Star.
London, England, 1819-07-06 00:00:00

. .

LAN' INTO

COURT OF %DM'S:BENCH, JULY S.
TOE KING V. 3014 W DYNELEY, ESQ.
This was an indictment against the defendant, on
• . the pkiiecution of Mr. Alexander Bruce, formerly an
army clothier, and recently a bankrupt, for perjury.
The defendant is a Commissioner of Bankrupts, and
she perjury assigned in the indictment was alleged to
have been committed in an affidavit which he made
before the Lord Chancellor, in support of a petition
prisented 'to-his Lordship respecting the misconduct
of Mr. Brike during his examination at Guildhall.
. *When the Jury were sworn, Mr. Bruce presented
himself to the Court, and begged to be heard on be-
• half of the prosecution. '
The Loan CHM JUSTICE Said, that no person was
c&led to represent his Majesty by speech, or ad-
drs to the Jury; except Geatlerwn called to the
Bin This had been the law of the land for several
egpturies, and it was a rule from which his Lordship
Was not at liberty to depart.
Mr. Bruce said, he,was prepared to spew that he
ought to be beard. 'Me iequested, therefore, that his
Lordship wouid allow .him to state his authorities.
The LORD CHIEF Justice said, he had already.
pronounced his opinion, and he must now impose si.
.lence. There were many points so clear in the law
tliat it was the duty of a Judge not to allow them to
be called in .question.
His Lordship then desired the Clerk to read the in-
dictment. After he had proceeded a short way, Mr.
81-uce interrupted him by saying, that he protested
against this mode of the business ;—he
would be no party to it unless he could be heard.
The LORD CH LEV JusTimsaid, it depended entirely
on Mr. Bruce whether he chose to proceed ; he might,
'if he pleased, withdraw the record.
The Clerk resumed, and read a few more sen-
tences, when Mr. Bruce again interfered, and de-
sired to be heard. He declared that he was entitled
to address the Learned Judge, to spew the reasons
why lie ought to be allowed to address the Airy. In
1 81 -I.,the said, it was decided by Mr. Justice Charnbre,
"that a prosecutor might state the case to a Jury. He
now held in his hand an argument which, he thought,
was worthy the attention of the Court, and he re-
quested that his Lordship would allow* the Officer.of
the Court to read the autlicr.,:ies.
The Loan Cum? Jubilee desired that the paper
might be handed to him, and he would look pri-
vately at it. When he had perused it, his Lordship
said, that whatever might have happened in one or
twncases, the Judges were now unanimously of opi-
nion that no private person had a right to appear as
either representing the King-or-any other person. In
a private suit, an individual might plead for himself,
either as plaintiff or defendant ; and in a criminal
prosecution, he might defend himself ; but in the lat-
ter case, he could not represent the CrOwn. This was
the law, and to that law Mr. Bruce mast yield, or
. withdraw his record.
The Commission and the introductory proceedings
under the bankruptcy were then put in and read.
• Mr. Bruce was next sworn. His evidence, and that
of the subsequent witnesses, was, in all points, nearly
_U4IO *A vas offset as on the ftu user pi osec u Lions against
..2dr...Carter and Mr. Billing, a few days back. •
When the case on the part of the prosecution was
closed, Mr. Scanterr; as Counsel for the defendant,
rose, and asked the Jury whether, as honest and in-
telligent men, they thought that the charge of perjury
was so•far proved by the evidence; that it was neces-,
sary for him to address them on behalf of his client ?
The Jury said, that in their view of the question it
was wholly unnecessary : it did not appear to them
that the charge had been sufficiently established to
call for any reply.
The LORD CIIIEI? JUSTICE then summed up the
case to the Jury, and stated, that he entirely concur-
red in the opinion which they had already expressed.
• The Jury,Avithout further deliberation, returned a
verdict of—Not Guilty.

THE KIND v. THE HON. J. E. LAW.
THE KING V. HENRY WROTTE:,LEY, ESQ.
These were similar indictments against two others
of the Commissioners ; and without going into the
cases they were Acquitted.

