Star.
London, England, 1822-12-03 00:00:00

NiWTON V. NALDI.

The LORD CIiANCELLOR said that this was a de-
Muirer to a bill which had been filed by the plaintiffs,
John and Joseph Newton, against Mrs. Naldi, their
silter, to recover certain sums paid to their deceased
father, as Notary Public, he not having brought out a
certificate since 1810. The demurrer was on two
grnunds--first, that the bill was multifarious, instead
of heing filed by one of the brothers ; secondly, that
it involved the executors in a matter in which they
had no concern. With a very few words of amend-
Merit the demurrer might be good. He wished now
to k'now whether, this being a family affair, the par-
•tliss pressed for judgment ?
The r4unsel present could not inform him.
The. UM! QuANCELLOK would suppose, if nothing
slioul4 be said on the subject on or before Monday
next;that the demurrer would stand, with liberty to
amend the bill.
.QLI)44OIIALL. V. LORD SOMERS.
The.-Y..onn Cisnwat.coa said," that in this case,
ihnush Mr. Wetherell had told him that the parties
wished him to judge as he pleased, the point was too
important (or.him to give judgment without hearing
Counsel on the subject.
re tut SIATrER OE DICKENSON, HODGSON, AND DICK-
.
ENS:)N, BANKRUPTS.

The.LORD CLIANCELLOR had only time to state in
inut.:tho nature of this very complicated case. In the
year.lslo, a comulission of bankruptcy had been is-
sued wainst.Edward Wickham Dickenson. The as-
Signees were Harsfaill and another. In 1811 a com-
soussion of bankrupt had been issued against James
iltichard ficidgsisn. The assignees were John Jones
;tad aupilier. In 1811 too a commission of bankrupt,
had been issued against Joseph Dickenson. The as-
signee was It. Evans. In the year 1816 a petition
had been presented, stating that E. W. Dickenson
and J. It. Hodgson had been partners in business
Liverpool ; that, 'in the year 1805, the two
Dickensons had been partners in trade to Rio
Janeiro ; and that there had been three partnerships,
Dickenson And Hodgson—Dickenson and Brothers-
-and "Dickenson Brothers, and CO. Joseph Dicken-
Son had received: a certificate in his life-tune. Very
"corisplicated questions had thence arisen respecting
the &dart of creditors upon the separate and the joint
.estates. It was,a crestion whether Joseph Dicken-
ion's certificate barred demands against him and his'
.assets ; and whether the whole administration under
.the several .com. missions ought to have been made'
one ; or whetis& the Court would disturb it or not,
all having Acted under a common error? Joseph'
Dickenson bad broUght 16,0004 from Rio Janeiro,
which his assignee. instead of bringing to the joint
account, usht to bis separate account. This
Court had Made an order in August, 1319, which
Jneant thatinspectors should be appointed to inquire
into the interests of the petitioners. This order had
been very improperly trifled with between that time
and September, 1821. klis Lordship concluded with
expressing a hope that at the matt attendance in Court
he should bury this case for ever.
His Lordship said he would give notice to-morrow
if he could attend on Wednesday.
COURT or KING'S BENCH. DECEMBER 2.
SANDERSON AND WIFE V. BARKER._

This was an action brought by Mr. and Mrs. San-
derson, for an assault committed on the latter by the
defendant, and for an unjust detention of her in con-
finement for some hours. The defendant pleaded
first that he was not guilty ; and secondly a special
plea, setting forth that a cap had been stolen from
bis shop, and that he bad reasonable grounds to sus-
pect the female
_plaintiff of the felony.
It appeared in evidence, that Mrs. Sanderson went',
to the shop of Mr. Barker, who is a haberdasher in'
Ilolborn, and asked to look at several articles. She
apparently fixed on a cap, and then requested to see'
Antler goods, but .ultimately refused to take any, al-
leging that she had no money in het pocket. Mr.
Barker insisting that she should at least take the cap,
sent one of his shopwomen to follow her home with
iti in the meantime his wife told him that she missed.
a cap, and lie sent to Mrs. Sanderson to request she
would come to his house, as the article was gone.
She returned with the messenger, denied the charge,
and on some one coming into the shop, was asked to
walk up stairs, to •which she acceded. Here Mr.
Barker advised her to write to her friends, furnished
her with.materials, and sent his servant with her let-
ter. Her father and brother came, when some con-
versaLien took place, which was variously stated;
.those individuals representing the conduct of Mr.
