Star.
London, England, 1820-04-27 00:00:00

Lei It ISTELLIGENCE.

COMIT OF KING'S BUNCH, APUIL 36.
EARL OF DA&YLET V. ROBERT sLiclf, ESQ.

jr.l Moose was rising to she cause against the
Rule which 1-. ad been obtained by the defendant in
this case upon a former day, when he was inter-
rupted by
The LORD CLUES' JUSTICE, who intimated to Mr.

Scarlett, the Counsel for Mr. high, that be under.
stood that Mr. W2.S desirous that the new ar.
tides of the peace exhibited against him should be
re a over. _ _ _

Mr. Mainz observed, that the Rule had been ob-

tined on other grounds. The Rule called upon the
Earl of Darnley to sliest• cause why Mr. Bligh should
not be discharged out of the custody of the Marshal
of the Marshalsea, on entering into his own recogni-
zance of ,C2OOO, to keep the peace towards the Earl
of Darnley and Lis Lordship's family. The motion
for this Rule had been made by Mr. Bligh; because
bigber security for his good behaviour was de-
manded :if him than he of his own accord was in-

dined to give.
Mr. Sr.A HLETT said, that before his Learned Frier.d
proceeded further he had something to offer to the
Court, which he trusted that they wo:Ild receive it
they had the power to do so. When his client made',
the affidavit on which this motion was granted, he
Lad no le.gal adviser to inform him how to act. He
(.7th. Scw-lett) would, however, no* put-in another,
affidavit on his behalf, if it were consistent with the

forms of the Court to receive it. To this affidavit
the prosecutor could put in his answer, and the case
would afterwards come more fully before the comi
&ration of the Court.
The LORD CHIEF Jurrlce intimated, that the
question on which they had now to decide related to
the amount of the sureties which Mr. Bligh ought to
be called on to procure. The manner in which the
Bale had been drawn up afforded to the defendant
au opportunity of putting in such affidavits as he
thought proper, and tolihe plaintiff suds others as he
chose to draw up in reply to them.
Mr. Maoris apprehended that the affidavits mast
relate to the mere amount of thesureties: if they re-
lated to other matters, they were clearly inadmiskible.
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE asked Mr. Scarlett ha:
the.nature of his affidavit was?
Mr. SCaRLETT replied, that it related to the place
of residence of Mr. Bligh, and explained certain cir-
cumstances which had occurred previous to the cz-
hibiLion of the last:articles of the peace between his
client and the Noble individual in question.
Mr. MOORE insisted, that if such were the nature
of the affidavit, it was clearly irreleart and iaad-
The Loan CHIEF JU,TICE.—Have you seen the
articles last exhibited,' Mr. Scarlett ?
Mr.ScAux.err.—l have not, my LOrd.
• The Loan CUILF Jusnots.—Then you bad better
heat than read, and then you will be able to judge
whether your Affidavit is relevant or not.
Me. Odicer of the Court then commenced to read
the' articles of the peace exhibited by the Earl of
• Darnley .against Mr. Blth, but had nut proceeded
far before -he was iaterrupted by Mr. SCAIMETT, who
observedrthat he did not wish the whole of then: to
be read, but only that part of them whis:h was new.
This part of them was accordingly read. It reeitedl
his Lordship's apprehension of personal violence from'
Bligh, and set forth that, in the summer of last
)car, Nigh was under recognizances of

