Star.
London, England, 1802-01-08 00:00:00

LIBEL.-•.THE Fu.o V. CHARLES HAYES.

This profecuti:m v:. i:ulituted by the Society
for promoting Chriflian knowledge.
Mr. BOSANCUJET laid, this indiament was laid
again(' the defendant fcr having publilhed an ob-
fcene and fcandalous libel, called " Thc Kin of
Fathion." The learned Gentleman obferved upon
the evil tendency which their fort of publications
had upon the mor.ds of the riling generation, and
that it was ncceffary to punith an offence of this
kind with the utmott fevcrity which the laws

Kennedy, one of the officers belonging to
the Public Office in Marlborough-flreet; depoled,
that he had a warrant to apprehend the defendant
on the s9th of April : he went to a book-flail
which the defendant kept under the wall of the
Duke of Portland's houle in Piccadilly, in order
to execute the warrant, where he obferved the
book lying among a number cf others; he took it
up, and, looking at it, perceived it was called
The Man of Fafition," and contained matter of
the moll obfcene nature. He, theiefore, fecured
it, and gave information on the fubjed.
Mr. ALLEY contended, that this witnefeg merely
taking up the boot. was no proof of a publication
by the defendant. •
Mr. Bossmo,LiEr infified that the hook lay ex-
poled to the public view, and that confequently it
was a publication.—The Court ruled it ii favour
of Mr. llolanquet.
. .

Mr. ALLrY then made a long addrcfs to the
Jury in favour of the defendant. He contended
that the offence charged againti his cheat had not.
been proved, as it was neceffary to conliitute the
crime that the book fhould be actually offered int
Pale: in this cafe, it merely lay among (Hier
books in his poilaion, and the witnels had rhofen
to take it up. He faid, that any perlon who had
a libel in his poileffion might be indieted, even
though he fhould not publifh it to the woild, if
this charge could be maintained. He 0,10 ved
how impotlible it was that the defendant should
expofe a book for tale under the very wall of the
Secretary of State's hook, if he knew that any
libel was contained in it; the fad was, that he had
purchafed a number of old books of a Gentleman,
among which number was the ene in qneftion,
and the contents of which he had not read. He
remarked, that the law infliOed the mot heavy
punifhment in cafes of this kind, where the offence
was proved, and therefore conjured the Jury to
confider well before they save in their verdiO,
whether the fart of publifbing had been brought
home to tae defendant. The learned Gentleman
then made a molt pathetic appeal to their feelings
on the fituation in vthich his wife and family would
be placed, in the event of their verdia being
againft him, and laid he fhould call a great num-
ber of refpeaable witneffes to prove that his moral
charader was irreproachable, and that he was em-
ployed by the parith of St. James, in a fituation
of tome mid, which he would lore, and thereby
deprive his family of their fupport, if the jury
found him guilty.
A great many refpeetable witneffes then ar-
peared to the charader of the defendant, moo of
whom had known him upwards of fifteen years,
and gave him a snot} excellent one, as an hontif
and moral man.

The CHAIRMAN raid, the publication appeared
to be clearly made out. The book was cipofed
for fale in a place which is the moil public perhaps
of any in the metropolis ; and where numbers of
all ages and conditions flop to lounge away their
time, they were likely to take up the book, and
examine its contents; if they did fo, the obfccuity
which it contained was diffeminated by the de-
fendant, as he had placed the book fo as they
could not help feeing it. He therefore was bound
to tell the Jury, that in his mind the fai of pub-
billing was proved. They, however, would judge
and give their verdia accordingly.—The Jury
confulted a fhort time, and found the defendant—
Not Guilty.

ASSAULT.THE RINC V. CHARLES BACON.

