Star.
London, England, 1809-11-24 00:00:00

your attention before ? You might have got
circumstances by the use of teasenable and
ordinary diligence. By reasonable diligence you
might have got at all of them except the answer in
Chancery ; and with respect to that, the trial might
have been put off till the answer came in."
Mr. MAI:111(ATr further observed, that Curt had
contradicted Mrs. Clarke by the deposition in his affi-
davit, that Mrs. Clarke had told him that the new
he mc in West bcurne-place was to be furnalied by Mr.
Wright, and not by Col: Wardle. Daniel Wright had
stated, that the goods which had been originally given
on hire had been converted into goods sold, and placed
to the account of Colonel Wardle. Yet it appeared
from Mr. Wright's own admission, by his answer in
Chancery, that there was no account with Colonel
Wardle in his books. He said that the Plaintiff would
have given no credit to Mrs. Clarke, and yet it ap-
peared that he bad been bail for her im many instan-
ces, Sir Richard Phillips bad been engaged in a
treaty with Mrs. Clarke, for the publication of a.cer.
t:.in book, and had afterwards been applied to by a
I\i,)bie Person, wham he need not name, for the stip-
pressien of the hook. Sir Richard stated, that in the
course of the transactions respecting this publication,
Mrs. Clarke had declared that she was indebted to
Mr. Wright for this very furniture. These facts had
keen discovered) since the trial, and some of them
could not have been found out before by any reason.,
able diligence. l'he Defendant then, he submitted,
had new matter to offer, which he could not have
before discovered, in addition to several circumstances
which he might, perhaps, have found out—and was,
besides, taken by surprize. He, therefore, hoped
that the Rule would be made absolute, and a new

trial granted. •
Lord ELLEVEOROUGII thought, that if a new trial
were granted in this case, the Court would be esta.
Wishing a dangerous precedent, which would prove
a very strong obstacle to the administration of justice.
Defendants would only have to lay by till they had
hard the cases of Plaintiffs, and then, after having
canvassed these cases at their leisure, they might
come forward with new facts, prepared to encounter
the weaker parts of such cases, and call for a new trial.
This, as a general rule, would be highly inconveni-
ent, and even unjust to Plaintiffs. The Court, there-
requ'reci of a Defendant who moved for a new
trial, that h,. should shew that he had been taken by
stirprize, or that he had discovered some new material
fact, which, by the application of ordinary and rea-
sonable attention and industry, he could not have dis-
covered before the trial—and then the Court, in fur-
therance of the ends of justice, would send the cause
again to a jury. Now, what was there in this case
that could not by reasonable diligence bare been dis-
covered before ? The Court was told what Curt had
said in his affidavit. But Mr. Wardle -must bosup-
posed to have known the situation in which Mrs.
Clarke stood with respect to Curt, who was almost
of all others the person whom he might most natu-
rally,have been led to consult upon this business.—
When the Defendant was looking out fcr witnesses to
meet the case of the Plaintiff, the general nature of
which he must have been aware of, to whom could
he mere naturally be led to apply than to the landlord
of the house ? He might have looked at the lease ;
or if a sight of it was refused him, he might have pro-
cured an order for its production. He neglected thila
and was the Court to give encouragement to this sort
of carelessness and want of industry, by granting new
trials ? Then it was said that Wright had paid for
the insuring of these goods: that his Lordship had
left to the jury. But if there was any thing. new on
that heed, why had not the matter been further in-
vestigated before ? Then it was said that Wright had
been bail for Mrs Clarke : but this did not invalidate
the testimony of the witnesses, who said he would
not have given her credit, because the Plaintiff, if he
knew any thing at all of her history, must have been,
aware of her coverture, which she had before effectu=
ally pleaded. As to the deposition of Curt, with re-
spect to the measuring for carpets, &c. that did not
necessarily contradict the evidence on the other side.
But .his was not the ground he went upon at present.
'lle ground of his objection to a new trial was, that
these things could not have come upon Mr. Nirar
die by surprise, supposing him to halm used reasona-
ble diligence. As to the circumstance discovered
irom the an,wer in Chancery, the trial might have
been put off till he could have had the advantage of
that, either by injunction or by a motion to that Court.
With regard to personal communication, he might I
have had it by making use of his legs to carry him
into the Court. He might at any rate have had no-
tice of what was going on ; and in fact there was viol
allegation that he was not apprised of it. It would
be shaking the foundation of trials altogether, if new
trials were to be grantid nader such circumstances ;
and he was therefore of opinion that the rule ought to
be ditcharged.
Mr..lllStiCe GROSE said, that if the Defendant in
this case had been taken by surprise, it was his own
Wilt. It appeared to him that his Counsel, in the ex-
crci S'2 of a sound discretion, had refrained from calling
evidence, and tested upon a speech to the Jury. The
Jury believed the Plaintiff's witnesses, and he saw nal
reason why they should not. What the Noble and
Learned Lord had said, was very true, that a most
eniustiiiable advantage would be given to Defendants
L.' il:ey were permitted to lay by till they collected
• I,e wir.le strength of the cases of Plaintiffs, and then
with all the circumstances they could collect to
. trial. This would be a dangerous precedent,
..ad instead of a furtherance of Justice would be an
~',stacle in its way. He thought the rule ought to be
discharged.
Mr. Justice Lt BLANC said, that this case came be-
.re the Court under very peculiar circumstances.
had been allowed to rest entirely upon the evidence
• the Plaintiirg witnesses—None had been called by.
; ;le DefentLint, who now came for a new trial upon
!Ile ground of sur prise. " After laying by in this man-
r, he had preferred an indictment against the Plain-
, awl his witnesses, for a conspiracy. The conse-
teience was, that these parties were placed in a very
.i,fficult situation, and therefore the Court would look
irrowly into the grounds laid by the Defendant for
.1 new trial, before they called upon the Plaintiff and
.! witnesses to disclose the foundation on v.hi:ll they
t i rest their defence to the criminal prosccir-
,.;.ln. If the rule was applied for on the ground of
...;rprise, it would he necessary for the Defendant to'
-!•e that he could not have been provided when the
al came on. But it was quite clear, that the De-

