Star.
London, England, 1827-11-22 00:00:00

would bet* diy broisobt..--
up for jsidgesist. Mast
mid doe If was undeialPod that thisova an 'erroneous
expectation;; and the numbers who had aeverstpledla
'tourt:to see him exhibit immediately left. •• -
- SOMERTON v. ltrx (IN mon). • •
1 This was a wi it of error to revel sea judgment passed.
Kt the-liest-Spring Assizes, at Taunton, on Mar) Somer...
Pso, by which she was -sentenced to be transported
beyond seas for the space of 14 years: The indictment
on -which she was found guilty was admitted to. Ise good
fo-r• larceny, but -was held by the prisoner's eotmsel to'
be such as'woold not warrant the• judgment founded
upon it. --It stated that .1 Mary Somerton, of the palish
of•Bueldand, on the Ist of March, in the year of oar
Lord 1827, at the parish aforesaid, being then and there
the servant of one Joseph Hillier, on the same day, and
in the same year aforesaid with force and arms, one
od ring of the valued 5t." (and several other article"
specifically named) " the property of the aforesa..i ,
Joseph Hillier; did steal and feloniously take away. ---
On this indictment three cirri*, acre assigned, which
resolved theniselves into this substantial objection to the
jocipment—that the artrtnent that the act was done ea'
tie same day, was not a sufficient averment that it was
done at the same thole that the prisoner was servant:to
Joseph H liter.
Mr. S. rgeant BoweAs was heard on behalf of the
plaintiff in error, and MT. JEREMY on behalf of the
Crown.
The Cower held the averment to be sufficient,
affirmed the judgment of the • Court below, and dis-
missed the writ of error.
CLEMENT V. USHER. •
• Lord TENTERDEN gave judgment in this case, which
was a writ of error from the Court of Common Pleas.
The defendant in error had bronelit an action for libel
against Mr. Stockdale, the publisher of the Memoir/Of,
tile notorious- Hastier Wilson—the libel being con-
rained•in that work—=and had recovered damages to
the extent of 7004 The plaintiff in error had published,
some vet see on the subject of the trial in a newspaper tsfl
which he was the proprietor, and Mr.Fither had brought
an action. against him for this publication, and had ob-
tained a verdict of 5001. damages. Mr. Clement having
attested judgment on the ground that the counts in the
indictment were bad; the question came for decision in
this Court.
The question was argued yesterday by Mr. Poe'er
for the plaintiff, and Mr. MANNING for the defendant.
The allegation was, that the plaintiff in error did on
seertstin day publish a libel of and concerning Mr.
Fisher; containing certain defamatory ssatters,• not al-
leging thaoshe matters were concernintbinta '
Lord TINTERDSN, in pronouncing the judgment of
the Court, stated, that if, in Cie alleged libel, there bid
Deed any inuehdo directly applying the matter to the
pliiintiff, or it, on the perusal of the matter, it had ap-
peared that it must bear relation to the plaintiff and to
him only, the averment would have been difficult to
suitain; but, upon looking at the matteri that had been
.sit MAI:4U appeared that certain initials had been used,
suili'lle'llo.' Ike. etc. anit it seemed impossible for the
Coniefoiaftbat dal-fluidal' ,elated to the plaintiff, or
thatiftele'Sis any thing to skew that the matters di.
teeth; ipplied to htm. The Court was therefore of
. opinion that the counts were not good, that the Iddg•
meet must be reversed, and a venire de.xovo granted.,
TUE KING 9..ABRAHASI REEVES.
The defendant was brought tap to receive the judg-
ment of the Court, having been found guilty, at ;beeline
It neesbise Assiaes,ol committing a violent assault upon
Uillians Charlton, an officer of she Elcise, while in she,
execution of his duty. Is appeared that the defendant
having been detected in the act of brewingheer without
a license, pear Manchester, the Excise officer proceeded
to hil.bquse where be saw the defendant, who threat-
eyed to and; him if he entered, eni, on his effecting an
worence,ruslie,l at him with a kalifs., and was only poe-
t/6000cm inflicting a wound by the interference of a
1111 U; who accompanied the officer. Subsequently, on
the officer going into the cellar, when the defendant was
occupied in emptying ill the brewing tubs,. he again
attacked the officer with a poker.and a carving knife,
and it was with the utmost danger and difficulty that
the officer was enabled to seize and carry away the
brewing utensils. Ab•tut,three weeks after this tratisac•
lion, the defendant net ark officer, anddlew a knife,
ai:d again threatened willowy him.
The sottcorna GenIIRAL now prayed the sentence of
the Cott' t on the defendant.
Mr. Justice BAYLEY asked it the prisoner had not been
in custody, since the 9th of March last. - •
The SOLICITOR GENERA!. replied, that he had been
in custody on a charge, of having sold beer illegally,
but it pas before this transaction.
The,ptison'r then put in a memorial in mitigation of
papishment, which wasseaJo It stated that he had been
guilty of the assault for Ashich he had • been tried, and
of se*); beer without a licenae, and that the poor were
generally under the impression that it was no crime so
to do; but that he was. now convinced of the enormity
of his offence, and his mind had undergone a complete
change since the commission of it. That change had
been produced by the influence of reflection and of tell.
pion, to which,he had long been a stranger. tie would,
therefore, never be guilty of committing it again, and
hoped the mercy of the Court would be extended io him,
as he had a wife,_ five children, and a helpless mother,
w. depended only on hjm for support, and were now
obtaining relief from their parish. It mercy were ex-
.tended to him, he would hereafter conduct himself with
honesty, and never agaisdisobey or transgress against
the laws of his counuy. ,
Lord 'humid:sae asked the prisoner if he had any
thing to say to the C. tot?
Tie prisoner replied, he had only to state that the
man who appeared against him was a very terrible man,
and always drunk.
Lord TENTERDZII observed, that was a mode of de-
fence which could do him no possible good.
The SoLicaroa Gemeeat, stated that the case was
one of a very aggravated paturo, The prisoner had
misted the office( who was acting iq discharge of his
duty, had threatened his life, and thus not only when
effecting the seizure, but again neatly three weeks after-
wards. The neighboerhood in which the prisoner lived
was very populous, shere.beer was commoule sold ilk.
gaily, and, conseqoendy,ihere the Excise offieers ought,
en be afforded every Protection. It was necessary,
therefore, fur ibis putpose,.and to indece-efficers to
do their .cipty..to make an example of some one. The
prisoner had oe)y been imprisoned on this charge aim*
October last.
Mr. Justice Battote then addressed' the prisoner, and
stated that be liacl beam. found goilyy of ,a very gm'
q4pnce 'shaving resisso epd tbreatengd• to take:the
life o(en offieer wbdiojtothe publicAischarge of hks.
duty—a duty which the, prisoner,
_as a,
opdaubjeet,
clallbl ;o hart 14Egolit4dXskeiPeltufiliefl- , Ild slated'
fifrk
that be bad fivechiltlees N 0409411141 sop tic. Ra.
Port ; bin, in itfusg.ibat Nibicilili!Pg ikkt44o,llin Ng'
tin them i 'Pad eXaiziPle• Plultr all tbe;rinotstetences
of the ease, and coosiderin that he had :Wady suf.
feted imprisonment for some time, the sentence of sne