benjamin 'Bloomfield,. Private Secretary to his Majesty,
examinedaa-Witness received the packet now put in his hands
on the 9th May last, and on breaking open the seal he found
the papers now enclosed. The defendant acknowledged at
Bow-street that it v•!•ts hts hand-writing.
Cross-examined by. the • dellaadant.=-Wittiess did not recol-
lect the defendant waiting oit him et-Carlton Hot/emir:. 7 flll or
any conversation passing at that time on the subject of thelde-
fendant's petition. He had many conversations on the subject,
but does not recollect communicating to the defendant that he
had shewn the petition to Mr. Adam, his Rhyal High-
ness's legal adviser, and, stating that there was no objection to
presenting it at the levee, though such a conversation might
take place. Witness had no doubt he might have referred the
defendant to Colonel M‘Mahon, if it were during the time that
the Co'...)nel was in office. Ile was certain he had never said
that he entertained no doubt of the justice of the defendant's
claim,. because he always did entertain doubts on the subject,
and dd so still. He might have said he wished the defendant
to make out his claim as far as he was entitled to do so.
The libel was then read by the Officer of the Court. It
was a letter, dated Surrey-street, May 5, 1821, addressed to Sir
Benjamin Bloomfield, Private Secretary to his Majesty, 'and
stated that as his Majesty had by his conduct shewn the most
unjust treatment to an individual, and dishonoured his royal
word, he must not be surprised if the terms used in the or
es di
of
-
nary transactions of society were applied to such breach
moral duties. The letter of Sir Benjamin Bloomfield contain-
ed another, addressed to " The Most Ignoble, the Lying and
Cheating Duke of Cornwall, K.G. since become George the
Fourth, Carlton Palace."
The Defendant then addressed the Court and Jury. He
went into an extensive review of the ecclesiastical laws of the
kingdom, from the earliest periods, and contended that every
ecclesiastical person had a right to petition his Majesty, as
head of the church. Upon that undoubted privilege he had
acted ; and he trusted he should be able to make it appear, in
the course of his defence, that he was entirely innocent of that
which was laid to his charge—of intending to cast any slur
upon the character of the King. Ile then went into a short
history of his early life, which he read from a printed volume*
which he held in his hand. He stated, that from the degree of
Doctor of Civil Laws, which he had taken after eleven years
study at the University of Cambridge, lie was entitled to prac-
tise as an advocate in the Ecclesiastical Courts ; but the Arch-
bishop of Canterbury would not grant him a license, on the
ground that he was a clergyman—whicla he conten
the ded, sounda-
fa
from being a cause of exception against him, was for
tion of his right. Ile had requested to be heard, but the Arch-
bishop had declined acquiescing in his request. He
no then ap-
plied to the Court of King's Bench, but could obtain relief'.
Thereupon he presented a petition to the Prince Regent.—
He apprehended that he could shew that by the Canon Law,
by Charter, and by Act of Parliament, he was entitled to
the privileges which lie had claimed, and he had applied to
the sovereign authority to have a hearing granted him. He
received an answer through the medium of the Private Secre.
tary to his Royal Highness, promising that something should
be done on his behalf. rrhe defendant then went into
a minute detail of the fate of his Petition, which appeared
from his statement to - have been referred to the Lord Chan-
cellor, who reported thereon unfavourably to the poolf
Mr. the
defendant. He afterwards applied to Lord Liv,
Perceval, and other official personages, for a remuneration for
the injury which he had sustained in not having his case heard.
He then commented on the mode of proceeding adopted against
him on the present occasion. Had the ordinary proceeding by
indictment been adopted, the matter must have gone before a
Grand Jury, when if the alleged libel had been submitted to
them by itself, there is no doubt they would have concluded the
writer was insane but if the transactions of the last ten years
had been submitted to them, they would have ignored the bill.
He also contended that there was no publication in the present
case. The letter was enclosed and addressed to his Majesty's
Private Secretary. In the case of a private individual a letter
addressed to himself would be no publication. The address to
the Private Secretary, and " private" marked on the letter,
was in effect addressing R to his Majesty himself.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL briefly replied. He thought
that not a syllable of the long address of four hours which the
defendant had addressed to the Court and Jury, was at all ap-
plicable to the professed object of it, which was, to justify
himself from this gross and scandalous libel. He had ap-
plied to his Majesty for what, according to his own shew-.
mg, lie had no right to obtain. The defendant had
his tal
owkedn
of the promise of his Majesty, but it was plain from
statement that his Majesty had made no promise. All that the
King had done was to receive the petition graciously.
to a The Grand
de.
fendant had said that if the libel had been presented
Jury, they would have ignored the bill, on the presumption that
the writer must be insane, and indeed he could scarcely differ
from him, as it was difficult to account for the defendant'snt' con-
duct on any other ground ; thus much he would say, coul
he have restrained the defendant, and have protected his Ma-
jesty from continual insults in any other way, the present pro-
secution would not have been instituted.
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE summed up the evidence to
the Jury. He observed that hisreluctance to
ant interrupta dd a
rde-
fence had induced him to permiret the defend to
them with much that was irrelevant to the case. As to the
publication of the letter in luestion, that was legally completed
by the sending it to Sir Benjamin Bloomfield ; that iaapplied to
his Majesty no one could doubt, and it was his duty to tell the
Jury that it was a gross and scandalous libel.
The Jury consulted together for a few moments, after which
they returned a verdict of GUILTY, with a recommendation to
mercy. ti
The defendant—" My Lord, I stand here for jus ce, not
mercyT."
h e LoRD CHIEF JUSTICE --
already."