Barker as very offensive, and two of his shopwomen
describing it as very civil and courteous. Mrs. San-
derson requested to be searched, but
.this was refused
for sonic time; at last she was searched and ulti-
onately dismisseefyithout charge, two of her friends
bavingroucherffor the respec tabil ityof her connections.
The Lotto C,lttar Jusricr. told the Jury that the
Justification conduit be supported; because no pri-
vate individual could justify detaining another on
suspicion of a crime, unless lie could shew that a
crime was committed by some one; but here there',
• was no proof .that any cap was stolen, or even lost.
They would therefore find a verdict for the plain-
tiffs, with such damages as, they should think dis-
passionately the case demanded.—,.The Jury found a
verdict for the plaintiffs—Damages R. 5.3.
EICIIARD CARLILE v. J. PARKINS, ESQ.
This was an action brought by the plaintiff to re-
cover from the defendant, one of the late Sheriffs of
/Middlesex and London, a compensation for the al.
leged injury he had sustained by the Sheriffs having
'retained his property in their hands, instead of selling
41,P sa,,ar.rlireeted by the Court.
* Pisitt.art stated the ease on becalf of the
planitiff, Mr. Carlile, who, by this action, sought to
recover a compensation in damages for the injury lie
kid sustained by the conduct of the late Sheriff, the
prewut defendant. Ile had no knowledge of Mr-
Carlile personally, but he bad heard much of him.—
He had no doubt that their', had also heard much
of that individual. He should, however, endeavour
to conduct this cause as if he had never heard the
none of Mr. Carlile before, and he had no doubt the
Jury would discharge their duty in the same way.—
In his opinion, unless the Jury this day found a ver.
dirt for the plaintiff, a precedent highly (linen*,

.
to die Ilbetty of the issildielietinta iliellittilifilea. . -If ',,be Worth to sillin*ahhais, he shaved Men at rellait
an individual was for' itli.aittnia.Catkeneed,tiii.l.lte hoe
say how long they would bate takers to
iand imprisonment by the.Coart of dares peach, 11114:sell by.tetail, ps.tertr yeamistit Anderstood they
could not IsZlieve •that the Courteirer intended, et the had a rigid silia-qitrais thetimate of thre'aißarpiab-
law would tolerate, that a Shefiff ihould so ezerciee liana-Aid bete prosecuted 'as
WO ilibels. litiewowere
the power which the law gavegavein 'Skich a case as i sevorolcopiesof the." Age of Reason" and 6 Palmer's
to entail on the defendant ruin naimPrisOnnient for ' Principles of Natore." which had been declared libel&
life by the seizure and detention of-his,property until. Did value "Tile God of the Jews," and all the rest
the expiration of the term .of imprisonment—and, ojziliancit caltulato what 'they •Would 'be Worth as
having done so, then,say," New talte yogi resources, waste paper, or "Whit they Would have cost to repria„
and manage them for yourself." .dir.Sheriff:Parkin& Did not read any oldie books—did not read " Pity-
'had so acted in the present case. .He bad.detainedliical and Metaphysical Inqttiries"—did sot sell it
the property of Mr. Carlile in his hands in the manner himself—can't-SET he ever saw any of it for sale any
now described. The plaintiff, as the Jury wellitneW, where but at Carliles—read " Wat Tyler ;" thinks it
had been found guilty of publishing =nth:libels; a beautifolpoem—believes Were was no copyright
for which lie had been sentenced to three years im- of that iroik, it was published by so many "bOokiel-
prisonment, and to pay a heavy fine. Immediately lens—had read souse numbers of the " Deist; "and
after the judgment a writ of levarite:rim was issued "Didetas Thoughts," but it was so long since he
by the Court to the Sheriff, directing him to levy the had forgotten them. Ile valued " Volney's 'Ruins
'fine of £lOOO on the defendant's property. This writ and Philosophical Thoughts"—is a booksellet in Misl-:
was issued on the 15th of November, and, as he dle-row, Ilolhoro,in a general way.
should now contend, the Sheriff ought to have sold I Re-examined---Those articles which had been pro.;
immediately, and without delay ; instead of which secured for libels to conviction he omitted in his Ira-
what did the Sheriffs do? Why, according to their luation—" Nlillar's-Philosophical Inquiries," and "Di-
own return to the .Conrts, which he would read, they 'derot's Thoughts;" are books of general sale. " Wat
said, that, in compliance with the writ directed to Tyler". has never been prosecuted. Witness valued
them, they had proceeded to sell the .property of the bust and statue of Paine, but not the pedestal.—
Richard Carlile, and had sold so much as produced The Bishop of Llandaff's " Defence of the Bible" had
i.:54., of which sum they had paid £2l for King's never been prosecuted; the greater part of the works
taxes due 'on the house inhabited by Mr. Celiac.— in the inventory were withlly unexceptionable. Wit-
The other £3O remained in their hands, ready to be ness saw Mr. Carlile but once.
