Star.
London, England, 1820-11-28 00:00:00

tJZEr,,4Nv.

Has GraCe.thaftOap IfaisiATc of all istat.istO his
left Armagh, on 'lns way to Scotland. ~ •
Earl Dosourmaiwtp,is on his way to Knockforty,
where he is to reiruen for a few days, and then return
to London, to join 1/..:4-d!Hure,ulNsox.
Thursday, Lord LortovoaDAand suite arrived in
Dublin from Holyhead.

(From Carrick's Morning Past).
4 MYSTERIOUS Awn ALARMING ANNOUNCEMENT.
" The Hibernian Journal, a paper known as the
organ of the Orange faction in this City, has the fol-
lowing most extraordinary paragraph :
4 WE KNoW WHAT WOULD BE DONE; AND WHAT
COULD BE DONE, DID WE BUT LIFT UP OUR FINGER TO
THE MYRI4DS OF 0114NOSMEY NOW IN DUBLIN!!!'

" Is, then, the reign of terror revived? Is the
city to be fired ?, Are we to be all massacred ?. Or
is there a rebellion in actual forwardness, ready to
explode upon the signal of this ma.i's HOLDING UP
HIS SINGER ? Are we in the camp of the Janizaries,
! or wider the dominion of the Prztorian Cohorts, that
we should be thus assailed? Good GOD! what- a
state of things do we live in, when the Government
of the Country thus suffers itself to be bearded by its
own stipendiaries, with such monstrous, such match-
less audacity !
We cannot write upon such a subject—we throw
the pen from us with indignation —"
MULLINGSR, Nov. 16.—At the Fair of this town
on Monday last, an abundant supply of cattle was
exposed for sale ; but we are sorry to record a most
lamentable occurrence that took place in the even-
ing, wherein an unfortunate man lost his life. It ap-
pears that between the hours of seven and eight
o'clock, a party of those infatuated wretches styled
Ribbonmen (with whom this country abounds), col-
lected on the road leading to the Canal Harbour,
and commenced their usual custom of flagellation,
indiscriminately on all those who could not answer
their questions and signs ; after Committing various
depredations they quitted the town, but being shortly
pursued by those whom they maltreated, accom-
panied by numbers who came to their assi-tance, they
soon overtook the unfortunate man to whom we al-
lude, James Loran, who fell a victim to their mis-
guided fury—he received a blow from a blunt wea-
pon on the back part of the head, that caused a frac-
ture of the skull, of which he died the following
morning. An Inquest was held by Tnobtas SHEA,
Esq. Coroner.—Alter a most particular investigation,
and the examination of a great number of witnesses,
that occupied nearly two days, the Jury returned the
Collo ing verdict :—" We find that the deceased,
James Loran, came by his death in consequence of a
blow from a pitchfork, given him by Hugh Camp-.
bell, in the presence of George Sherlock and Michael
Pidgeon."

List of visitors at Brandenburgb House, on Satur-
day and Sunday :
Mr. Creevey, M.P. Rev. Edward French, Rev, Mr. Closs-
hold, Lady Wm. Russell, Lord Duneannon, Countess of Tat-
kerville, Lady Mary Barnet, Mr. and Mrs. Denman, M. Wood,
Esq. M.P. Mr. Brougham, M.P. Mr. and Mrs. Wylde, and
Lieutcnant-Colonel Jones.