This was a cafe of conliderable importance to
matters of families, and thofe who have appren-
tices. The defendant, who is a genteel looking
;id, of refpedable parents, was indided for af-
wilting his mailer, Mr. Binns, upholder, of
Mount-Ilreetl Grofvenor-fonare, to whom he had
been apprentice near four years and a half.
Mr. Binns Elated, that on the 3d of May he gave
the defendant leave to dine at his father's: exped-
ing his return at night, he waited up a confiderable
time, he, however, did not return all night ; on
the following morning he fent to hit father's houfe,
requeiling to know the reafun, when he was in-
formed he was very ill. He then cleared he might
not return till he was perfedly well. In about fix
weeks be returned, and profeffed himfelf to be re-
covered. He was fuffered, as a mark of kindnefs
and favour, to fleep at his father's; this he conti-
nued to do for Tome time; but inftead of attending
to his Winds, by coming at proper time in a
morning, he did not come till a late hour. The
witnefs then remOnftrated with him, and infifted
that he Ihould attend to his bufinefi regular, or in
default he Ihould (top an hour later in the evening.
This he refuted to do, and on the evening of the
sth October he was leaving his work at Int o'clock,
when the witnefs told him he Ihould not go home
to his father, as he found he =glade& his bull-
"nefs by fo doing, but Ihould fleep at his houfe for
the future. The defendant faid, in return, he
would not, when the witnefs took him by the arm,
and requefted him, in a mild manner, to go in
with him to the parlour, and he would converfe
with him about it. He kill refukd, and got away
from him, when the witnefs took hold of him
again, and infilted upon his going in with him ;
the defendant then ftruggled and chfengaged him-
, kW, and iumediaaoly collared the witnisfst who

. . •
being earned, icuilled with hiro, :!..1;! In 1.-. tr
the dcleint.i:v. lA, and his ~s ••
then immediately got up, and !,:
a menacing' poilure, fdd, Nwa , v.', a
for?" He then !truck the .wiir.t.fs the ice,
gaVe him a black eye.—Mrs. and the .• '-
vane, came forward ,ind.gave Cie
advice, during which he got out of the !tonic, ,(I.d
did ypt return.
lire defendant's mincel tefled his defence (.1
the ground that the condufi of \ Ir. Ilinns liau b:•en
fo ettremely bad and crui to the dcEaLlant,
what he had done was with a vi•w to pi ote& hint-
(elf. He was inflruaed that this was the cafe, if
it thould appear from the evidence he meant
bring forward, the Tiny would have no hefit, n
in acquitting him; for though he was an a;,m,..,i-
-tice, the law did not iathoriye a ma'kr to uti‘ lin.
neceffary correetion ; and i'!* he did, ti;,••app.entiee
was jidlified in !eliding inch brutality. E.: thcri
called three witneas,. fo far from p:o'.iog
the cafe as Hated by tile defend,:.nt, ferved to con-.
firm and Ilrengthen the profeention.—[One of
th,le witneffes was an apprentice of the profecut<lr,
who conduiledlimiclf fo pertly in the Court, that
his math' was obliged to appeal to the Chairmai,
for his interference, who ordered him to go home,
and told Mr. Binns, if he did not conduit liimllat
properly, to take him before a Magiarate.]
The Jury found the defeildant—Gtay.
The CHAIR Mn' then fcntenced him to he impri.
zoned three Months in the pilot' of this Court, and
to be kept apart from the felons. He oblerved
that he hoped the punifhment would operate .is an
inchicement to reform his conduit.

ECCLES A:•T:CAL PROMOTIONS.

The Charles 80i71.;e, Clerk, A. M. is col!ated by his
trace the Archhif:,.? of York, ,o the Vicar 2e of Stainv:n in
CI 'vt land, cacatt by the death of the Rev. Francis Cleatoe;
C:crk.

H :r Grace the alchcfs of Dorfet has been plcafcd to prcfent
the Rcv. 1.tte..3 Cr;Tcr, A. M. Vicar of NVilrnitigton, in the
coon. yof so :rex, t: c! ty..:c of the Dul,:.! of Den fees COaplains, to
t' e R ct n y of A !..I fit ;17 Kent, vacant by the: dezt h of the late.
Rev. Cl,an.tN. di:yoe D 1713.