fendant had not been s&ip,ised. He must have.
known perfectly well, that the question would be,
whether 'Wright had given ciedit to Mrs. Clarke or
to him, and he might have ben prepared to c:•ntra-
diet the testimony of the Plaintiff's witnesses on that
point if he could ? The books of the Plaintiff ought
naturally to have been amongst the first objects of hi;
attentirm, and in order to compel the procifiction of
these, if refused, a bill might .be filed in Chancery,
and the cause stayed in the mean time by the Chan-
cellor's injunction, or by an application to this Court.
The Defendant, it appeared, had some witnesses
waiting, and he might have produced others if he had .
used reasonable diligence.. -TO grant a new trial un-
der such circumstances, would be holding out an. in-
ducement to Defendants to lay by for the purpose of
discovering the strength of the cases of Plaintiffs, and
giving them a most Imwarrantable advantage over
those whose witnesses might be before examined. It
would be a most dangerous precedent, and one which
would form a most alarming obstacle to the due ad-
ministration of justice. Even supposing for a mo-
ment, therefore, that in this particular case the ends i
of justice might be partially defeated by the refusal
of a new trial, yet it was better that this should be 11
suffered to pass, than that an opening should be made
for general injustice. He was therefore of opinion
that the rule must be discharged.
Mr. Justice BAILEY. concurred with his Learned
Brethren, that the rule ought to be discharged. The
Defendant must have known the nature of the case
before the trial; and what might be considered as an
extraordinary advantage, he must have known the
witnesses who were to be called against him. He did
not agree that a new trial was to be allowed, merely'
because an unexpected expression fell from a witness,
or because an' unexpected witness appeared. To lay
a ground for a new trial, the surprise must be founded
on the nature and species of the case. The surprise
here stated was, that Mrs. Clarke had declared that
Wright would not trust her ; and now instances were
produced to shew that he had trusted her. He doubted
whether the instances stated made out that point, in
contradiction to the spirit of her evidence. But at
any rate a surprise of that kind was not one that
could form a ground for a new trial ; and therefore he
saw no sufficient reason for sending the ease again to

a Jury.
The new trial was of course refused by tlle unani-
mous voice of the Court.

IKINC. V. lIORSMAN.

The Defendant was brought up for judgment, ac
the printer of a libellous hand-bill which was some
time ago posted against his Royal Highness the Duke
of Sussex. A petition in mitigation of punishment
was read, and an affidavit by Thomas Hague, the
author of the libel. This affidavit was delivered into
Court by a person of the name of Stevenson, who,
said he had received it from Mr. Hague. He was re-
manded for judgment, and the ATTORNEY GENERAL
consented to take bail for his appearance, which the
Court was willing tb grant; himself in 401. and two
sureties in 201. each.

WITCHCRAFT.—TAE znr th HARPER *ND OTHERS.
Th 4 cause was tried before Mr. Justice GROSZ, at
Huntingdon, at the assizes before the last. It sip;
peared, that two of the defendants, Alice Browne and
Frances Amie, had been accustomed to fits, and,
through ignorance and fanaticism, they conceived that
Anne Izard, the wife of Wright hard, had bewitched
them. On the.night of the Sth.of May, it being the
Sabbath-day, they went, accompanied by the other
defendants, to the house of hard, at night, and drag-
ged his wife out of her bed, saying, " They must have
some of her blood." They brought her from the house
and ran pins and needles into her arms and breasts,
until they were in a gore of blood. The defendant
Harper, on the prosecutrix crying out from the pain
she was in, said, " that is the old note," meaning that 1
the gills, when in fits, made the same noise. On the
following night, three of the feMale defendants, and
Stoughton, again attacked.the prosecutrix, and used
her in the same manner as the night before, saying,
that they had not got blood enough from her. It
was also proved on the trial, that Brown, the father
of one of the defendants, said, that his daughter, never
had a fit after she drew blood from the prosecutriz.
They were all found guilty.
Mr. Justice C ROSE passed judgment, and expressed
his astonishment that pet sons living so near this great
metropolis, and in this enlightened age, could be so
ignorant. That in the last reign there had been a
law passed, which made it criminal for persons to
profess witchcraft or sorcery. It was disgraceful to
the nation, that those persons who had the advantages
which the country afforded, should wish to remain in
ignorance.
. The Court adjudged them to be imprisoned one
month each in the castle of Huntingdon, and that
Stoughton, after the expiration of the first month,
should be imprisoned one month more, he having been
found guilty.on the second indictment ; at the expi-
ration of their imprisonment; to find bail for their good
behaviour for two years.

•
call for
at these
air a ;Ilan