applied as the Court should direct_ They then pro- Mr. Cocteau submitted to his Lordship whether
ceeded to return, that the remainder of the stock of this action woulelie. This was an action for the
the shop was still' in their hands, and that.they waited difference of value between the stock now and two
, the direction of the Court how they were to dispose .years and a half ago. The Sheriff not having sold
of it. The Court by its writ said, "6 We direct you under the writ of levari facia:, he submitted it was
to sell, end not to retain the stock ;" but the Sheriffs dotanfid whether the Sheriff was bound to sell under
replied, that amongst the stock there were copies of a levari facia:, unless the plaintiff had applied for a
publications which had been declared libels; suppose veaditioni exponns, and he not having done so, no
there were, was that any excuse for the Sheriff re- attachment would lie against the Sheriff; and it had
mining the whole stock in their hands ? Why, been decided that,where an attachment would not go
amongst these libels, as they were called, were 25 an action would not lie, and therefore, he contended,
copies of Dr. Watson's Defence of the Bible—a most that the present action would not lie, and the plaintiff
excellent work. There were other works equallynnex- must be nonsuited.
ceptionable and valuable. The whole stock-was worth Mr. ARCHBOLD, on the same side. said it was ex-
not less than £3OOO, had it been sold then ; there was tremely doubtful whether the Sheriff had any right
a valuable stock of periodical publications, "which, to sell under a levari feteias, until a writ venditioni
had they been sold at that time, would have produced exponas was directed to him. It was quite clear that,
a very considerable sam, bat baying been now de- under a writ of fi. fit. die Sheriff was not bound to
tanned and locked' up by the Sheriffs. for three years, sell: it was sufficient for the Sheriff to return the goods
was worth nothing except for wastepaper. He con- in his possession, for want of purchasers.
tended, that even supposing there had been some li- Mr.Coorza also submitted,that this being an action
bellous works amongst this stock, the Sheriffs ought on the case against the Sheriff, it was necessary to
to have sold all which were not so. If the conduct prove malice, or the action could not be maintained.
which had been adopted by the defendant could be The CHIEF Justice said the declaration in this
justified, what would be the situation of any book- case charged the defendant, as Sheriff, with having
seller; convicted olany offence which subjected him delayed to sell goods, property of plaintiff, which he
to fine and imprisonment ? There was not a book- had in his possession,with a view to injure the plaintiff,
seller's stock in existence in which some work might he having retained them in his possession for a length
'not be found which a Sheriff Might not construe to of time, and thereby deteriorated their value. Now,
be libellous.. For instance, any volume of " Hume's if a Sheriff did so retain the goods in his possession,
History of England," or any volume of Poems an with such a motive as that imputed to the defendant,
Metaphysics, or Historical Work, would furnish in this case, an action would lie. Whether the de-
what might constitute Mel on some one living or Tentlant did act. under the feeling imputed to him,
dead, in the estimation of a Sheriff, and enable him was a question of fact, which he would no ,with-
to detain the stock of as individual all the period of draw from the consideration of the Jury by nousuit-
his imprisonment; and so reduce it in value, as had ing the plaintiff.
been done in this case, that at the expiration of the bk. Cooeirt then proceeded to address the Jury
individual's imprisonment, although sat its commence- an the part of the defendant with his usual ability.
