Star.
London, England, 1824-02-12 00:00:00

1E 1,

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
COURT OF KING'S BENOIT, FEBRUARY
THE KING, *ON THE PROSECUTION OF LORD GEORGIC
SEYNIOUR, V. JOHN CORRY.
- The ATTORNEY-GENERAL renewed his motion, made
yesterday, for judgment on the defendant, who pleaded
guilty" to an information, charging him with a libel
on bad George Seymour, one of his Majesty's Com-
missioners c..f Excise.
Affidavits were.put in on the part of the prosecution,
and of the defendant. The former set forth the libel,
which imputed to Lord George Seymour, that he had
borrowed money from inferior officers and abused his
ain't, and denied that he had given any particular di.
rections to seize a quantity of malt at the defendant's
premises. Tice latter stated that the defendant was mis-
led by the representations of others, at a moment when
his feelings were irritated by a seizure made, as he be-
lieved, by the orders of the prosecutor ; that a man
united Willey had frequently made such charges; that,
soon as the defendant was undeceived, he expressed
his coalition, and offered to retract his assertions; and
that he was very poor, with a wife and seven children
dependent on him for support.
The ATTORNEY •GEN ERA L briefly pointed out the na-
ture and object of the libel to the view of the Court.
The defendant, in a short address, expressed his con-
ition, and hoped that his poverty and distress would'
operate in mitigation of the sentence.
Mr. Jtistice BAYLEY, after animadverting on the
serious cast of the offence, and giving the defendant
Credit for his subsequent behaviour, passed sentence—
that he should be imps isoned in the King's Bench for
one month, and give security for his good behaviour
for Ellice years.

1 1 .

SIR W. RUMBOLD V. TILE INDIAN OBSERVER.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL referred to what had taken
place yesterday, and then stated that the point to which.
the Court had directed his attention was the denial of
having received a security from the Nizam for double
the sum lent to the Nizam. The libel alleged that the
house of Palmer and Company, of which Sir William
Rumbold was a partner, advanced three hundred and
fifty thousand pounds to the Nizam, and received an
acknowledgment of 700,0001. which was presented to
the British Government, to defraud it of 350,0e01. This
was distinctly negatived. The only documents to sub-
stantiate their claims, were only accounts of debts justly
due by the Nizam to the house of Palmer and Com-
pany. The British Government had never become
bound to pay Palmer and Co. any debts of the Nizarn.
Mr. Justice BEST—It is charged that this Gentleman,
a British subject, borrowed at 12 per cent. and lent at
25 per cent.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL did not know that that
was illegal, but it was not the point to which his atten-
tion had been called.
Mr. Justice BEST said it was a very serious offence,
as would be found by a reference to transactions forty
years ago. No application for a criminal information
could l-e listened to, if the party applying could not
clear himself of the offence.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said it could be distinctly
negatived, as the whole was a fiction ; no such sum as
250,0001. had been lent to the Nizam.
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE.—YOU had better deny the
charge of taking 251. for what you paid 121. for, as that
will remove the only difficulty in the breast of any of,
their Lordships.
It was agreed that it should be mentioned to-morrow.

THE KING V. JOHN HUNT.
Mr. Apoi.rtitis, at a late hour in the day, moved for
the judgment of the Court on the defendant, found
guilty of publishing a seditious libel, &c.
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE said it was impossible at
that time of day to bring on the matter. His Lordship
also observed—" I think it had better stand over for
pelt Term."
Mr. SCARLETT, on behalf of Mr. Hunt, said he should
not object to that course of proceeding.
Mr. ADOLPHUS assured the Court that be bad been
most anxious to get judgment without delay. He had
attended day after day, and he was desirous the cause
should be disposed of; at the same time, if an affidavit
were read to induce the Court to allow it to stand over,
he should be satisfied. The defendant for such in-
dulgence would, however, be required to enter into re-
cognizance not to publish any comments on the trial.
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE—That is not too much to
require. Mr. Hunt will attend to-morrow, and perhaps
not object to the proposal.
Mr. SCARLETT—If Mr. Hunt will follow my sugges-
tion he will abstain from all comment on the subject.
Mr. ADOLPHUS—If he enters into his recognizance
on that point it is all I require.
THE KING V. SKETCHin.
Mr. BROUGHAM said he was prepared with his affi-
davit amended (by Mr. W. CObbett), in support of the
motion be made yesterday for a criminal information
against the defendant, on the ground that he had not
put up a board with tolls, and had otherwise neglected
his duty as a Trustee of Kensington Toll-gate.
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE.—You did not state that
the person against whom you moved had omitted to put
up the board from a corrupt motive. Does the affi-
davit now impute a corrupt motive?
BkoticiriAru —Yes.
The LORDCHIEF JUSTICE.—Take a rule to shew cause.
THE KING V. SIR C. WOLSELEY.
Mr. RUSSELL moved for a criminal inforMation
against Sir C. Wolseley for publishing a libel on C. Chet-
nd, Esq. M.P. for Stafford, reflecting upon him in
his character of Chairman of the Quarter Sessions. The
libel was published in the Litchfield 111ercuiy, copied
irons the British Press newspaper.
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE asked the Learned Counsel
in:w it was known to be the copy of au article in the
British Press?
Mr. Rossnr. said he had an affidavit.stating that Sir
C. Wolseley wrote a letter to the British Press, which
t% as published, and the paper sent to the Printer of the
Litchfield Mercury, by Sir C. Wolseley, for the purpose
of republishing the libel.
The COURT granted a rule to shew cause.
THE KING V. SOUTHGATE AND ANOTHER.
In thi, case there had been cross motions, one for a
criminal information against the defendants for a riot,
in endeavouring to force Southgate into the office of a
Deputy Seneschal of the Borough of Gravesend, and
the other lot a Mandamus to the Mayor of Gravesend
to admit Southgate to the office of Deputy Seneschal,
to kvhich he had been appointed by his principal. Both
motions now. came on together; and Mr. GASELEE and
Mr. CHITTY being heard for the defendants, and Mr.
ATTORNEY-GENERAL for the Crown,
The CouuT thought that the motion for a Meads:mils
was utterly untenable, the principal Seneschal haviog