Star.
London, England, 1801-02-12 00:00:00

PARKINS I. CARRNTHIRS. CAMPIALL and co.

This was a motion for a new trial. The Plain-
tiff had dclired his brother, who was a partner in
the Defentants houfe, to receive a certain (urn of
money for his ufe ; this fum was receiond and paid
by him into the houfe of the Defendants. A dif-
folut ion of partnerfhip having taken place, and Mr.
Campbell being withdrawn, it was contended this
was a tranfaelion between the brothers, and the'
partncrfhip were not liable. The Jury on the for-
mer trial had given a verdiel for the Plaintiff.
Lord KE N YON Cud he was clearly of opiniou the
jullice of the cafe was with the Plaintiff, and the
Jury had come to a right conclufton on that head.
The Rule mull therefore be chfchaeged.

THE KING V. WADDINGTON.
This being the day appointed for Mr. Wadding-
ton to be brought up to receive judgment, on
cony ietion of fore Railing hops in the county of Kent,
he appeared in Court at an early hour. As no-
thing new was offered on the part of the Defendants
Mr. Juflice Grosr proceeded to deliver the fen-
tencc of the Court upon Mr. Waddington, upon
the information on which he was convicted before
Lord Minos and a Special Jury in Weaminlier
Hall, for Ingrofrog Hops, and perfuading thofe
who had large quantities of that article not to
bring theta to market, with intent to enhance the
price of that commodity I die learned Judge Rat-
ed the &Mame of the charge and of that part of
the Evidence at the trial, icleich fet forth the de-'
claration of the Defendant " that be was the moll
confiderable owner, and fhould in a month be
able to command the market, whenln would come
up to London, and then he would compel the
Brewers to come to his own price, and that Hops
fhould not be fold for lets than sot. the hundred
weight."—The,learned Judge then obferved, that
as this cafe was fimilar to that on which the De-
fendant had already received the judgment of the
Court, and on which be had taken ocearion to fay
what occurred to him on the law of the matter,
it would be needier: to enter much at large into
commentary now.—lt was obvious both by the
cafe now before the Court and that of the cafe at
Worcetler, that the Defendant had been purfuing
an extendve plan which he had rotated for the
purpogt of moll unfairly enhancing the price of the
article of Hops, and that in bp* safes be was the
proper objed of punifhment. •
It had been contended, on behalf of the Defen-
dant at the Bar, that he had been guilty of no
crime.—.lf it was in reality no crime, he_poribo-
ally rejoicedlhat the Cafe was upon the Records
of the Court fo that the error, if any error there
was, of the Judges, might be correded, and the
Law might be promulgated from :he highefl au-
dimity : in the mean time it was fit alfo to be pro-
mnigated from authority—that mcn who commit,
nets fo injurious to the interefls of Society, for the
purports of their own emolument, fhould not be al-
lowed to contend with facccfs, nor wcrc the Pub-

lie to fuppofe that Inch men were to Le confident!
•as doing nothing that was wrong. It had been
contended likewife, that if this practice was .4
crime at all, it was molt venial; thole whothought
they were innocent in themfelves, and who had no
feeling fur the diffielfes of others, hecaufe they
had no difire& of their own, might fay this, and
they might be permitted fo to argue, but what-
ever they might do or think, or rather might fay,'
thofe who can feel fur the mifery of the lower
claffes of human beings, would think and fpeak
differently ; for they would fee how important it
is to Society, that thofe who abound in riches,
than not be allowi to employ them to the oppref-
flon of the Pnor,for the gratification of their own
avarice. Far be it from the Court to impute to
the Defendant, that which he fait was the ad of
the ALMIGHTY. No ; it was not imputed to the
Defendant, that the fealion bad been inaufpicitals,
or that the growth of Hops was not abundant ;
put it was imputed to him, that he inroad un-
fairly the article, that he- perfuaded others to keep
it back from the Market in the common way of
trade, with a view to enhance the price of it, which
could may have the operation of creating an arti-
ficial Scarcity, if a real one did not ma, or of in-
creafing it if it did—the confequence of which
pradice, if fuffereit to continue, every wife and
good man mutt tremble to forefee, for unavailing
to mankind would it be, although the ALMIGHTY
fhould bellow an abundant hared!, if by the gam-.
Wing tricks, or other artifices of the Rich, the price
of things were to become fo high as that the Poor
could not purrhafealw.Necefaries of life.
The novelty of the Defendant's Cafe had arifeo
by the long difufe of the force of the Common
Law, and the punilhment not being pointed out
by any walling Statute, had caufed the Court to
panic before they made up their minds up-
on the Judgment to he pronounced on the former
cafe, and on which the Court had awarded puniflt-
meat ; and the imprifonment he had undergone,
previous to that Judgment, had not been overlook-
ed, and the Court had thought they adopted a list
of moderation which was always an ingredient in
the due adminißration of inftice. This was a crime, ,
the which if there was no check to it, would be moll
Alarming in the prefent Rate of feciety. The
Court had deliberated alfo on the fentence ‘,‘ to
be pronounced in the prefent cafe which warmoll
important, and which involved points that were
moll momentous ; but neither the willies of the
Court to protest thofc who could not otherwile
protest titemgelves, nor the mifchievous quality of
the crime jtfelf, fhould tranfport the Judges to .any
refentment which might lead them to the inflic,
tion of a punifhment that was immoderate ; but
it was the aim, and the only aim of the Court, as
it was its duty, while they tempered jußice with
mercy to the individual, to have a due regard to
the intereas of the Public ; they were tiv,:reforc,
the adminiftration of Criminal kilt-ice, bound to
pals filch a fentence, at, in their opinion, would de.
ter o.l.ers from the commafion of the like offence.
The Court therefore did order and adjudge, That
for this offence which the Defendant had commit-
ted, he do pay to the King a Fine of yool. and
that he be imprifoned in the cullodv of the Marthal
of the Marfhalfea (King's Bench), for Three Ca-
lendar Months, to be computed from the expira-
tion of his former fentence ; and that he be fur-
ther imprifoned until fuch fine be paid, and that
he be now committed in execution of h's fenterae.
Mr. Waddington retired.