ment it might have been worth ten times the sum, it He, like his Learned Friend, disclaimed all know-
would.not produce sufficient to pay his fine, and he ledge of his client. He protested against the doctrine
be thus, as Mr. Carlile was, utterly ruined, and re- of the Advocate being mixed up with the client. An
duced to imprisonment for life. He .concluded by Advocate was bound to perforni his duty to his client,
again calling on the Jeri to decide in this case as if let that client be whom he might. He desired that
they had never heard of the name of Carlile ; and he the Advocate should stand on his exertions for his
was convinced they would then find a verdict coo- client, and his client on the merits of his case. When-
pensating him for the injury he had sustained. ever such should cease to be the case, there would be
Mr. Heimann, Solicitor to the plaintiff, put in an end of all security for liberty in this country, and
the writ of levarifneiasond the return of the Sheriffs, the sooner a man left it the better. Having said thus
stating, that they had levied and sold to the amount much, he would proceed to his defence: end, first,
of £5l, of which they bad paid.r24 for tales, that e contended that a knowledge of the case should be
the remaining £3O they retained in their hands, wait- brought home to the defendant. In this case he con-
ing the directions of the Court. The return further tended that had notheen done. Mr. Parkins had
enumerated the stock still retained by them in their not only as Sheriff objected to Mr. Collingridge, the
hands, which they knew not how to dispose ot; con- SeCondary, acting for him, but had absolutely pro-
sisting of numerous copies of the Reptiblican, 'lom tested against his so doing; and Mr. Collingtidge
Paine's Works, copies of the Mock Trial, of the Black was conscious of this, because he had requested a
Book, of Sherwin's Register, of Cobbett's Register, geutleman to apply to Mr. -Parkins, for the purpose
Letters to Canning, Letters to Sir Charles Abbott, of inducing him to consent to his appointment ; but
Charles Phillips's Speeches, Cobbett'sGrarnnial',Com- Mr. Parkins never would acquiesce, and, in conse-
mon Sense, Gale Jones's Speeches, &c. quence of his refusal to do so, his accounts had not
Cross-examined.—Knows Mr. C7ailile's shop; there yet been passed, as he could not conscientiously as-
were certain inscriptions over and withinside the sent to the acts of Mr. Collingridge, against wMch
shop ; " The Temple of Reason" was withinside the he had always protested. Now Hopwood acted under
shop ; don't recollect whether there was such ao in- the direction of Mr. Collingridge, and whatever Hop-
scription as " Office or Repository for the Sale of wood did Mr. Collingridge was answerable for.
Republican and Deistical Works," or " Office for the The CutzeJorrice said he did not see how that
Sale of the Republican and the Deist," The letters circumstance, if it did exist, could be made evidence
now handed in are in the band-writing of plaintiff. in this case. Here was a return on the files of the
Mr. ARCIIBOLD here objected, that as the judg- Court, purporting to be a return of the Sheriffs. If
ment of the Court was not put in and proved, the that return had been imprdperly put there, the She-
writ of leveryncias could not be received in evidence. riffs might move to have it taken off; but as it re-
Mr. SCARLETT.—I will save my friend trouble on mains, he must look at it as the return of the Sheriffs.
this print; I have a count for takiag the goods Mr. COOPER resumed.—The next point would be
in trover. . .that which he had put to his Lordship on the tie-
Mr. Anctmoto.—That, m' Lord, would put the cessity of malice on the part of the Sheriffs being
plaintiff out of Court. proved. His Lordship had said that that eras a ques-
The CHIEF JUSTICE, on looking at the record, don for the Jury, 'He would go boldly to the Jury
over-ruled the objection. The judgment of the Court on that point. Mr. Carlile, though in Dorchester,
was safficiently proved by the Rule of Court for is- Jail, well knew what was. going on ; he knew the
suing the writ. Sheriffs were not selling, and he did not wish they
Charles Brown deposed that he was placed in the should, or he would have applied to the toitrt to
care of the plaintiff's shop on the Ifith of November, force them to sell; but the fact was, Mr. Carlile did
the same day the plaintiff was brought up for judg- not wish to have these works sold in a mass, he de-
ment. Hopwood, the Sheriff's Officer, was the per- sired to sellthem separately. Malice had been charged
ton who came in and took possession of the shop, and against the Sheriffs as their motive; Mr. Rothwell
all that was. in it., Mt. Hopwood sealed the parlour was dead, but he had never heard it charged against
door, and the shop door in front was bolted inside.— him that he had any malice against Mr. Carlile, and
ilt remained in that state six or seven weeks. The as to Mr. Parkins, he disdained the charge. The tact
books he removed, the household furniture was sold. was, that the Sheriffs lad only acted wi.h due sub-
Witness was in the shop after Hopwood quitted pos- mission to the law as it at present stood. Here was
a bookseller's stock, consisting of coo/iced libels and
session; everything was removed except the shelves
and counters. suspected publications; and the Sheriffs were tespon-
Cro,s-examined.—The shop was open all day till sible for the sale of them; and notwithstanding the
I the evening—Dees not recollect the inscription "The opinion of his Learned Friend, Mr. Scarlett, to the
'Temple of Reason, or Office for the Sale of the Re- contrary, he a Geld boldly say, that the Sheriffs would
publican and Deitt," but thinks they might be up. not have been protected, had they soltishese libellous
Hopwood came into possession about four. or five works. His. Learned Friendhad said, that seeing the
o'clock. He took possession of all the books in the work, "An Apology for the Bible." amongst the
plaintiff's shop. stock; rnigla have removed the doubts of the Sheriff.'