• t

With two sureties under recognizanees of COO ea.
to refrain from annoyinic the Noble .Eatl or
; that on Mr. Blig-h s representation.to his Lord-
ship last August, tingle had been'compelled before
he obtained those sureties to deprisit,a largo sum to
indemnify the parties, and that he was. desirous of
going ,to the Contiiletn, which he could not do unless
he were permitted to receive this money back, the
Earl of Darnley consented that the two sureties
should be rescinded, on his (Mr. Bligh's) promise that
he shiiuld offer no further _annoyance to his family ;..
that Mt. Bligh made this 'pledge by letter to The'
Earl's solicitor, in which he said that he would avoid
lily Lordship as much as possible, " consistent with
the feelings and honour of a Gentleman instead of
doing which, he lately met the Earl of Darnley en-'
tering his house in Berkeley-square, and asked lihn•
whether he (the Earl) would now acknowledge hiss'
affidavit to be false? and added, " I will have satis-.
faction—by G—, I will."
Mr. Seatteerr then observed, that this was the'
only insult which Mr. Bligh had offered to the Earl of
Darnley since he had consented to his liberation.—.
He had now in his hand two Affidavits of Mr. Blight,
one of them explained the circumstances of the Ins,
terview in question in a way somewhat differing
from the manner stated by Lord Deruley, and also
the reasons which had induced him not to quit the
Country. The other was the previous Affidavit on
which the motion had been founded.
The COURT then decided, that the Affidavit which
Mr. Scarlett had offered that morning was irrelevant
and inadmissible, as relating to circumstances which
had happened previously to the exhibition of the
articles of peace against Mr. Bligh.
Mr. Rooms then said, that he wished to enter into
the grounds of the Rule first, in order that he might
have it discharged, and contended that Mr. Bligh
ought to be compelled to put in the same sureties as
before. In the very month last year when Mr. Bligh
lad been permitted to get back his money, on the
plea that he was going to the Continent, he had, in-
stead of going there, gone down to Sandgate, a
watering.place, where the Earl -of Darnley had a
house liar his family, and had taken a lodging exactly
opposite the gate of the Noble Earl's house. In the
very same month he had also taken lodgings' in a
house in Berkeleyasquare, where the Noble Lord's
house was, though he did not enter upon them till
the 21stof October following. He said, indeed, in
his Affidavit, that he merely resided there for air
and exercise: but how 'did it happen that, when he
wanted to walk in the square, he always walked on;
the Earl of Darnley's side, which was the west, in-
stead of his own, which was the east? His house,
too, was in that corner of the square ivhich ccm-
manded a full view of the road from Berkeley-square
to Piccadilly, and so to all the principal places at
the west end of the town. No situation, therefore,
could be better chosen, from which to watch all the
motions of the Earl of Darnley'; and it was therefore
becoming their Lordships to consider whether thii
was the effect of accident, is Mr. Bligh stated it to
be, or of design, as he.(Mr.Muore) believed it to be.
Mr. Bligh had also complained of the hardship of
being imprisoned for want of the required sureties
but the Court were bound to consider that something
was due to the peace of one of the most amiable and
honourable families on the face of the globe (for
such was Lord Darnley's), and that the only way of
securing it, was to compel Mr. Bligh to find the re-
quisite securities. Mr. Bligh's poverty might prevent
him from finding their ea-say. but had it compelled
hint to annoy Lord Darnley in the manner which he
'had done? Indeed, if his Lordship had not been
a man of mild and f ;rbearing temper, some of their
Lordships might, in all human probability, have
been compelled to enter into a greater inquiry than
the one which they were then conducting. They
would also see the necesdty of not diminishing- the
sureties in question, when he stated to them, that in
1812, when Mr. Bligh had been bound to keep the
peace towards the Earl of Darnley for five years,
himself in £lO,OOO, and two sureties in £5OO each,
he did not molest Lord Darnley during any part of
that period ; but that, as soon as was expired, he
began to haunt him again. So too, last year, during
the time his sureties were bound iu their recogni-
zan ec s, Mr. Bligh was perfectly quiet ; but, as soon
•
as they were discharged, he renewed his former vio-
lence of conduct. Vann there two circumstances, it
appeared, that though he valued not his own word,
lie did care for the recogniZances of others ; and
therefore they ought to be demanded of him. On'
these grounds, he (Mr. Moore) trusted that their
Lordships would not allow the discharge of Mr.
Illigh upon his own single recognizance, because, if
they did, there was no security that the Earl of
Darnley would not in future be annoyed by the
same kind of conduct as had already afforded him
so much vexation. • • •
Mr. SCARLETT observed, that the arguinents used
by his learned friend tended to establish the mon-
strous doctrine that the suspicion of an offence was
more to. be punished than the offence itself: for they
asked their Lordships to commit his client to prison
for life, by exacting of him such bail as he was un-
able to procure, when, even if he had committed
the offence imputed to him, his -punishment could'
nat. have extended to that length. He could have
wished that his client had been in possession of such
fulAs as would have enabled hint to make the neces-
sary deposits, for in that case he would not have ob-
jected to the bail required • but he had• sworn that
he was not in possession of them, and it was there-
fore a hard matter to require of him such heavy
sureties. The exhibition of articles of the peace was
intended for the best purposes, but it was the duty
of the Court to take care that it was never used for
base ones. If the case had gone before a Jury, Mr.
thigh might either have explained or ccntradicted
the expressions imputed to him ; but as articles of
the peace were exhibited against him, he could not
deny the charge, but was obliged to abide the punish-1
. ment attending on the crime, even before the com-
mission of the crime was itself established.
The Count, after hearing some further arguments,
'decideit that as Mr. thigh had not kept his promise
to. the Earl of Darnley, when he was permitted to
withdraw his sureties last )car, the parties should
'now be replaced in their former situation, and Mr.
thigh must now enter into recoginzances to keep the
peace towards the said Earl and family for the term
of four years, himself. in the_stim of £2,000; and
either two sureties of 4500 each, or four of £2.50
-sh, as he should find most convenient. Less than

