The Sun.
London, England, 1829-11-19 00:00:00

[silt, which be hoped they would well consider before
they passed sentence upon the defendants. The latter had
eertainly promised the Society that they would desist from
the sale if the prosecution were abandoned, but that the
Society gave them no answer as to their intentions, and
kept the prosecution /a terrorem over their heads, which
reduced them to despair, and may account for continuing
the sale. At present, however, they begged humbly to
Submit to any terms the Society might impose, and to any
s'curity that the Court might think proper to order, that
they would not continue the publication.
Mr. Justice BAILIT delivered the sentence of the Court.
No.man, he observed, could look at the publications in
question and say that they would not produce the
Worst effects on the morals of society. The Court
had well considered the affidavits in mitigation. It
appeared that the defendants had wives and families.—
How such a crime would outrage the feelings of a wife,
who felt as she ought, he need not mention ; but what
could the defendants say in respect to their daughters, who
were, perhaps, on some future day, to be corruptad
through the instrumentality of these works, and perhaps
have to thank their respective fathers for the dreadful
situation in which they may be placed. The defendants
had said that they were in bad health ; but it would be
Well for persons in that situation to consider what such a
state might end in. The sentence of the Court was, that
the defendants be severally fined in the penalty of 501.
each; to be each imprisoned, for the space of 'six calendar
Months, in the House of Correction, Coldbath-fields ; to
give securities, themselves in the sum of 2001. each, and to
end, two securities, each in the sum of 501. ; and to be
further imprisoned till these fines he paid, and these secu-
rities provided for their good behaviour for two years.

' THE KING V. CLAPHAM.
The SOLICITOR-Guxxuar. moved the judgment of the
COurt upon John Clapham, who was convicted at the last
sittings in Guildhall of obtaining his certificate to practice
% Member of the Apothecaries Company, by the false
"Presentation that he was of the age of twenty-one at his
examination. The defendant was convicted on the evi-
dence, in cross examination, on the trial of Cooper and
IVakley in this place.
The defendant put in a great number of affidavits from
Clergymen magistrates, private gentlemen, and surgeons of
*neiglibourhood of Thorney, who all spoke in the highest
terms of the defendant's moral integrity, and stated that
Athe'f'l4*.of the defendant has a family of nine children
-liendant on his exertions, and that at the time when the
defendant obtained his certificate, his father was labouring
ender a dangerous fit of illness.
AtMr. BitOCCHAM (who was followed by Mr. KELLY;)
re"edw. the Court at some length, in mitigation of pu-
t,' —lent- He suisruitted that the defendant never corthl
Ire 'Nen convicted of this offence, if it had not been for
;,.°,w° integrity in admitting on the trial of Cooper v.
• a`leY, the fact for whictr he was tried. It was the only
af:stance
beingM Brougham) had ever known of a de-
:dant convicted solely upon his own evidence. The
Irld had lost nothing by the defendant's being admitted
' before he was twenty-one, as it appeared from the testi-
),.tnunials produced, that he was possessed of as much skill as
":°'lstudents of a more advanced age. The Court would
auk) look at that section of the Act which allowed chemists
,
a 44 wives, or children to prepare prescriptions, without
tiltreoing any examination or any test, which could show
tueY possessed more knowledge than the footman who
"'lied out the medicines.
The ATTORNEY-GENE/tat, (with whom was Mr. For.-
1/2t), in reply, denied that he had any intention to advise
-I"secution when he was cross-examining the defendant
athe trial of Cooper v. Wakley. He had never advised
but it fell into his hands as Counsel, accidentally. He
°w"er, defended the Company of Apothecaries from all
-°ll24tation of blame or malice, but said that they had been
bilT actuated by a sense of duty to the public.
„,'• Justice BAILEY in passing sentence, observed, that
glitill4n with any thing like right feelings, could Lave sub-
he titl to such means of obtaining his certificate. It was
Pet'uY of the Clurt to see that such impostors slidlnot
e a •
...24e with impunity, and they must therefore pass a
-v-vre sentence.
.InTpritientence of the Court was, that the defendant be
term —necl in his Majesty's gaol at Huntingdon, for the
of six calendar months.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.
At Barti,e sitting of the Court, a gentleman behind the
pet aPPlied on behalf of an attorney, to have a fine of 51.
applied
him. It appeared from the affidavit, that the
Rentieruan on whose behalf this application was made, is
I: attorney of the Court of King's Bench, and was sum-
-B?ed, to attend as a Jurytnan at the last Old Bailey
-erm
"I--he neglected to attend to the summons, consi-
_
bat ~.g,tLnat as a practising attorney he was privileged, and
tiiif"aule to serve. The presiding Judge howeyer thought
ti !rent, anti fined him 61., which he hd paid to the
tonlidierm-.Sheriff, and now prayed that it might be returned
ThebeinT t,R7 wished fur an affidavit of the fact, of his
to at the time a practising attorney, before they made
,IY order--an
end directed the motion to start over until
tind Was don.