." Sir, you have been heard

COMMON JURY.
PAYNE V. WILLIAM JONES, ESQ.
This was an recover y the plaintiff, late a Sheriff's officer of
Dorsetshire, to a sum of 931. for his expence and trouble
in apprehending a person named Henry White Parsons, who
had escaped from the custody of the defendant, Marshal of the
King's Bench Prison.
Mr. NIARRYATT and Mr. LONG conducted the plaintiff's
case, and Mr. GURNEY" and Mr. CA MPBELL the defendant's.
The ptintiff made out a strong prima facie case to shew that
the Marshall had promised to give him ten gthneas, and pay all
Be expenses upon lodging Parsons in custody at the King's
Bench Prison. He proved by three witnesses that he had tra-
velled upwards of 300 miles after Parsons, and at length suc-
ceeded in lodging him in custody.
The defence on the part of the Marshal was, that the plain-
tiff's case was founded in fraud, imposition, and perjury, and
that he had, in fact, been paid all that he had. demanded, before
action brought. It was proved that the plaintiff had apprehend-
ed Parsons first on a bailable warrant, and received 51. from the
Marshal for his trouble, with which he seemed perfectly satis-
fied ; that he again apprehended him on a Judges warrant,and
brought him to London, and made out a bill for 241., which the
Marshal immediately paid, and the plaintiff appeared satisfied
and grateful; that the plaintifflived only three miles from where
Parsons resided, in Dorsetsbire, and that he might have appre-
hended him at any moment without any trouble whatever : and
that e had offered Parsons a moiety oi what should rechver
in this action, provided he (Parsons) assistedhe him in making
out his case.
The case went to the Jnry under the Learned Judge's direc-
tions, and they found their verdict for the defendant.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, DEC. 10.
BEER AND OTHERS V. WARD.
At the sitting of the Court this morning, Air. SOLICITOR-
GE ERAI. addressed the Jury in reply, on the part of the plain-
tiffs. After observing on the eviderice which had been adduced
on both sides, and the contradictory statements which had been
given by the different witnesses, he proceeded to account for

that circumstance by the length of time which had elapsed since
the marriage of the parties, and the birth of those children
whose legitimacy was now disputed.—He then alluded to the
deeds which Rowland Cotton and Wm. Cotton, sen., had en-
tered into after the former gentleman had become acquainted
with the marriage of his son, and to the oth doercuments. The
marriage of Fledborough, hei contended, had not been satisfac-
torily proved, and the Jury would not suffer the property to be
.taken away from these ladies unless the case for the defendant
had been proved almost to demonstration.
Lord Chief-Justice DALLAS then charged the Jtry. After
having summed up the evidence at great length, he proceeded t
aft that hew as both unable and unwilling atthis late hour, and
after the Jury had been employed for nearly four days in the
investigation of this case, to trouble them witivmanygobserva-
dons. The question they had to determine was whether Wni.
Cotton (whom for distinction he should call the lunHe atic had no had been
e-'
born before or after the marriage of his parents ?h
sitatiou in saying that from the deeds and instruments of Mr.
Rowland Cotton, and Win. Cotton, which had been produced,
the plaintiff's bad made out a very strong case. Howhad this been
answered on .the part of the defendant; ? By the reputation of
the family and of the neighbourhood, but especially by the pro-
duction of a certificate uponavhich the question for their
consi-
deration would ultimately turn. His Lordship here entered into
a review of thedeeds and documents brought forward in evidence,
and observed upon the testimony respecting the certificate of
the marriage, and the affidavit made to obtain the licence. Be-
tween the opposing testimony the Jury were to decide by their
own judgment, assis fed with the other facts and circumstances dis-
closed in the cause. He could not help- observing, that although
the plaintiff's Counsel had strongly insisted. upon a marriage
having been celebrated before the birth of the lunatic, they had
nevertheless not even once attempted to give any evidence
whatever of such a marriage. It was clear, too, that whether.
the parties had really been married or not, they had at one dine
lived together as persons illicitly cohabiting ; and the very letter
which theplaintes had relied on proved this circumstance: for
Wm. Cotton, in that letter, addressing Mr. Richardson, the cler.
ym an , andiroritin g him to his house, had said, " I assure you she
is my wife, although I suffer her at present not to be so esteemed;
and had alleged as a reason for this conduct, that an open
avowal of his marriage would be detrimental to his interest.
The Jury had now the facts fully before them, and on those
facts they had to decide a que§tion which, considered in any
point of view, was important. After severely commenting on
the conduct of Mr. Ward, for having so long delayed he
t in-
vestigation-of this question, by which delay
.witnesses who might
have been:produced (if the trial had been instituted in 1795 on
the death of. Mr. Evelyn and Cotton) hadth beenn prevente Jury fm
from
giving the}` testimony, he concluded by ig the or
the patience and attention they had so well exercised during this
long and laborious research, and by recommending them to re-,
tire to consider of a verdict on which so much depended not
only with respect to the interest, but also to the honour of the
parties.
The Jury retired for about ten minutes, and then returned
with a verdict for the defendant, by which the illegitimacy of
Wm. Cotton, the lunatic, is established.