The name of the Duke of HAMILTON appears
among the presentations to the King of FRANC/ on
Friday last.
Lord and La:ly PORTSMOUTH and family are now
on a visit to Mrs. SPURLINO, her Ladyship's sister,
at Portsmouth.
A number of passengers are at Portsmouth, wait•
i•rs: to go out in the Westmoreland, for the Cape and
Van Dieman's Land.
Saturday, Jon x Hamm LET, Esq. took the oaths
of office and allegiance before the LORD CHANCEI.
LOR, in his private room at Lincoln's Inn Hall, as
Clerk of the House of Commons.
A singular custom prevails in some parts of Car.
diganshile, and was observed last week at Penegos,
in that county. It is, that previous to a marri:te
taking place, the bride is mounted on horseback
hind her father or nearest relation, who instantly sets
off at full speed, and are pursued by the bridegroom
and his friends, the former suffering himself to be
overtaken. The bride is carried away apparently by
force, and conveyed to the Church, where the Clergy-
man is in readiness to perform the ceremony.
The following mysterious affair to :,k place on Wed-
nesday night, in Paris :—The Duke Decres returned
about half-past eleven o'clock, with his wife and
daughter, from the Theatre, and found his valet, as
usual, waiting for him in an antichamber. The Duke
went to bed immediately, and the valet retired to his
room, which was directly over that of his master.
About half-past one the Duke was awakened by a
strong smell of burning linen, which soon changed to
a smell of gunpowder. He sat up, half asleep, in
his bed, when he heard what appeared to him to be
the crackling noise of a match. He was half out of
bed, when an explosion like the report of a three
pounder cannon went off between his mattresses. It
threw him to the opposite side of the chamber, when
another detonation, nearly equal to the first, exploded
a few minutes after. The bed was in flames, a mir-
ror broker., and the furniture all upset.—The Duke
in vain called on his valet de chambre: the latter said
he was going to leap out of the window. The Duke,
though wounded, set about extinguishing the flames;
and almost immediately he heard the valet, with a
cry of despair, precipitated from a height of 40 feet
upon the pavement. He uttered the most piercing
cries, and to the questions which his master put to
him, he only answered, that some men had seized
him, and thrown him out of the window. The Duke
received several burns on the thigh and right arm ;,
and the firemen found between the mattresses thref
packages, two of which were calculated to hold a
pound each, and one half a pound of gunpowder.—
These packets had produced the explosion, as a train,
from the fire-place to a side door communicated with
them. So many suspicions arose against the valet,
who is not expected to live, that the Attorney-Gene-
ral caused him to be taken into cu Cody, and he was,
conveyed to the hospital of La ChZrite. .0n looking,
over the Duke Decres' papers, Bank bills to the
amount of 3000 francs each, and three bonds for
600 Q francs each, which were safe the evening before,
were not to be found.. The valet bad been upwards
of six years in the Duke's service, was at the head of
the household, and enjoyed the confidence of the ,
Duke and his family in a high degree.
The vakt-de-chambre of the Duke Decres died yes-
Istrday afteraoom—Jouraal do Dcbaf. ofsaturdall.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

• --.
COURT OF RING'S RENCK, NOVIEMARR 171
CRIMINAL I NINA: TION. •

• Mr. Moog applied for a cri ninal information
against Winter, Esq. a Captain in the Army,
for sending a letter to Mr. Hoare, ~on of Sir K.
Hoare, with intent to provoke him to fight a duel. •
Mr. Moore proceeded to-state the fact, of the case,
from which it appeared the whole arose out of a
sporting trancactiun, Captain Winter having been
warned off Sir Richard's manors, as a trespasser,

. .
upon which he wrote the letter in question to Mr.
Hoare. The Learned Cuunsel was about to read the
letter, when _ _

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE asked if there was any
affidavit proving that this letter was in the hand-
writing of Captain Winter?
Mr. MOORE said he had no such affidavit.
The CHIEF Justice observed, the application was.
founded entirely on this letter ; there were no other
grounds for it ; and unless the letter was identified,
to be the hand-writing of the Ca; tain, the Court
could not grant the rule.—Rule refused.

THE KING V. SIR FRANCIS BURDETT.
The Couar proceeded to give judgment, on the.
application for a new trial, in this case.
Mr. Justice BEST read the libel on which the de-
fendant had..been convicted, when tried before him
at Leicester, and detailed the evidence called to stip,
port the charge against Sir Francis, of being the
publisher of this libel in the county f Leicester, he
having avowed himself the author, and the only
question now at issue being as to the place of publi-
cation. The Learned Judge said, when the case was
tried before him, Mr. Denman and Mi. Phillips,

who assisted Sir Francis in his defence, submitted,

that there was no proof of publication in Leicester-
shire. In reply to that argument, he told the Learned
Counsel that he considered there was evidenc., on

this head to go to the Jury. He thought so then—
he continued to think so still; add therefore, in
charging the Jury, he told them they had two points
to consider. First, did the publication take place in
Leicestershire? and secondly, was it a libel? He
stated the evidence of publication as it might be pre-
sumed, and, if not true, might have been contradicted;
and also the evidence of libel, and in so doing, stated
what he considered as the law, namely, that the in