. ,
. .1. •
- - .
that they could not do in the situation in which they
wtte phtead—a situation which bound them to protect
the lives and persons of his Majesty's subjects.•'
Mr. Bligh was then removed out of Cciukt in the
custody of the lipstaff. '
THE KING D. LORD RANELAGH.
The defendant, Lord Ranelagh, was convicted two.
Terms since, upon-the prosecution of Mr. Adolphus,
for
.attenipting to piovolie that Gentleman to fight a
duel ; and ju !gment was deferred on account of his
Lordship's indisposition.
Mr: BROUGHAM, on'the part of Lori Ranelagh,
now requested that, if judgment was to be pressed
against his client, that judgment might.be pronounced
in his Lordship's absence, or put off until the ensuing
Tetm. He made that motion upon an affidavit from
Lord -Itanelagh's physician, which stated his Lord-
ship's continued indisposition.
Mr. SCARLET? said, that if any intimation were
given on the part of the defendant that he regretted
what had happened, he (Mr. Scarlet) should be ready
to meet that intimation more than half-way.
Mr. Baouctiara observed, that nothing could give
him greater pleasure than to be furnished by his dlieut
with instructions to• that effect. Of course, however,
no such intimation could be of any value, unless
arising out of due instructions ; and the present state
of Lord Ranclagh precluded the possibility of com-
munication, on -the subject. It had been particularly
insisted on by the medical attendants, that upon this
subject, which had. greatly agitated his Lordship's
mind, he should on Do account be spoken to.
The Loiw CHIEF JUSTICE supposed that theie
could be no objection to the delaying judgment until
next Term, if that sea: what Mr. Brougham wished.
Mr. BROUGHAM.—If the !batter could not be
arranged, and if it was deemed improper to pro
nounce judgment in the defendant's absence, that
was his wish.
Mr. SCARLET t did not object.—Judgment deferred.
WRIGHT J. CLEMENT.

