Star.
London, England, 1809-05-05 00:00:00

mitt tie
* ptinishintni.

_

Mr. Serjeant PELL, Mr. GAM
addressed the Court in mitigation of .at.
Lord ELLENBOROUGH said he did not mean to find
fault with the observations of the Counsel for the de-
fendant, which were very appropriate and judicious,
but perhaps it might have occurred to some men as
the only extenuation of the defendant's fault, that
instead of having a tendency to break the peaces it
must have a tendency to preserve the peace in future,
by rendering duelling perfectly ridiculous, when a
surveyor challenges a gentleman because he will not
pay an extravagant bill.
The Court sentenced the defendant to six months
imprisonment, and to find sureties for his good beha-
viour for three years.

MAY S.-CRIMINAL INFORMATION.

Mr. GARROW moved for a Rule to shew cause,
why a criminal information should not be filed against
Mr. Joseph Lyme, for a libel upon W. Byrne, Esq.
a Commissioner and Agent for protecting Portu-
guese property in this country. The libel was con-
tained m two letters, addressed by Mr. Lyme to his
correspondents in Portugal and the Brazils, dated
the 27th of April, and the 24th of June, 1808 ;
wherein he described the prosecutor and his coadjutors
as such gluttons, that they would eat up all the pro-
perty ; and suggested that they were guilty of a
most shameful and injurious delay in their proceed-
ings, and that their waste and destruction of the pro-
perty was such as to excite horror.
Lord ELLEwnitatoucti said, that no particular act
of delinquency was ascribed to the prosecutor. The
calumny, he doubted not, was as unfounded as it was
gross ; but it pointed at no speciEc act. The letters,
too, appeared to have been confidentially written.
Mr. GARROW said, the calumny was destructive of
the reputation of the Comilissioners, and was calcu-
lated to destroy all confidence in the Portuguese na-
tion. The letters, he added, were circular, and sent
to the correspondents of Mr. Byrne.
Lord EL LENBOROC GU replied, that considering the
situation of the Commissioners, it was important that
they should be esteemed clear and just in the office
entrusted to them ; and upon that ground it might
be fit that the accused party should be called upon to
explain himself.—Rule to shew cause granted.

TILE KING V. JOSEPH HAI4SON,

The defendant was this day brought up to. receive
the judgment of the Court. He was convicted at
the last Assizes for Lancashire, for encouraging a
large body of discontented weavers, at Manchester,
to riot and confusion, and a breach of the peace. It
appeared in evidence, at the trial, that he rode up to
the mob, and ezclaimed--" My lads, your cause is a
good one, and you will succeed. I will support you
as far as 30001. will go ; and if that is not enough, I
will go farther. Nodin and his faction shall not drive
you from the field this day. lam sorry your bill in
Parliament is lost, but I am still the weaver's friend."

Mr. RAINE addressed the Court, in mitigation '
and insisted that the defendant wished to pacify the
weavers discontents, and not exasperate them.
The ATTOTiNEY GENERAL insisted upon the reverse
of that proposition ; and the Court, after hearing the
affidavits and arguments on both sides, ordered the
defendant to be brought up for final judgment on
Friday se'nnight ; and, in the mean time, stand com-
mitted to the King's Bepch prison.

THE RING V. JOHN MARTIN.

The defendant, who was convicted at the last Maid-
stone Assizes of a libel upon Richard Best, Esq. the
Treasurer of the parish of Greenwich, by circulating
a hand bill, on the eve of a parish election, inferring
that Mr. Best had kept large balances of the parish
money in his possession ; and that he had debited the
parish with the payment of an annuity of 161. to one
Jane Robson, three years after her death, was this day
brought up to receive judgment.
The defendant put in an affidavit, asserting the
truth of what he had stated, and that he was ready to
prove it before the Master, if the Court would order
the parish books to his office. HQ denied any malice,
and said his only motive was to correct abuses.
This was answered by an affidavit from the prose-
cutor, who alledged the accusation to be false and
scandalous, and courted the enquiry asked for.
Mr. Serjeant &sr admitted, that the truth of the!
publication did not in law render it less
,a libel, but
it would operate in mitigation of punishment. The
defendant's affidavit was an excuse, but not a justifi-
cation. He admitted the impropriety of the defen-
dant's putting the libellous hand bill in his window,
but he was not the first man who had published an
electioneering squib. •
Mr. BOLLAND followed on the same side, and ob-
served, that the defenclint, thinking the prosecutor was
implicated in some parish abuses, thought it his duty
to inform his fellow parishioners of the fact, by pub-
lishing it in a hand bill, on the day of his proposed
re-election.

Mr. GA RROW, in support of the prosecution, spoke
with much severity at the defendant, who, he said,
had every thing to learn from the Court. His per-
suasion was, that a popular election was a fair season
for attacking a candidate at all points ; and that he
had a right to let off as many electioneering squibs as
he thought proper. He would, however, find him-
self mistaken on that head. The temper, ton, in
which he came to the Court was worthy notice, and
he had thought proper to assert the truth of that
libel of which he had been found guilty. He had
also insulted one of the witnesses fer the prosecution,
after the trial, by telling him that he would still find
there was " something rotten in the state of. Den.
mark ;" and that lie would overhaul the parish books
in the Master's office. The prosecutor, Mr. Garrow
added, had been scrupulously just in his office, and
the defendant had not the least pretence for libelling
him. His motives, therefore, must be malignant.
Mr. MARRYATT and Mr. GURNEY addressed the
Court on the same side ; when Lord ELLENBOROUGH,
after observing that he could find no excuse, in law,
for electioneering squibs, if they were libellous, di-
rected the defendant to be brought up again on Sa-
turday, and, in the mean time, that he stand com-
mitted to the King's Bench Prison.

THE KING V. ALEXANDER STUART, ESQ.
This defendant was also found guilty of publishing
one of the hand-bills last alluded to ; but as he cir-
culated the same merely as a paper of curiosity in the
election, he was fined JES and discharged.

THE KING V. JOHN ALDBERRY.

.........
John Aldberry, rope-maker, convicted of having
naval-stores in his possession which he knew belonged
to the Crown, was sentenced to six months imprison-
ment in Muisistone gaol, to be curd Is. and to *r.

teiatie isod 'l'o6nd in his Poitesiloin. Mr. Justic
g $
GROSE stated, tnat a much severer sentence woul
have been passed on him, had'UOt two affidavits bee
read In mitigation.
MAY 4. JUDGMENTS.
J. White, convicted of selling obscene books and
prints, was sentenced to 'stand in the pillory, at Char-
ing-Cross, and to be imprisoned and kept to hard la-
bour for two years in the Houae of Correction for the
County of Middlesex.
Robert Jacques, formerly an attorney in London,
who fifteen years ago was convicted of perjury, but
wlio escaped from sentence by having gone to Ame-
rica, was brought up to receive the judgment of the
Court. Mr. COMMON SERJEANT took an objection to
the indictment, that it no where stated or alledged
that he had falsely sworn in a matter material to the
issue in inquiry.—Rule granted to shew cause.