tent of a person in doing an act must be judged of
by the effect which such an act was calculated to
produce. Since the verdict, a new trial had been
applied for. He most sincerely rejoiced at that cir-
cumstance, as by it this important question had been
fully sifted. On the application for a new trial, four
objections had been taken. The first was, that there
was no evidence of the publication in Leicestershii e.
He considered this a question for the Jury. If the
Judge thought there was any evidence, he was bound
to submit it to the Jury, whether the beating of his
mind was in favour of a prosecutor or a defendant,
otherwise it would not be a trial by a Jury, but a

trial by a Judge. In this case, he considered there
waa.presumptive,. though not ptsitive evidence of
such a publication; and as no attempt had been made
to contradict the presumption he felt it his duty to
submit it to the consideration of the Jury. It had

been said, that no presumptive evidence could be
received in criminal cases; but such w as not the law.
The contrary was the established and received rule
of evidence, whether in civil or criminal cases. Pie-.
suniptive evidence was received in cases of murder;
of manslaughter, of burglary, and others the greatest
ci imes known to our law; and, as human nature is
constituted, unless presumption was allowed, the
most atrocious crimes, which were generally com-
mitted in secret, must escape unpunished. Where
there was nothing but presumption, it should be re-
ceived with the greatest caution; but if that pre-
sumption was not contradicted, in a case where con-
tradiction was easy, it must be taken as p4oof.
The presumption in this case was strot.g. The
paper was dated Kirby Park, which is in the county
of Leicester, and this fact was strong presumption
that the letter was written there. Next, the paper
was dated the 23d, Sir Francis was at Kirby Pat k oa
that day. On the 24th, or 25th, it was in London;
the defendant not having been out of Leicestershire
in the meantime. Mr. brooks said, at the trial, he
received it from a Mr. Bickerstaff, inclosed in an en..
'elope, but whether that envelope was directed or
not, he could not say. Mr. Brooks, however, received
it from Mr. Bickerstaff, and Mr. Bickerstaff might
have been called to chew how and where he received
it; and, looking to all the circumstances, the strong
presumption was, that it was delivered by Sir Francis
in Leicestershire to Mr. Bickerstaff. If presumption
was wrong, it might have been contradicted by. Mr.
Bickerstaff, had they chosen to have called him. This
delivery was a publication ; but he would go further
and say, that suppbsing this letter to have been sent
by the post, still it was a publication. He denied
that, in the language of the law, publication meant
manifestation. We heard of a man publishing an
award, of another publishing his will, but did the
word here mean publishing the contents ? Did it
mean any more than delivery of the will or the
award? The delivery he held to be the publication ;
the moment the writer delivered the letter out of his-
hand his controul over it ended, he had shot his
arrow, and could no longer say the venom should
not reach its mark. If this was not the law, how
could libel ever be punished? Publication might
always he got rid of. He would- put a case—suppose
an individual to write a most aggravated libel on this
nation, and send it to Petersburgh, to Madrid, or to
Paris, to be published, as he called it, was the author
to be sent to Petersburgh or to Madrid, to be pu-
nished by the Russian or Spanish law? According
to the doctrine of publication now called for, it must
be so, or the author of such libel, though most mis-
chievous and injurious to this country, would escape
unpunished. - The Learned Judge then proceeded to
cite the authority of Lord Mansfield and other
Judges, and to state the maxims laid down in the
Civil Law to support the opinion he had given as to
what constituted publication. The third point was
an objection taken to his (the Judge) having taken
on himself to lay down what was the Law et Libel,
which it was saith after the passing the Statute of
George 111. he was not justified in doing. He was
glad this subject had been argued ; it was entirely a
mistaken notion to suppose the Statute of George 111.
made the question of libel a mere question ni
It was a question of law and fact mingled ; and all
the difference made by the Statute of George W.