SHERIFFS' COURT, BEDFORD-ROW, JULY S. i
THE REV. RICHARD HAYES V. REYNOLDS.
Mr. CHITTY opened the pleadings in this case. It,
was an action to recover compensation in damages
for a libel published in a periodical Work, entitled
The Literary Journal, which charged the plaintiff
with gross and immoral conduct while resident at
Rome. The damages were laid at £5,000. The de-
fendant had suffered judgment to go by default. •
Mr. BROUGHAM addressed the Jury on the nature
of the libel, which had been shortly opened by his
Learned Friend. The defendant having suffered
judgment to go by default, it only remained with
them to assess the damages. The circumstances
which gave rise to the libel were these :—Mr. Hayes
was a Catholic Clergyman, of great respectability
among the members of his own Church, and was
also held in high estimation by persons of opposite
sects. He was a native of Wexford, and was edu-
cated at Rome, wheys he received ordination. In
consequence of the troubles which affected that part
of the world, be returned to his own country, and
was appointed to the spiritual charge of a congrega-
tion, to whom, as well as to every other person who
bad an opportunity of knowing him, he gave the
highest satisfaction. It would be recollected, that in
consequence of the Pope's Rescript at Genoa, Mon-
seigneur Quarantotti, by his direction, wrote to the
Irish Catholics, permitting them to accept thb Veto,
in case that power should be required by the British
Crown as a conditional security for the removal of
their civil disabilities. This permission excited a con-
siderable degree of dissatisfaction among the great
body of the Catholics of Ireland, while with others it
was considered as extremely desirable. The plaintiff
was finally chosen by the opponents of the measure
as their delegate to go to Rome and remonstrate
with th'e Pope on the impolicy of the concession; and
iri allusion to his conduct while engaged .in this mis-
sion, the
present libel was published. The publica-
tion took place in the thirty-first Nualbet of ifie Li-
terary Journal, and. was entitled, " An •autheriic Ac-
count of the Proceedings of the friar Richard Hay"
the Irish Catholic Delegate .at Romer The
,article
commenced by adverting to the circumstances under
which Mr. Hayes had gone to Rome; and then pro.

ceeded to give what it stated to be an account, frOm
the most authentic source, of 'the manner in which
Mr. Hayes had conducted himself. It stated that he
had personally insulted the Pope, and charged him
with having sold himself, as far as regarded rreland,
to the English Government: that he.was seldom seen
in his secular dress, and frequented coffee-houses and
houses of public prostitution: that heresisted the or-
ders ofthe Government, and had introduced abandoned
women into the Convent of S. Isidor: that he locked
himself IT in the Convent, having improperly ob-
tained possession of the keys, and was at length re-
moved only by a stratagem of the Police, who ob-
tained admission by a secret door; and that he was
at length removed by force from the Pontifical terri-
tot y, under an escort of carbiniers, who conveyed him
to Tuscany, where they set him at liberty, and from
whence, through Florence, he had returned to Ireland.
Anthony Meyler, M.D. stated, that the plaintiff
was a Catholic Clergyman; that he was in the habit
of celebrating Mass at Weiford, in Ireland, and was
a man of excellent moral reputation.
On his cross-examination, he said he had not known
'that the plaintiff had been in this country .previously
to the attack made upon his character by this libel,
and that he had never heard from the plaintiff of any
other actions pending.
A Juryman asked, whether, if the libel was trete,
the plaintiff would lose his situation? because, as the
damages were laid at £5,000, it would be necessary
for the Jury to be able to estimate the probabl, in-
jury that might be actually sustained. .
Witness stated, that in the plaintiff's sitna6tur cha-
racter was every thing. One of the principal duties
the plaintiff had to perform was that of receiving
confession, and it was not probable that confidence
Would be reposed in one who lay under such heavy
imputations.
The Rev. Peter Gandolphy deposed, that he was
at Rome six months during the plaintiff's star there,
and that he had never heard a word of suspicion
against hii moral character. Witness considered the
attack upon plaintiff as a most base and malicious
libel, destructive of the character of any Clergyman,
and he had heard it much spoken of.
On his cross-examination, witness said he had fre-
quently conversed with Mr. Hayes, but never heard
of other actions pending.
A Juryman.—" Will you answer me candidly, Mr. Gandol-
phy—ls not simple adultery commutable in the liomanCatholic
Church?"
Mr. Gandolphy.—" Adultery commutable! It is impossible
for me to guess at your meaning."
Juryman,. It is not commuted by penance?*
Mr. Gandolphy, in great surprise, said—" Certainly not."
Juryman.—" Nor by confession?'
Mr. Gandolphy.—" No. Confession is a species of repent-
fiCes and certainly has not the quality of changing one crime
inti. another."
Juryman.—" Will you be kind ecougla to tell us what im-
peachment of !floral character adultery is considered in the Ca-
tholic Church r .