In this case, Mr. SCA RLETT shewed cause against
a Rule in arrest of judgment obtained by Mr. Platt.
The ground .on which Mr. Platt had formerly ob-
tained his motion was, that the counts in the declara-
tion were defective; that they did not profess to set
out either the words or the tenour of the libel, but
only the substance; and that they alleged that the
defendant had published of and concerning the plain-
tiff " these libellous matters, in substance as follows ;"
and then set out the libel. 'this, he had contended,
'was equivalent only to saying, that the words were
to the effect or purpose following, but such a declara-
tion was not sufficient. In addition to his former
ground, Mr. Platt now took an objection applying
to the seventh count only. That count had imputed
to the plaintiff felonious intention. The act in ques-
tion, even taking it to have been committed, would
not have amounted to felony. •
Mr. SCARLETT contended, on the authority of a
variety of cases, that it was not necessary that the
libel should be set forth literal& but merely in sub-
stance. The word " substance,' as employed in the
declaration, was equivalent to the word matter, and
applied to the matter of which the libel was consti-
tuted. In reply to the second objection, the. Learned
Counsel, urged, that, in charging the imputation of
a felonious act, the plaintiff had merely committed a
mistake upon the point of law. The word as felons=
ous" was unnecessary; but it did not, therefore, 'vi-
tiate the imputations which were actually made one.
It was competent to the Jury to find their verdict
without at all adverting to that imputation.
MT. SCARLETT was followed by Mr. DENMAN and
'Mr. Currey in an argument of considerable length,
which turned principally upon the meaning and ac-
.ceptation of the words in question.
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE —The first objection
which has been taken by Mr. Platt must, in my opi-
nion; prevail. Upon the second objection the in-
clination of my mind is different ; but upon that ob-
jection, it is not necessary at this time to pronounce
any decision. In cases of libel, the law requires that
the -libel itself should be set out; and unless that
course be taken, the declaration is not complete ac
carding to law. The ordinary mode is, to allege
that the defendant has published a false, scandalous,,
and malicious libel, of and concerning-the plaintiff,
" to the tenour and effect following ;" the word " te-,
pour" has always been held as binding the party to
set out the actual libel. Another mode has.been, to
allege that the defendant has published of and concern-
ing the plaintiff a certain libel, containing " the false,
scandalous, and malicious matters following ;" and
Courts have always considered that allegation as im-
porting that the plaintiff would set out the libel, itself..
In the present case something mote has been intro.
thread. The allegation is, that the. defendant has
published' of and concerning the plailitiff
matters, " in substance as follows ;" and the question
is, whether the additional words, "in substance," do
not vary the sense and meaning of the passage ? It
appears to me, that, according to- the usual accepta-
tion of these words, they have that effect. Suppose,
for instance, that I were -to-say to any individual, "I
have met with a book containing some observations
upon the matter of which we were talking last night,
and they are in substance as follows:" would that in-
dividual, then, suppose that I was about to quote_
fi'om the book in question or would he suppose that
I meant to give-him an abstract of the 'contents, ac-
cording to my own conception ? I think, that, un.
der such circumstances, every man would take the
latter view of such a proposition. These -words • in.
the declaration- can only be understood in the same i 1
sense and Meaning s hick would belong to them if
they appeared in any other situation. A number of
words have acquired in law a technical sense, differ.'
ing perhaps in some respects from that which is -ap-
plied to them in ordinary conversation. Such words,'
when we meet with them, must be taken according
to their legal meaning ; but words which have not
acquired in law any such distinct and technical-sense,
can only be reatived according to-their common ac-
ceptation. It appears to me that, according to the
plain intent and nietinins of the words, " in substance,"
the plaintiff, in employing these words, did not pro-
fess to set firth the libel itself, but only a sort of 43-
strnct of the libel, and for that:lc:ascii the Rule for
arresting joigment in this case must be made abso-
lute. I am always-extremely sorry to deprive a plain-
tiff of the benefit of kis trial, btit it is' of the'highest
importance to adheie to the ancient and established
forms of pleading. If deviations were permiaed, eae
instance would infallibly lead to another, until at last
we should depart entirely front those 'saiti:ary rules