~"

1

,

• .

e , - -.L.,..._
-----14 *iikve,ben special, that the defend** ;night have
was, that the Jury should be allowed to Grid Riese- an& CD Use& of bringing I writ of error, and Mi-
ni verdict of guilty or not guilty, and were not te- ' theilleint decided on solid it sent. On Me
stricted, .as before that Statute., to finding only the " shoe were different opintpues In the case kifl
fact, of publicOon and the truth of the inuendoes.-m- the King and Watson, where the taming in a letter
It was still the duty of the Judge to explain and de.;* at Islington WAS taken by Lord Ellebboroegh, at
ride on the law. The fourth objection was, that his 11/iii rms. as a proolof publication, had never been
address to the Jury was unjust. He was sorry this 'reconsidered. Neither had the similar case of thel
point had been made, not on his own account, -but !King e. Williams. But there was the case of the
on account of the Gentleman who had made the ob- I King o. Collet; which was an indictment for publish.
servation ; a ho, he was convinced, had done it in the ing forged stamps. Here the stamps were forged in
heat of the moment ; and no man had more reason London, and sent to Bath for use. Collet was in.
to ask indulgence for opinions so uttered, than the dicted afterwards for publishing in Middlesex, and
individual who was then•addressing them: but for was convicted. A Writ of Error was brOught, when
doing an act of injustice, he hoped those who best seven out of the twelve Judges thought the publi-
knew him would acquit hi% of the charge of ever cation was in Middlesex, but the other five were of
deliberately or intentionally doing so ; and he was a contrary opinion; and the consequence was, that
convinced, from the knowledge he had of the Learned , the verdict of guilty was never acted on. This point
Gentleman who had so charged him, that the accuser iof publication, therefore, could not be taken as set-
had, on reflection, felt more pain for having made ' tied and determined beyond doubt. But ithad been said
the accusation, than the accused had from the accu- that as the writing had taken place in Leicestershire,
cation having been made. In addressing , the Jury, even allowing the publication to have been in Mid-
he had certainly said, that for the defendant, a man dieser, the offence of writing and publishing consti-
of high rank, of great fortune, of transcendent talent, tuting but one offence, might be tried in either county.
and of most extensive influence in the country, he On that subject he had great doubts. The Learned
could find no excuse. He told the Jury, the question Judge then proceeded,to cite several cases in sup-
they.had to consider was, whether this was a publi- port of his opinion—that two offences, committed in
cation addressed to the passions of the multitude, or different counties, and different in magnitude, if
was it such sober reasoning and discussion .as was taken separately and together, could not be taken as
allowable, in a free Go qernment like Our's, on the one offence, though joined in the same record ; and
acts of our Rulers ? If they should be of opinion the though, if taken together, forming but one offence,
publication was sober reasoning and fair discussion; could not be tried in one county. Here the charge
then it was not a libel. If, on the contrary; . they was for composing, writing, and publishing:- but only
should consider it addressed to the p4ssions of the the writing and composing in this case had been
people, then it was a libel, and they wmild find it proved; and, taken without publication, was but a
such. The Liberty of the Press went so far• as vi lesser offence. For this reason, therefore, he was of
sanction all such publications as were intended to in- , opinion the present verdict could not stand. It must
stru,...: and inform the people ; but it would not jus- either be altered in its shape, or the Rule for a new
tify attempts to inflame the multitude. Vituperation trial must be now made absolute. .
went beyond the Liberty of the Press in the most free . The Cuter...kayos was of opinion, that in this
country .hat ever existed ;. and had been made suit; Case the. Rule fbr a new trial ought to be discharged,
ject to the laws of every Government, however fret and thatihepresent verdict should stand. His Lord-
and liberai. Such publications must necessarily be ship asen prhceeded to state the grounds on which
so dealt with, as they went to destroy private chit- belame to thivdecisien." There was abundant proof
racter, or to encourage riot and rebellion. S ich was that drelibel. was written in Leicestershire. It was
the opinion entertained by him at the trial,. and such said that the prosecutor Might to have called Mr.
remained his opinion now. He would not apologist Bicker-staff; but it:appeared that) until the trial, the
for having occupied so much of the time of the Court: prosecutor did not know the paper had ever been in
iz was the duty of a Judge to deliver his opinion, and Mr. Bickersear slands,thoush to the defendant this
to state tin: ground of it ; and he was now of.opiuion was a fact inevitably within his knowledge. He might
no new trial should be granted. . have called Mr: Bickersteff, who would have stated
Mr. Justice lloiatoto, after giving the fullest con- how, where, and, in wliat mlinner he received the
sideratipn to all the arguments advanced on this im- paper. The paper was written on the 24d, at Kirby
portant question, was decidedly of opinion the rule Park, 100 miles from London and on the 25th the con.;
for a new trial ought not to be made absolute. He tents appeared in most of the London Papers.--.
was of opinion that the offence might be tried in the Sir Francis, for anything which appeared, still re-
county in which the libel was written; and in giving maining in Leicestershire. If there could be any
this opinion, he was not called on, in the preitut doubt that the paper was delivered from the hands
case, to decide as to the effect in a case in which the of Sir Francis in Leicestershire, then there ought to
alleged libel might have been stolen from the closet be a new trial ; but if there were-no doubts, then the
or desk of the writer, and published without his con- verdict ought not to be disturbed. He did not think
sent. In this case, however, he thought there was there were any grounds for doubt; and he did not
such presumptive evidence, as justified the Jury in think a new trial should be granted, for the purpose
finding the publication to have taken place in Lei- of inquiring into some special facts, put upon the ver-
cestershire. The Learned Judge proceeded at consi- did ;as to the charge and summing.up of the Learned
derable length to comment on the, arguments of the Judge, he could not but consider it as perfectly cor-.
Counsel on both sides, and declared his opinion, that rect. But it had been said, Kitby Park was near the
