The Sun.
London, England, 1820-03-29 00:00:00

THIC KING V. JOHN CAHUAC.

This was an information filed by the Attorney.
General against the defendant, a pamplet seller,
residing at 53, Blackman-street, in the Borough,
for publishing, on the 3d of September List, a
seditious libel contained in No. 2 of the
poblican," in the form of a letter addressed to his
Majesty, when Prince Regent, concerning the
transactions at Mancher er on the 16th ut August,
reflecting upon his Majt.sty, and on the constitu-
tion of the country as by law established.
The prosecution was conducted by the same
Learned Counsel as in the last case.
Mr. Sergeant OssLow, in stating the case, ad-
verted to the excuse which had been pleaded by
the defendant its the last case for publishing the
libel, namely, his poverty ; and said, that it was
just as good an excuse as that of Romeo's Apothe-
cary, for selling poison—that his poverty, and
not his will, consented. The Learned Sergeant,
speakint of the meeting at Manchester, said, that
no mats, however strong his political feelings, had
ever yet been so hardy as to contend that that
was a legal meeting.
George Oddy proved that he had purchased the
pamphlet in question at the defendant's shop on
the 3d of September last,"
Cross-examined.—The defendant is a booksel-
ler in the general way io'Blackman-street, in the
Borough.
The libel being read by the officer of the Conti,
the case on the part of the Crown was closed.

The defendant then read a written defence to
the Jury, in which he urged his innocence of any
intention to publish the libel as charged in the
declaration. He hail merely sold the pamphlet in
question in the general way of his business as a
bookseller, without ever having lead it. As a
bookseller, he sold pamphlets on all questions,
whether opposed r, or favourable to Government.
He compkined that he should have been selected
for prosecution as the mere vender of the libel,
when the author of it was known, and had gone
unpunished ; and instanced the cases of Mr. Hob-
house and Sir Francis Burdett, in both which the
publishers of the alleged libels were nut prosecut-
ed. In the one case Mr. Stodart, the bookseller,
was discharged by the House of Commons, and
in the other Mr. Brooks, who had sent the libel-
lous letter for which Sir Francis was prosectued
to the newspapers, was a witness for the prosecu-
tion. Professing himself hostile to the principles
contained in the alleged libel, he threw himself
on the consideration of the Jury.
The CH lEF Bilituti charged the Jury that the
libel was a most atrocious one, and under his
Lordship's direction they found the defendant—.

11):: ErX. :)N.

TENTH D.IY.

At !he close of the Poll yesterday, it turned out
that 111 r ‘Vbitlirt ad heft pull-t{ i 2 a-bead of Mr.
oo the day. The iener.,l state of the Yolk
viat, as follows:
Bync 3740
Whitbread
277 b

In the speeches of the Candidates there was no-
thing worthy of being reported.—Mr. BYNG agar
denic i that he had formed any coalition with ,Mr.
Whitbread.—Nir. WHITBREAD again alluded to
the conduct of Mr. Crewe; and Mr. MgLLII
said, that so persuaded %%ere his friends that a
coaiitiou had taken place between his opponents,
that they hail given him plumper* on that day.--
Ile also alluded to the undue influence which hati
been exercised against him ; but expressed a cot.-
fident hope of ultimate success.
Mr. WAITHMAN add' essed the multitude, but
said nothing wot thy of notice.