Mr. Gandolphy ;Laid, mildly, it was considered as the greatest.
Mr. WILLIAMS spoke for the defence. The action
had, he said, been brought, not upon legal, but ans..
sical authority. The learned Friar had followed the
plan of a great Epic Poet, whose hero, for a fallen
friend, sacrifked twelve fellow-creatures. The plain-
tiff, however, was more moderate, being content to
sacrifice six booksellers to the manes of his departed
character. The comments, 'after all, were, he de-
clared, but of a public nature; and did the Friar as-
pect that when he was going upon the mission to
Rome, he could appear in that " bad eminence"
without being subject to public observation, and that
he could swagger about in the imperial city as he
might have done at his hermitab,7e in Wexford, with-
out being liable to the fate of all public men, who,
generally speaking, would rather be noticed in the
language of abuse than not noticed at all, whose daily
food was the public talk, and whose retiring from it
would be like that of a man who gave up his accus-
tomed drink of brandy for simple water. The plain-
tiff had not been forced, he had obtruded himself,
into public view. The libel was temperate, and had
the appearance of being true. The defendant had
given up all idea of justifying, for that might fix
upon him an expense which he would by no means
be able to defray. He was only desirous of escaping
from a dilemma into which he had inadvertently
fallen in the course of a business beset with snares.: the
learned Counsel then spoke of the absurdity of think-
ing that publishers, were responsible for every thing
that appeared in the papers. He begged the Jur
would suppose that a Greek or Latin note were intro-
duced in a work, charging a person with having
stolen a book out of a Nobleman s library, and that
the bookseller was unacquainted with the language,
was the bookseller to be punished for having stolen
the book ?
The Attorney for the plaintiff here started up, and
said, he had offered to drop proceedings, upon con-
dition that the author should be given up.
Such an offer, continued Mr. WILLIAMS, was as
immaterial and futile as if Mr. Pearson had said,
" catch me the new comet's tail." Whatever might
be the malignity of the libel, to the defendant in this
case no part of that malignity was to be ascribed, in-
as much as he had nothing in the world to &with the
publication. He was neither the printer, the editor,
nor the publisher of The Literary Jaunted. He was
the mere vender, and, in common with ether book-
sellers, had procured it from the publisher for the
accommodation of his customers. It would, indeed,
Ise unjust to punish him for. the original sin of others,
for a publication over which he had no controul, and
of the contents of which he could have no knowledge
before it entered his shop.
Mr. BROUGHAM said, the Attorney for the plain-
tiff, who knew all about the business, might be exa-
mined as to the intention to bring other actions.
Mr. WILLIAMS did not call him.
The UNDICIt SUMMIT charged the Jury, who gave
damages—Five Pdunds.

Battuday afternoon, as Mr. GEORGE TAYLOR, aged
20, of Mitcham-street, Mary-la-Bonne, was crossing
the Edgeware-road, a cart that was passing by, at
rather a quick rate, knocked him down, andthe wheel
pgssing over his body, he was killed oar the spot.--,
The same day an elderly Lady, wholial' crosier
over the road at the end of atm...lane, Holborn. wait
run over by a wanam, heavily laden, ap=
round the corner rat suddenly, the whelke
passed over her head, and kilted he upon the "spot.
Sunday se'nnight Mr. WALTER LAWLER, I tit.
yeller for the House cilium and Wax*, aflondon,
hop-merchants, was dtowned whilst bathing isi the
Eden, a little above the racing ground, neat Culiele.

,


NAVALPROMOTIONS and APPOINTMENTS.

11,