the verdict was right, and that there ought not to be border of another County, and that it was possible
a new trial. the defendant might have taken the paper in his
Mr. Justice BAYLEY agreed in part of the opinion pocket into that County, and there have given it
laid doer, by his Learned Brothers. It had been said to Mr. Bickerstaff. He considered this as highly im-
in argument, that the defendant should have been al- probable, but he would allow it to be the fact ; and
lowed to go into evidence of the late transactions at he would certainly say, that the defendant might be
Manchester. lie was most decidedly of opinion.the tried and found guilty of the whole charge in the
Judge did perfectly right in rejecting that evidence. County of Leicester. The composing. writing, and
So, as to the objection to the Juage s having .ex- publishing, were all one offence, constituting one mis-
plained the law to the Jury, it was his duty to do demeanour, and might be tried inthe County in which
so, and it was also the •duty of the Jury to take the any one of these acts had been done. His Lordship
law from the Judge. If the law was wrong as laid proceeded to cite authorities from the Year and Text
down by the Judge, the error might be remedied by BoOks in support of this opinion. Amongst other
an application for a new trial; but if the Jury, acting on cases, he cited those of Bulmer, the King and
their own judgment, should act wrong, and acquit a Briscow. Next, as to the objection that:the Judge had
defendant, the injustice done to the Public could not refused to admit evidence of the transactions which
be remedied. On these points he agreed with his took place on the 16th August, at Manchester, and
Learned Brothers ; but he must confess he bad diffi- proof that some of the King's subjects had lost their
culties as to the point of presumption of publication lives there: the case of the seven Bishops had been
in the county of Leicester, on the evidence as it at mentioned in support of this objection, but that case
present stood. The letter was written on the 22d of was different, as the evidences tendered were Acts of
August, and Mr. Brookes states that he received it Parliament. The King v. Horne had also been cited
from Mr. Bickerstaff on the 24th, in London or Mid- iu support of the right of the defendant to have this
dlesex. How it reached Mr. Bickerstaff did not ap- evidence • but here the defendant conducted his own
pear ; there was no evidence that he lived in Leices- cause, and on the Counsel for the prosecution ob.
tershire; or was there at or about that time. There was jetting, Lord Mansfield said, " You had better let
no evidence, of a positive kind, that the publication him call his evidence ;" but this could not be taken
took place in Leicestershire; bat the Learned Judge as an authority against an opinion of the Judges de-
told the Jury they might presume the delivery open livered iu the House of Lords. His Lordship con,
in Leicestershire to Mr. Bickerstaff. Now it struck chided his observations by defending the course taken
him there were not grounds suffieient for that pre- by Mr. Justice Best in his address to the Jury at the
mamption, yet it ;ended to influence the Jury.. That trial, and concluded by declaring his opinion, that
Juries might act on.presumption was true, but there the Rule for a new trial should be discharged.
must be a prima fade case to. merit such pease,- The Rule was discharged accordingly.
tion. Was there such a case made out in chitcase? The Socic-rroiLGswestar. said, as they had not
The prima facie case assumed here was, that the let- required the attendance of Sir Francis Burdett from
ter was delivered to Mr. Bickerstaff in Leicestershire, day to day, he would not, perhaps, be immediately
and delivered open. It was the ditty of the prose- acquainted with their Lordships' judgment. Under
cutor to make out theprimailisese ease. Had be done these circumstances, he wished now to state, that
so ? Had he called any evidence to attempt to there was no intention of praying for judgment until,
establish such prink: finis case? And would next Term.
a Grand Jury have presumed such a fact upon the THE /IRO V. EDMONDS AND OTHERS."
evidence adduced by the prosecutor in this case? The Sot ictroa-GENsular, said, the Court would
And thotigh` this• case tame before the Court on a recollect the defendants had applied for and obtained
criminal information, filed by the Attorney-General, a Rule for a new trial, on an objection to the mode
yet surely that circumstance would. not alter the of striking the Jury. It now appeared, that not only
rules of evidence: The Attorney-General, before had they failed to serve the Rule, but it was not even
filing this information, must believe he had a prima drawn up. He was, therefore, in a situation to pray
facie case of publication in Leicestershire, and he for judgment; but as he supposed the delay originated
ought to have been prepared with evidence of that in some mistake, he would not now pray for judg-
• fact at the trial.' Mr. Bickerstaff should have been went, if the defendants would undertake to serve
called to say whether he received this letter from the their Rule on the first day of next Term.
defendant in Leicestershire or not.. It appeared to him, Mr. DENMAN, on the part of the defendants, ac-
that it was a part of the case on the part of the Crown, cepted the forbearance of his Learned Friend, and the
and that the Crown ought to have called Mr. Bicker- case accordingly stands over.
staff; and he could not but consider his Learned Bro- THE XING V. ORZATHRAD LIWIS.
. , they as mistaken in .directing the Jury, without that The Scuacrroa-GENERAL prayed the judgment of
• -evidence, to presume the publication in Leicestershire. the Court on the defendant, convicted of publishing,
• A Jury ought not to be asked to decide on conjec- a seditious libel, of and concerning the Manchester
tune when they could have proof. The Jury ought Meeting, which appeared in the Coventry Paper, of
never to invade the province of the Judge in decid- which the defendant is Editor.
ing on the law ; neither ought the Judge ever to in- Mr. Justice BEST read the Report of the Trial,
fringe on the privilege of tbp Jury to decide on which came on at the Summer Assizes for the county
matter of fact; but the next question, allowing it to of Warwick. The libel was calculated to excite per-
have been delivered in Leicestershire, would be, how sons to rebellion, by stating that the Manchester
was it delivered, was it open or sealed ; if sealed it Yeomanry Cavalry: were murderers. It also reflected
was a close delivery, and was that a publication ? grossly on the King for having approved their conduct.
He did not mean now to say it was or was not; but The defendant put in an affidavit, complaining,
he would say, that in that case the verdict should amongst other things, of the mode adopted in-striking