James Griffiths deposed, that he 'had seen the Perhaps not. It was said that George 111. on this work
'schedule of the stock, and calculated the value, with being presented to him, exclaimed,-" An apology for
the exception of a few books. These whicli he valued the Bible! Why the Bible wants no epOlogy: The
amounted to 40 44 0 , with *feu exceptions they were Sheriffs might have fallen into the same mistake as
"sowovorth nothiug except' for waste paper. to the nature ofthis work. He contended that these'
Cross-examined—Cirri 't calculate What theiwoubl was not the slightest pound for imputing malica'to

ate asfileim AU **ll424l474oNPrig. wee to act
gilt empion, and a .Zue stsret to the idsh The
pialntiir alio Might at any time his Tie rorced them to
a sale—he had not ; therefore If heited suttained a
loss, 'fit Ma Itlittself eetteisited 'telt t . a man ayo„
tenting tb a lees couldsiataf recover against
another for that lass. The neet,point he would go
to was—mitigation of damages. Many .of these pub,
lications were periodical, and lost the value as much
in a day ortwo as they would in a -year. 'Others of
i theie works wets: dedlariedflibets, and 4sthers carried
libels do the *face of them : “ Wet Tyler," for in.
stance, which one of the witnesses had described al
a most beautiful poem, but which was, in Ins opinio:l,
a most contemptible production, and v.ibich had been
declared a libel hy 'the Lord 'Chancellor, and out of
the protection of the law ; so also as regarded the
4, Age of Reason," and others of these :publications;
and how could the Sheriffs come to the Court for in.
structions on such a subject as this? And as to the
selling them immediately, he was certain Ir• car.
Tile, when he should sell these works 'by degrees,
would get much more for them, •under'all the ditad.
van7ges complained ot; tha'n, he-would have got by
ale immediate sale, forced, as it would have bete,
under all the disadvantages of a sale by auction. An
instance of the little money which the most popular
works would fetch udder such circumstances,
uvisetro
be found in a sale of pamphlets which belonged to
Mr. Hone, who, being about to change his residence
lately, had found it convenient to sell a large cock of
popular works by aocrion,when books which h.id been
selling previously and gradually at seven slailin3s
each, fetched no more than thirteen fence.
all these circumstance; he was so fully persuadaa of
the itnpossibility there was of a Jury finding a ver-
dict for the plaintiff, that he would abstain arum his
first intention, which waste have called witnesses, and
leave the case with these observations in their hand ~
The Com Jurrica summed up' to the Jury, and
repeated, that if a Sheriff did wilfully and wrong.
(ally abstain from selling goods in his possession,
with an intention to injure a party, as in this ca'e
alleged, then he would be liable to an action ; hut if
he had reason and probable Cause for keeping tioe
property, then he would be justified in doing so. It
was a question for the Jury to decide on which cf
these motives the present defendant had acted. The,
would take the 'schedule into their hands, and upon
a cool and impartial consideration of the works en;:-
rnerated therein, and the nature of them, they wen!,l
say whether, in their opinion, there was on the bce
of it matter to justify the defendant on the giound
of well•founded caution in refraining from selling ;
if they should be of that opinion, they would and ;or
the defendant; if of a contrary opinion, for the pl.tir.-
tiff, with such damages as they considered equal to
the justice of the case.
At twenty minutes past twelve the Jury retired,
and after being out an hour.they came into Court with
an application to his Lordship for information as to
the lowest sum in damages which would carry costs.
The CHUM Jostles observed, that in this case any
damages, however small, would carry costs; but the
Judge had the power of certifying, in which case ho
regulated the costs. The safest course for the Jury
to pursue, however, in this and all other cases, was
to give a verdict upon the case itself, and its peculiar
circumstances, without attending to consequences.
The Jury again retired, and returned in about a
quarter of an hour with a verdict for the plaintiff—
Damages, one shilling, casts, 40s.
Mr. Coorett.—l hope your Lordship will certify.
The Cater JUSTICE.—That can Le done at any
time, Mr. Cooper. I will consider of it :at preseLt
I do not think I shall.