Star.
London, England, 1824-10-28 00:00:00

OLD 13411.EY SESSIONS—Tir.s h

These Sessions C'omniinced this moini:i!:, at thi
Justice Hall, in the Old -galley, before the [Anti)
MAYOR, RECORDER, Mr. 113tice PA ttk, (AR-
ROW, ALDERMEN, &C. The RECOnnEn presided in the
New Court. The whole of the eight charge.;
Mr. Faunileroy, are laid as with intent to defraud die
Governor and Company of the Bank of England.
Wm. Oliver, was put to the bar, on an indicttnel
charging him with assaulting, on the king's
nn the 2.
Ist of August, at the parish of St. Margate%
Westminster, Mr. V. Ilepburn, and taking from hls pc;.
son, with force and violence, a watch, &c. his property.
The prosecutor stated, that he resided in Patliamen..
street, Westminster, and about 11 o'clock on the !tight
in question he was on his way home. On coming to a
certain *part of the street, witness received a blow boll
behind, but lie could not say from %hoar, which fe;:rd
him to the ground and stunned him. All his pail;
were then 1 ifled, and amongst other property the watch
in question was stolen. Witness, before he ieceived the
blow, beard t!-:e voice of more than one person, which
he thought 'to come from a female.
Mr. Harris, pawnbroker, of Tothill-street, prod,,ced
the watch in question, which he had received in pled::e
from the prisoner.
Joseph Cooper, one of the police-officers of Qneen.
square Office, deposed to taking the prisoner ii
tody on another charge, on the 24th of February,
on searching him, finding the ticket of the watch
question. On being taken into custody, the pi kone,
admitted that he had pledged the things himself.
Two other witnesses were called, who proved t 1.2
prisoner to have given contradictory and false accouts
of the manner in which he became possessed of the watch.
Five persons were called to give the prisoner a cha-
racter, when the first who stood up swore he saw the
prisoner buy the watch from a person named John
Turpin, and for which he was to pay Ills. A person
named Edmonds was also present. Turpin he (the
witness) described to have kept an old iron shop. Tur-
pin, however, did not appear, nor was Edmonds present.
Mr. Justice PARK summed up the evidence to tLe
Jury, who found the prisoner—Guilty.

The above prisoner is the son of Oliver the pugilist.
NEW COURT.
Btfpre the COMMON-SIERJSANT.
Philip Buchapran, a decent-looking man, awl
forty-one, stood indicted for feloniously aeceiving, from
a man named Hooper, a quantity of paper, the pro.
peaty of Mr. Alderman and Sheriff Key, and C. IL
Key, his partner, he knowing the same to be stolen.
Daniel Forrester, a City officer, said, on the 115th rf
June last he saw the man Hooper, in the City-road, who
was afterwards convicted for stealing the paper now in
question. He followed him until he was met by the
present prisoner in Chiswell-street, where he (Hooper)
handed the parcel to the prisoner, they then separated.
Mr. Alderman John Key deposed, that the man
Hooper, previously convicted, had been several years por-
ter in the house; he identified the paper produced, and
further stated that Hooper was never authorised to take
any from the premises. The paper is not of that de-
scription to form into a book.. 'the present prisoner
was liberated the S?ssion before last ; but it was on the
ground s.f the indictment being laid in Middlesex, in-
stead of London.
The prisoner in his defence said he received the paper
of Hooper, to make into a book; he was not aware it had
been stolen ; he still resided in the same house, which he
should not have done had he been guilty of this offence.
Several witnesses gave the prisoner a good character.
The Jury consulted for about half an hour, and returned a ver-
dict of Guilty, but strongly recommended him to mercy.

LAIV ftM'ORT.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, OCTOBER 9. .
LIBEL.-DUNCAN V. THWAITES AND OTHERS.

Mr.E.Lawes this day resumed his argument against
the demurrer in this case. The Learned Counsel con-
tended, at considerable length, that the defendant,'
right to give to the public as matter of news any pro-
ceedings which had taken place at a public Police
Office, and the publication of which was not prohibited
by the Magistrate before whom that proceeding took
place, came within the extent of that liberty which the
Constitution of this country guaranteed to the üblic
press. .He went further, and contended, that as everr
man in this country was in some measure interested in
the good and bad conduct of his fellow•citizens, it wa,
the duty of the Editor of a Public Journal to state to
the public at large the circumstances and the result of
any judicial criminal proceedings in which any mem-
ber of the community might be engaged. Of the benefit
derived by society from the publication of such teports,
there could not be a doubt, as scarcely a day passed
without hearing of some person coming for*ard
identify either person or propel ty detained at Police
Offices, and of the detention of which the persons con-
cerned were nine times out of ten informed through the
mediurri of the newspapers. if it could be shewn thit
the Editor of a newspaper were actuated by malice
against the party accused, and had, thereffire, given
publication to a pioceetling which he would otherwise
have ',wised Over unnoticed, or that he had given an
untrue account of judicial proceeding% then indeed
would such a pefson be a fit object for punishment.
It was not contended that his clients had-been actuated
by malice, or had misrepresented the proceeding ; anA
they were, therefore, entitled to the protection of tie
Court in the discharge of that duty which the public at
large had a right to expet at the hands of public
journalists. Even admitting that some personal incon-
venience and annoyance arose at times from the publi-
cation of judicial proceedings, still he maintained that
the benefit derived by the public in general from suc.)
a practice outweighed this inconvenience, and their
Lordships ought not, by suppressing such a practice,
to deprive the publit of a general good.
Mr. PATTISON, in reply, submitted that the Leaned
Counsel for the defendants had stated nothing whis.!.
point of law established the privilege claimed by hi le Ott
behalf of the defendants. After all that he had hear.!
from that Learned Gentleman he remained as &nils
convinced as he was yesterday, that the defendants had
nd right to publish es park judicial proceedings. Iliv
Learned Fs iend had said much about the benefit derive I
by the public in general from such publications, belt le!
(Nfr. P.) must acknowledge that he could not estiepte
so highly the public or private good which could be
derived from the insertion of a paragraph in a new
' paper, stating that A. B. or C. D. was brought u
terday for examinatibn at a public Police Office. 1.-
therefore submitted that judgment ought to be
nounced for the plaintiff.
The LORD CHIEV JUSTICE said, as the day was 0 f.d.
advanced (it being then dime o'clock) the Court wt."
not pronounce judgment that day.

" Hen
nant, E.
Attorney
lame to
Governor

The to
lit. U
Consent'.
2d. Ut
'Coosa&
5cL.O

4th. t
Thee pr
Sth. t
Congolid
6tb.
Reduced
7th. L
Four per
The al
be forget
and Com

a vet(

was ii
of 20
M.
one 6
Thi
ance I
*went
aimec
mane
him t