his Jury by the Sherif. The affidavit 134
reasf,.the defendant proceeded to address-
He declared, he did not consider he had been
of any crime against society, in ;the expression oft,
his political opinions. He had been made-the victim
of a foul conspiracy, in the manner in which his Jury
had been struck ; and as to the libel for which he
was now to receive judgment, he must submit to
• their Lordships he was not the author; and, indeed,
that the original author had not been punished at all.
He did not now stand before their Lordships to re-
cant
his political opinions, but to avow them. The
defendant then proceeded to defend the principles
which he bad avowed, and declared, had he to live
his time over again, he should again act as he had
done. Even in his dungeon he should be supported
by the reflection that he had done his duty; and, de-
prived of the society of those whom he loved and by
whom he was beloved in return, should seek for con-
solation in the doctrines of Christianity, being well
aware that—
" Virtue may be assail'd, but never hurt;
Surpris'd by unjust force, but not enthrail'd;
Yea, even that which mischief meant most harm,
Shall, in the happy trial, prove most glory
But evil on itself shall back recoil,
And mix no more with goodness ; when, at last,
Gather'd like scum, and settled to itself,
It shall be in eternal restless change,
Self-fed and self-consumed if this fail,
The pillar'd firmament is rottenness,
And earth's base built on stubble !"
He would not detain their Lordships longer by ob-
servation, but stood to receive their judgment.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL shortly addressed the
Court, and called their Lordships attention to some
passages of the libel, which contained vat ions reflec-
tions on the Prince Regent's letter to the Manchester
Yeomanry.
. Mr. Justice BAYLEY pronounced the judgment of
the Court on the defendant, which was, that he
should pay 4:50 to the King; be imprisoned two
years in the jail of Warwick; and at the expiration
of that time to find security for his good behaviour
for five years, himself in L'2oo, and two sureties in
£lOO each, and to be further imprisoned till such
security was found and such fine paid.
The defendant asked a question of the Bench, as
to what should be the nature of his imprisonment ?
Mr. Justice BAYLEY said,. the Court could make
no order as to the mode of imprisonment ; but the
:§heriff would no doubt act properly.
' isouematta 25.—THE KING V. THE MAYOR AND COR-
PORATION OF EVESIIAM.
This was an application for a Mandamus against
ithe Mayor and Corporation of Evesham, for refusing
to admit—. Garrott, a Free Burgess of that Borough.
The COMMON SERJEANT applied this day to have
the Rule enlarged to the first tour days of .the next
Term.—The application was granted accordingly:
THE ICING V. JOHN HUNT.
This defendant, who is a respectable Custom-ho Use
agent, was brought up to receive sentence, having
suffered judgment to go by default, to an indictment
founded on the 24th Geo. 111. c. 17, s. 2 and 3, for
refusing to swear whether or not certain packages
shipped by him from the Port of London were on
Alien account, whereby the Corporation of the City.
of London were deprived of their package duties,
' granted by the charter of Charles the First, and
contrary to the above-mentioned statute.
An objection was taken in arrest of judgment to
the form of the indictment; but it was over-ruled. In
the course of the discussion, a doubt arose as to what
was meant by " goods shipped on Alien account,"
as expressed by the-statute; and the Court having
suggested that this was a question which ought to
have been tried by an issue at law, it was agreed on
all hands, that tl.is case should stand over until such
an issue was tried.

beei

CRIMINAL INFORMATION.
Mr. SCARLET? applied for a criininal information
against the Lad of Westmeath. He did this on the
affidavit of rGentleman named Wood, and on that
of another Gentleman named Stuart, which stated,
Eiat'domestic circumstances having caused a separa-
tion between Lord and Lady Westmeath, his Lord-
ship settled an annuity on his Lady, and Mr. Wood,
at his request, became one of her Ladyship's trustees.
Some time after, his Lordship being desirous to set
that deed aside, proceedings were taken for that pur.
pose in the Court of Chancery, in which Mr. Wood,
as one of the Lady's trustees, was necessarily made a
party. In the course of these proceedings, Mr. We-
therall, her Ladyship's Counsel, in an address to the
Chancellor. stated some observations as haling been
made by Mr. Wood, and the report of this speech
appearing in an Evening Newspaper, Lord West-
meath felt offended at them, and sent a message to
Mr. Wood, requiring him to make a public declara-
tion contradictory of those passages of the Learned
Counsel's speech. Mr. Wood declined doing this ;1
upon which Lord Westmeath sent him the following''
message by a third person :—" If Mr. Wood does
not contradict this statement, he is the greatest liar
that ever was, and the greatest rascal that ever dealt
with ,an honest man." The Noble Lord had since
published that he had sent this message, and the de-
ponent delared his belief, that his Lordship's sole in-
tention had been to provoke him to fight a duel.
The Court granted a Rule to skew cause.
JENKINS V. THE WEST MIDDLESEX WATER-WORKS
COMPANY.

Mr. BROUGHAM moved the Court for a Rule to
shew cause why a mandamus should not issue against
the defendants in this case, requiring them to conti-
nue their communication of water to the premises of
the plaintiff, and to other premises situated in the
same district. The application, Mr. Brougham said,
arose out of the course pursued by the Water Com-
panies, to enforce the payment of enhanced rates, of
parcelling out the Metropolis into districts, each to
be exclusively supplied by one Company ; and the
question for decision was, whether the Companies
-could legally withhold a supply of water for refusal
to pay such enhanced rates? The complainant's
rates were increased from £l6 15s". to £45 a-year,
nearly 270 per cent. and because he refused to enter
into a contract to pay them, his pipes had been cut
off, and he was'now deprived of means of procuring
a supply of water.—Rule granted.
TIRE KING V. JANE CARLILE.

Mr.Guattax said, his friend Mr.. Hill had obtained,
a Rule for quashing the information in this case
against Mrs. Carlile, on the grounds of irregularity.
On looking over the affidavits, he found it would be
impossible to resist the application. The Rule for
quashing the proceeding was made absolute.